Hytegia peer reviews Walter Remine

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Hytegia laid out this challenge for me in another thread.

I'm looking for something I can actually execute the testing outlined in the paper and replicate the results to suggest anything regarding a less-than 6000 year old Earth, man living with dinosaurs, or anything else outlined with Young Earth Creationist claims.
I don't care where it's from - this is what Peer Review is. If I can perform the tests and they have comparable results, along with similar conclusions that can be drawn from such evidence, then it's passed Peer Review. If not, then oh dear, that's just wrong!

My response to this challenge is a paper written by Walter Remine published in a creationist peer-reviewed journal. Link below. Good luck!

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_1/j19_1_113-125.pdf

 

[australopithecus]

Which journal would that be, because creation.com certainly isn't a peer review publication.

 

[scalyblue]

Which journal would that be, because creation.com certainly isn't a peer review publication.

:snrk:
Journal of Creation, for one.
AnswersinGenesis Technical Journal for two.

Remine is a well known sloppy 'scientist'. He's actually an electrical engineer. The primary focus of his work is Haldane's problem, ignoring of course that Haldane said himself that his numbers needed major work, and assumed constant population sizes for the sake of ease of mathematics.

Let me quote another user from another forum.

The primary way Walter avoids refutations is by avoiding making any coherent self-contained argument. He's been doing this for years. Most biologists seem satisfied that his claims manage to fit into three basic categories.

The obvious, which no-one disputes and for which Walter's particular spin of their special significance is often asserted, never justified.
The opaque; claims never made in public but alluded to vaguely as some dramatic insight that is available when you buy his self-published book.
The refuted; claims that have been thoroughly refuted for years even though Walter would never admit it in a blue fit.

I can refute that entire paper with two sentences.

"Why would the next generation have to have the 'same population' (i.e., same population size) as the previous? Is this a requirement of evolution?"

I mean, it's laughable. In the abstract itself, the abstract mind you, he says that he dismisses such confusing factors such as the environment and extinction.

Also, worded much better than I could possibly word.

http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/search?q=remine

As an aside - ReMine and his cronies are conflating issues, as usual - yes, his submitted manuscript was reviewed by the people he refers to and at least one other person. His manuscript was rejected for a couple of reasons, and none of them were what ReMine and his cheerleaders want us to think they were. Among the reasons were the unoriginality of the conclusion - ReMine comes to the same conclusion that Haldane did (re: cost of substitution), he just derived it in a different manner, another was the non-academic, non-scientific style of the paper. His original submitted version (which, I understand, has been 'cleaned up' for "publication" in a creationist venu) contained a number of dismissive statements and some self-aggrandizing, which is frowned on in scientific publications. ReMine did not attempt to re-submit nor did he attempt to submit his manuscript anywhere else. Anyone who has had a scientific paper published knows that a huge proportion of manuscripts are turned down initially. Typically, an author will make corrections, take advice from the reviewers, etc., and resubmit or will try to have the paper published elsewhere. ReMine did not do this - his original manuscript was rejected and he decided to engage in a multi-year martydom-fest.

Anyway, the conflation is this - even if ReMine's reformulation of Haldane's model is 100% absolutely correct, it is not in any way support for his application of Haldane's model to human evolution, which is ReMine's bread-and-butter argument.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

This article doesn't present anything. It's a critique from logic and skewed mathematics -
it also makes no citing towards, well, anything biologically-based.

I can see why this paper was rejected, simply from an overview. Zero time was spent in a lab, no evidence was gathered, and the entire paper seems more like an argument/critique than a paper presenting anything.
Which is exactly what it is.

The paper presented nothing new! Just skewed mathematics with no evidential basis to back them off of

Let me guess, you haven't read this paper either? :lol:

Consider it a gift. You won't even need a laboratory. I'll be waiting for your answer in the other thread.

How can I retest an article that makes no claims and simply throws a bunch of numbers in the air with no real reasoning behind them to work with? The author is clearly an idiot, assuming that biological systems of mutation work as constants and are not constrained to alteration based upon external stimuli.

Just as well, this paper is more of a critique of Evolutionary process than anything - and a very shitty one at that.

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

Let us apply Walter Remine's paper to real-life Biology:
I am a blonde. My grandfather was a Blonde. Blonde is a recessive trait, meaning it will only show up 1/4 offspring in my genetic pool. According to Remine's logic, 1/4 of all my offspring will be blonde.
However, I have 4 children that are brown-haired within the next few years.

I have a FIFTH child and it has blonde hair.

What does this say towards Remine's logic? It shows a foundational flaw with his entire approach, and highlights the difference between mathematical systems of absolute certainty and biological systems.
Biological systems, though bound by patterns, are simply in the realm of probability of occurence and alteration over generations. 1/4th of my offspring will, indeed, have Blonde hair - but that will compile to a higher probability as generations pass without a blonde born within the family. Likewise, my children with brown hair may produce more blondes than brown hair depending upon their genetic combination of recessive/dominant features of hair color.

