Darwinism Evolution

Sorry, but you don’t deserve evidence — you’re not peer-reviewed!

Spread the love

I asked Walter ReMine to write up his recent experiences debating Haldane’s Dilemma:

Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane’s Dilemma
By Walter ReMine

For many years I have publicly claimed Haldane’s Dilemma is a major unsolved problem for evolution. A problem so severe it threatens macroevolution as a “fact” and evolutionary genetics as an empirical science. The problem, briefly, is that evolutionary geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane (1957), discovered an important argument that limits the speed of evolution. Under his calculations, an ape-human-like population, given a generous ten million years, could substitute no more than 1,667 beneficial mutations — which, according to evolutionary geneticists, are each typically a single nucleotide. All the human adaptations within that time would have to be explained with this small number of substitutions. For more information, see here: http://tinyurl.com/3dtzjq.

The issue at the moment is: Evolutionists are withholding key evidence.

Toward a solution, evolutionary geneticist, Leonard Nunney, published a paper reporting his computer simulations. He claimed his computer simulations show rates of beneficial evolution much faster than the Haldane limit. Evolutionists now cite Nunney’s computer simulation as a refutation of my position.

Starting December 19, 2006, I sent emails to Prof. Nunney, expressing my interest in his paper, and requesting access to his simulation software. (I also emailed one of his colleagues, in his same evolutionary genetics department.) I received no answer. After several emails, across several months, I eventually reached Professor Nunney by phone on April 5th. He acknowledged he had received my emails, and said he had not responded because I “do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words)

I again requested his software for my examination of his published results and methods. He declined, saying he will not share his software with “people who do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words)

I’m sure Prof. Nunney is a fine person, but this is bad public policy. Nunney’s simulation is claimed as a solution to Haldane’s Dilemma. (Quite falsely, I would add.) And Nunney’s work was done at a tax-supported institution, (the University of California, Riverside). And Haldane’s Dilemma is part of a high profile public controversy directly affecting our politics, and our public schools – where evolutionists exert monopoly control. Evolutionists have an obligation to be forthcoming on the matter. Yet they are withholding their evidence.

============

The NCSE connection —

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is the leading organization fighting against creation/ID/anti-evolution. Their Public Information Project Director, Nick Matzke, edited articles on Haldane’s Dilemma, at various sites (including Wikipedia and
ResearchID.org), to praise Nunney’s computer simulation, and to smear me for not addressing it.

So I contacted NCSE requesting their position on Nunney’s withholding of the computer simulation. I received a response from NCSE’s Deputy Director, Glenn Branch. Despite me giving NCSE direct knowledge of the affair, from a first person participant, he said he had no “independent knowledge” of the matter (Is that something NCSE consistently requires?), and therefore he is “unable to comment.” If they have no “independent knowledge,” it is simply because they do not seek it. It’s not difficult in this case.

NCSE has a problem: They cannot continue smearing me for “not addressing” Nunney’s simulation, while simultaneously condoning
Nunney’s refusal to turn over the simulation. NCSE is trying to have it both ways.

I also asked NCSE for their appraisal of the Wikipedia article on Haldane’s Dilemma. I have publicly condemned the Wikipedia article as a monument to evolutionists’ persistent efforts to suppress, deny, obfuscate, confuse, and misrepresent Haldane’s Dilemma. Given that NCSE is aware of the article, and even edited the article itself: Does NCSE regard the Wikipedia article as a suitable representation of this controversy? Glenn Branch answered indirectly, by acknowledging he understands how wiki operates — if they were dissatisfied with the Wikipedia article, it is possible to edit it.

NCSE has another problem — it has a hand in editing and condoning articles that grossly mishandle Haldane’s Dilemma.

Haldane’s Dilemma is a scandal several decades long already – and the scandal keeps getting worse.

— Walter ReMine

http://SaintPaulScience.com/withholding_evidence.htm
http://SaintPaulScience.com/Haldane.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3dtzjq

20 Replies to “Sorry, but you don’t deserve evidence — you’re not peer-reviewed!

  1. 1
    scordova says:

    I describe Haldane’s dilemma here in hopefully understandable terms:

    What are the speed limits of naturalistic evolution?

    Salvador

  2. 2
    scordova says:

    Haldane’s dilemma should be called Haldane-Remine to honor the researchers of this scientific discovery.

  3. 3
    Atom says:

    I agree, ReMine’s work has certainly clarified and even generalized the work of Haldane on the problem. (I believe using ReMine’s derivation one can arrive at Haldane’s as a specific case of ReMine’s general approach.)

  4. 4
    Borne says:

    Funny, today’s wikipedia featured article is Charles Darwin

    Is there anything they won’t stoop to as propaganda?

    Also, wiki’s article on Intelligent Design

    In the article we read “Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,…”

    Look at the history and notice a recent change that read “..some of whom…” Then Oops – it was reverted back to “all of whom”!

    A false statement and a clear example of the Darwinist elements among the wiki’s Darwinist editors unscrupulous tactics in deception, ignorance and obstinacy.

    The reason for the revert?

    “06:31, 18 April 2007 Dave souza (Talk | contribs) (“all the leading proponents” is well established and tested)”

    Tested?!? In a lab? 😉 Whatever.

