You state that when the mutant allele reaches 100 %
saturation then the wild type allele has been eliminated. That is just
The sum of frequencies
must equal 1 (Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 1998, p 234). If an allele
frequency is 1 (100%), then the wild type is toast.
Just because 1 member of a population has a mutation
the others remain viable. They dont get removed until a selection
event happens this could be many generations later which means many
mutated individuals will now be around not the 2 proposed by Haldane.
is not true. Famous population
geneticist Ronald Fisher calculated
the odds of a mutant allele surviving the first generation to be .368.
The odds it makes it to two generations is only .135 (Futuyma,
p 298; also see Spetner, Not By Chance, p 78).
Here is why Haldanes dilemma may not exist.
The unmutated members of the existing population remain
viable for reproduction until the beneficial mutation is selected by
some selection event. Unless
this is less than 9 generations after the appearance of the mutation
the surviving population is much greater than 2 and is viable for an
exponential increase in mutation
not true. Fisher showed that only 1 in 50 beneficial mutation will ever
reach fixation, and it would take many generations to do so (~127) [Futuyma,
After several rounds of mutation and selection several
individuals will have 2 or even more mutations and these will again
exponentially increase the number of viable beneficial mutants.
if true, you are ignoring the devastating effect of harmful mutations,
which would greatly outnumber beneficial ones. The load such a
rate would put on the species is astronomical and intolerable.
Evolutionists' own calculations have shown the mutation rate to be way
too high for evolution to be tenable. See my article on this:
Exponential increases multiply things at great rates
when compared with having to cut back to 2 individuals or tiny population
each times a "Cost" is incurred. Even if the population is
cut back to 10 each time this makes for a massive increase in mutation
you ignore the other side of the coin. Small populations are bad for
evolution because genetic drift will more readily preserve harmful
you mentioned even remotely addresses the Haldane cost issue. Every
mutation must incur a reproductive cost to go from few to many in the
population. There is no way around it.