Walter Remine's paper also does not account for adverse environmental reactions weeding off species not suited for the environment and leaving those which do adapt to keep their niche within it.

I see nowhere within this paper that counts for genetic variety and accent of positive/beneficial mutations based upon environmental discourse. >.>

You're supposed to present me an article with claims I can verify - not a bunch of assumed numbers and variables pulled out of no data that was gathered, and then presented within a format that makes no claims and is, instead, a critique of evolutionary sciences.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Note on page 1 of the paper:

Note: This paper was submitted previously to the journal Theoretical
Population Biology, where renowned evolutionary geneticists
Warren J. Ewens and James F. Crow reviewed it, along with Alexey
Kondrashov and John Sanford. They all acknowledged this paper
is essentially correct in all matters of substance. However, Ewens
and Crow rejected it from publication on the grounds that it is not
sufficiently new or different from what was known by themselves
and some of their colleagues in the 1970s. However, they never
communicated this knowledge to the greater scientific community,
nor to the public at large. There were rare correct insights scattered
sparsely in the literature, but those were incomplete, overwhelmed by
confusion, and never communicated together in a coherent manner.
This has all been very unfortunate, as there continues to be widespread
misunderstanding within the scientific community regarding these
important matters, even among those who have studied the cost
literature for years. It is hoped that the clarifications presented in this
paper, which are sound, will eventually reach the greater scientific
community.,Walter J. ReMine

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

How does one overcome the cost of harmful mutation? Using the evolutionist's own mutation rates, published many times in refereed journals, each breeding couple the last 5 million years would have to produce 16,000 offspring just to keep from de-evolving. That's called an impossibility.

The late Dr. James Crow, who peer-reviewed Remine's paper, said:

This is a serious problem that deserves a serious answer.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

How does one overcome the cost of harmful mutation? Using the evolutionist's own mutation rates, published many times in refereed journals, each breeding couple the last 5 million years would have to produce 16,000 offspring just to keep from de-evolving. That's called an impossibility.

The late Dr. James Crow, who peer-reviewed Remine's paper, said:

This is a serious problem that deserves a serious answer.

But it's not an actual PAPER that I can review. Thusfar, you have failed the challenge to bring forth a paper I can perform the verifying tests on.
>.>

And not to mention it makes the mistake you just mentioned. Most mutations are small and just plain neutral - something is only beneficial once the mutation itself emerges enough to actually have an effect that, by natural selective process of the environment, is deemed negative or positive in terms of breeding and adaptation.
Say that there's this chum with 6 fingers on each hand that can now blitz away 2000 WPM typing. The sixth finger will be considered beneficial despite some rather negative health effects it may have (muscles/tendon problems, bone problems, etc.) -
for example, humans standing upright has opened us up to a whole slew of health problems that other animals that run on four legs will never encounter under regular circumstances. However, you would never refer to standing upright as a negative trait.

Some people are born with Synthesia, like myself, and their brain melds different senses such as sound/color/taste/smell. People who have this turn out to be some of the world's greatest and forthright best artists and musical composers in History - but you can see all the problems with having such a mental disfunction if the effects are too vibrant (listening to music while you drive suddenly becomes one hell of an extreme sport).
Is this a positive or negative mutation?

Most mutations are neutral and accumulate gradually over time. Walter Remine casually ignores that and tosses the label of "harmful" mutation around, waiting for idiots who have never taken a single biology class in their life with the mentality to challenge a field of science with no education on the topic with a paper they have never read before in their life to just pick up and believe it!

Now, are you actually going to present a paper that makes a claim instead of a paper of flawed critiques? I'm still waiting, Junior.

 

[Inferno]

How does one overcome the cost of harmful mutation? Using the evolutionist's own mutation rates, published many times in refereed journals, each breeding couple the last 5 million years would have to produce 16,000 offspring just to keep from de-evolving. That's called an impossibility.

The late Dr. James Crow, who peer-reviewed Remine's paper, said:

This is a serious problem that deserves a serious answer.

I have never seen this number and to be honest I don't even want to know where you got it from, it's wrong. Are we de-evolving now? No. Your numbers are pure crap. And why only the last 5million years? Why not "the last 3 billion years"?

Now about those 16k offspring, here's an equation to estimate the number of generations that need to pass for a gene to spread through a population.