    The wikipedia Darwinists find whatever excuse they please to wash out whatever does not fit their materialist views.

    This is now notorious at wikipedia and the prejudice is clear.

    Q: How can anyone trust what is written in wikipedia’s origins related topics (who knows how many others)?
    A: You can’t.

    So what good is it?
    Well, it does serve to prove one thing:
    “We’ve all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet [wikipedia], we know this is not true.”
    – Robert Wilensky

  5. 5
    shaner74 says:

    No way can Darwinists keep pulling this cr*p and get away with it. They don’t want ReMine getting access to the data because they know he’ll rip it apart and show it for what it is – Darwinist storytelling. I wonder what some Darwinists are willing to resort to in order to protect their faith? How far will they go? I’m scared to find out.

  6. 6

    I have already refuted Nunney’s simulation. I could verify this, but I don’t feel like it.

  7. 7
    bdelloid says:

    As I have posted here, I am not an ID sympathizer, but if what you say is true it is completely outrageous.

    It is unethical to publish and not make code freely available. The same goes with stocks, clones and other reagents. I recommend you contact the Editor regarding this situation. Journal policy usually requires that authors make reagents freely available.

  8. 8

    I will share a simulation that refutes Nunney’s simulation only with scholars who have published in the peer-reviewed ID literature. 😉

  9. 9
    Jason Rennie says:

    Take heart from this. IF this is the level they need to stoop too then it would seem that they are in a desperate situation.

    If the simulation was as good as they claim they would make the code available to anybody who wants it because they would have nothing to fear.

    It is pretty hard to avoid concluding from this sort of behavior that they actually do have something to hide after all.

    That is the point to make I think.

    The lesson here seems to be the same as the one you find in cryptography with hidden algorthims.

    You only hide your algorithm because it is crap and wont stand up to proper public scrutiny.

    What do you expect from people pedaling snake oil ?

  10. 10
    Mats says:

    No wonder people are skeptical of unguided evolutionism. Evolutionists have been witholding the evidence!!

  11. 11
    Atom says:

    Here is a link to Nunney’s paper, which mentions the results of his simulation: The Cost of Selection Revisited

  12. 12
    Jason Rennie says:

    Is there anything the results cannot be reproduced using the data in the paper and recoding the simulation ?

  13. 13
    Atom says:

    Jason, that’s what I would assume. I haven’t read the paper (I skimmed it), but I think once you know his assumptions then it would be straight-forward to code a similar simulation.

  14. 14
    David L. Hagen says:

    Rep. Mark Souder
    Education and Labor Committee
    Attn: Erika Heikkila

    Dear Hon. Rep. Souder and Ms. Heikkila

    Grievance: I raise a grievance of geneticist Prof. Leonard Nunney withholding, from Dr. Walter ReMine, taxpayer supported research (conducted at University of California, Riverside)allegedly beneficial to evolution, because Dr. ReMine has published an alternative theory critical of evolution. See news article by ReMine at UncommonDescent.com from April 19, 2007, as copied below.

    This is a blatant abuse of science and fascist imposition of evolutionary dogma at public expense.

    Prayer: I pray you redress this grievance by the following actions:

    1) Please obtain Dr. Nunney’s paper and software that Dr. ReMine requested and post it for public access. e.g., on your web site.

    2) Please hold a hearing on public access to taxpayer supported research and call Dr. Nunney to task for his abuse of research grants.

    Yours sincerely

    David Hagen, PhD

  15. 15
    great_ape says:

    “Is there anything the results cannot be reproduced using the data in the paper and recoding the simulation?”
    –Jason

    A good point. I won’t defend his decision (or reasoning) not to provide the code but, in general, I think it’s best to re-code these things from scratch anyway, working with precisely the same assumptions as the original work. This represents more of an independent attempt to verify the underlying logic of the simulation as opposed to evaluating someone’s particular implementation.
    If there was a problem with someone’s code, then it’ll be apparent when you try to recapitulate the simulation.

  16. 16
    kairos says:

    Nunney’s paper is already nearly 4 years old. Did he publish anything else concerning his simulator in this period.
    Finally, the journal where he published doesn’t seem to be at the top in the field 🙂

  17. 17
    Atom says:

    Nice one David!

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    kairos – no, Nunney hasn’t published anything since.

    David – you’re over-reacting. Nunney has presented his research publically: Annales even lets you read it for free. The software isn’t necessary, because the model is fully described in the paper. As Jason and great_ape have pointed out, the paper describes the model in enough detail that the simulations can be re-coded. If ReMine gets radically different results, then he would have a stronger case for asking to see the code, so that he can check its correctness.

    Bob

  19. 19
    Borne says:

    The inelligent design page at wikipedia is now protected from editing after further attempts by IDists to correct it’s wild claims!!

    They put up a billboard saying:
    “This page is currently protected from editing . (protection log). Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you.”

    Ha! Knew it would happen – the bozos at pedia are now refusing edits to be applied to their bull shit. But then what use is editing bull shit?

    They should scrap the page and let IDists write it from scratch. 🙂

    If IDists are not allowed to explain ID on ID explanation pages then Darwinists ought not be allowed to edit Darwinism explaining pages – it should be done by IDists.

  20. 20
    jaredl says:

    Why not? Is the evolution page protected?

Leave a Reply