We also know roughly how long it takes for a beneficial mutation to spread through a given population, given a selection coefficient of s. (s = selection coefficient) Ne is the number of breeding individuals (as well as other factors) in the population, t is time.
The function looks like this:
t=(2/s)natural log (2Ne) generations

This is the function given by Sean B. Carroll in his book "The Making Of The Fittest".
For a population of 10,000 mice, the amount of time is calculated for one beneficial mutation to spread through the population, using different selection coefficients. One generation = one year.
s=0.001, t=19,807 generations
s=0.01, t=1,981
s=0.05, t=396
s=0.1, t=198
s=0.2, t=99

The higher s is, the faster the mutation will spread. The estimated coefficient for dark mice living on black lava flows (MC1R mutation) is 0.01, so in a population of 10,000 mice it would spread in about two thousand (2,000) years.

Now obviously that doesn't say anything about the species "de-evolving", but as I've said above we haven't been noticing any de-evolution in the last 10,000 years, quite the contrary. We've found humans with hyper-dense bones, with better muscle growth and ones who can deal better with fatty foods. Those are just three observed instances of beneficial mutations... in the last hundred or so years. That in itself is powerful evidence that your numbers are complete crap.

I suggest you read Sean Carroll's book, it addresses quite a few of your misconceptions.

 

[brettpalmer]

You're supposed to present me an article with claims I can verify - not a bunch of assumed numbers and variables pulled out of no data that was gathered, and then presented within a format that makes no claims and is, instead, a critique of evolutionary sciences.

Hytegia, consider that the "article" Will has provided for you from the "wealth" he has available to him is the BEST he can come up with and you'll understand why people laugh at creationists (to borrow a phrase). He sat, surveying all those rejected creotard articles and he thought, "Ah! Here's the right one that will shut down those evil atheists! Let's see what Hytegia does with THIS!" :roll:

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You're supposed to present me an article with claims I can verify - not a bunch of assumed numbers and variables pulled out of no data that was gathered, and then presented within a format that makes no claims and is, instead, a critique of evolutionary sciences.

Hytegia, consider that the "article" Will has provided for you from the "wealth" he has available to him is the BEST he can come up with and you'll understand why people laugh at creationists (to borrow a phrase). He sat, surveying all those rejected creotard articles and he thought, "Ah! Here's the right one that will shut down those evil atheists! Let's see what Hytegia does with THIS!" :roll:

And to think -
I was willing to PM AndromedasWake about making a donation fund so I could toss my tax refund into it, so he could give me the number back so that I could test something but still have the ability to get that much back in the next year!
>:[

Well, there goes THAT use of nearly 2000 buckaroos.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

That in itself is powerful evidence that your numbers are complete crap.

Fair enough. Then I have a challenge for you, Hytegia, Brett, scalyblue and austra. Let's assume my 16,000 number is "complete crap." And therefore, not a valid argument against evolution. Then answer me this:

If I can show that the 16,000 number is indeed accurate, will you then admit that is poses a serious problem for the theory of evolution?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

You're supposed to present me an article with claims I can verify - not a bunch of assumed numbers and variables pulled out of no data that was gathered, and then presented within a format that makes no claims and is, instead, a critique of evolutionary sciences.

Hytegia, consider that the "article" Will has provided for you from the "wealth" he has available to him is the BEST he can come up with and you'll understand why people laugh at creationists (to borrow a phrase). He sat, surveying all those rejected creotard articles and he thought, "Ah! Here's the right one that will shut down those evil atheists! Let's see what Hytegia does with THIS!" :roll:

Ummmm...not exactly. To be honest, everything I came up with would have been too expensive for Hytegia. I was simply being thoughtful. For instance, Dr. Humphreys correctly predicted the the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune in 1984! And that was in a creationist peer-reviewed journal. The evolutionists got it wrong.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

 

[Inferno]

That in itself is powerful evidence that your numbers are complete crap.

Fair enough. Then I have a challenge for you, Hytegia, Brett, scalyblue and austra. Let's assume my 16,000 number is "complete crap." And therefore, not a valid argument against evolution. Then answer me this:

If I can show that the 16,000 number is indeed accurate, will you then admit that is poses a serious problem for the theory of evolution?

If you can show that every individual would indeed need 16,000 offspring just to keep the population from de-evolving then yes, I will run down the streets naked shouting "Evolution is wrong" and post it on YouTube.
Note: I do NOT mean you simply showing up with a creationist source that says "16,000 offspring needed blablabla", I want some actual evidence, proof, calculations, however you want to call it.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Ummmm...not exactly. To be honest, everything I came up with would have been too expensive for Hytegia. I was simply being thoughtful. For instance, Dr. Humphreys correctly predicted the the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune in 1984! And that was in a creationist peer-reviewed journal. The evolutionists got it wrong.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

What an utter load of horse shit.
In this article he actually used solid mathematical principles and common knowledge of mechanisms already known - he simply ascribes God the credit for making them. I'm not sure if he got it CORRECT, but the mathematics definitely work out and the schematics are appropriate descriptions for Earth's magnetic field.
However, this is not encouraging or a positive evidence that makes the claim of a Young Earth creation - just that Magnetic Fields exist on other planets (WOAH).

Not to mention that Science-acceptors of the backbone of all Biological Sciences ("Evolutionists" as you would call them) have nothing to do with the fields of Physics, nor Astronomy. Those are, well, Physicists and Astronomers.

Fair enough. Then I have a challenge for you, Hytegia, Brett, scalyblue and austra. Let's assume my 16,000 number is "complete crap." And therefore, not a valid argument against evolution. Then answer me this:

If I can show that the 16,000 number is indeed accurate, will you then admit that is poses a serious problem for the theory of evolution?

No dancing, kid. Produce an article or don't.

I've spent the time calling your bluff and playing your game. Show your cards or fold with at least having the decency of not wasting everyone's fucking time.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

How does one overcome the cost of harmful mutation? Using the evolutionist's own mutation rates, published many times in refereed journals, each breeding couple the last 5 million years would have to produce 16,000 offspring just to keep from de-evolving. That's called an impossibility.

Define de-evolving.

I think this number comes from an equivocation.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

If you can show that every individual would indeed need 16,000 offspring just to keep the population from de-evolving then yes, I will run down the streets naked shouting "Evolution is wrong" and post it on YouTube.
Note: I do NOT mean you simply showing up with a creationist source that says "16,000 offspring needed blablabla", I want some actual evidence, proof, calculations, however you want to call it.

You just earned a lot of respect from me! (Except for the naked part. ) You've actually done something I've never seen an evolutionist do. Is anyone willing to follow Inferno's lead?

P.S. You don't have to run down a street naked though.

 

[Inferno]

If you can show that every individual would indeed need 16,000 offspring just to keep the population from de-evolving then yes, I will run down the streets naked shouting "Evolution is wrong" and post it on YouTube.
Note: I do NOT mean you simply showing up with a creationist source that says "16,000 offspring needed blablabla", I want some actual evidence, proof, calculations, however you want to call it.

You just earned a lot of respect from me! (Except for the naked part. ) You've actually done something I've never seen an evolutionist do. Is anyone willing to follow Inferno's lead?

P.S. You don't have to run down a street naked though.

Fine, I'll forgo the naked part. Guess you wouldn't like a chubby fellow like me running in the cold anyway.
Now, paper?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

If you can show that every individual would indeed need 16,000 offspring just to keep the population from de-evolving then yes, I will run down the streets naked shouting "Evolution is wrong" and post it on YouTube.
Note: I do NOT mean you simply showing up with a creationist source that says "16,000 offspring needed blablabla", I want some actual evidence, proof, calculations, however you want to call it.

You just earned a lot of respect from me! (Except for the naked part. ) You've actually done something I've never seen an evolutionist do. Is anyone willing to follow Inferno's lead?

P.S. You don't have to run down a street naked though.

Only if you agree to do the same if I prove that those dinosaur carvings of yours can't possibly portray actual living dinosaurs.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I sadly recognise that the layman doesn't really know what science is, and I have to make this point really clear.
APOLOGETICS ISN'T SCIENCE

I find the claim that "the paper was recognized to be scientificaly sound but rejected on the grounds that does not add anything new" to be utter crap, if it was that indeed publisher told him I find it more likely that he/she was trying not to be confrontational rather then actually implying that there was any valid science, because there wasn't any.
A test that I recomend to the layman as a filtering criteria to distinguish science from non science (even if he or she doesn't understand what is being talked about) is to check if it has data collection (or unprocessed data from someone else), it must have data, it must process that data (describe how the data was processed). If the "data" (in this case not data, just numbers) is pulled out of the authors ass (which is the case here) then it is a prety good indicator that the paper is actually toilet paper.
Science has to check back with reality, why didn't the author devised an experiment to compare his numbers with reality?

And here is another good indicator just between us. If you are pulling stuff from creationism websites, then you don't even need to read the paper that you know that it is bullshit. If it had any merit they would be published somewhere else.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You just earned a lot of respect from me! (Except for the naked part. ) You've actually done something I've never seen an evolutionist do. Is anyone willing to follow Inferno's lead?

P.S. You don't have to run down a street naked though.

No. You picked this fight. I called your bluff - enough bouncing around. This topic is going to be one thing and one thing only: You, playing your cards or folding with the last bit of dignity that you have left.
I've taken time out of my busy week and sectioned it off for scheduling any tests you could throw at me - I even rescheduled an appointment at Medical until next week to get my PHA done. This thread stays on topic, or I request it gets locked with the last post showing that you have nothing to put forth as actual, verifiable, and testable science.

I gave you the CHANCE to show any evidence you may have had, any papers that may have supported you, and so on and so forth. If you do not use this thread here, I and every other member on this forum will shoot you down with "where was this evidence in the other thread?"

And for the rest of you, keep this thread on topic. He's not going to dance in this thread, and I'm not going to let him.