Haldane's Dilemma Part 2 by John Harris

Okay, so here we go.

Facebook is live.

Okay.

All right.

So I am Terry Camerizle.

And I'm here on behalf of Creation Fellowship Santee.

We're a group of friends who love to study God's Word and believe the Bible when read properly disproves

Darwinian evolution, or as John calls it, molecules to mute

to wait.

Oh, I had it earlier.

And I forgot blue that anyway, molecules demand.

No, but he had a different it was like, go to.

Through the zoo to come to go to the.

Through the zoo to you.

It was pretty funny.

Anyway, we've been meeting on this online platform since May of 2020.

Since meeting online, we've been blessed with with 89 individual speakers covering creation science,

other theology topics, and even current events.

Our goal is to equip believers to be ready to share.

They're there.

You can find most of our past presentations by typing in tiny url .com forward

slash cfs.

Our crimes that see like creation F like fellowship s like Santee, and the word

archives.

Tonight, we're happy to welcome back our good friend john Harris from Living Waters Europe.

He is here for part two of his Haldane's dilemma presentation.

John has been the director of Living Waters Europe since 2013, training a large team of believers to go

out and share the gospel with the people of Europe.

He is also the founder and CEO of creation science UK.

And we'll go ahead and turn it over to you, john.

Excellent.

Hi there.

Let me just share my screen to get myself going.

And hopefully this is happening.

You guys can see my screen?

Well, you can see something, right?

Yes, we can.

Okay, perfect.

Perfect.

Let me see if I can see some of you while I do this at the same time.

That'll be great.

Okay, great to be back.

Thank you very much for inviting me.

This is a very interesting topic.

This is part two of Haldane's dilemma.

Last week, we looked we spoke about Haldane's dilemma and how it dismantles evolution in five minutes.

Well, today, we're looking at all the excuses evolutionists give to reject Haldane's dilemma.

So we're going to deal with all their objections.

They're not that many, and they're not complicated, thankfully.

But first, so that everything makes sense, I recommend you get familiar with Haldane's dilemma by watching part one

from last week.

But to give you a quick summary, so we can get up to scratch here.

Haldane's dilemma is like the silver bullet against evolution.

I've used it during open air.

I've used it in the universities.

I've used it with Christians who insist that God used evolution to bring about life.

The nice thing about this dilemma is that it was discovered by John Haldane, who was himself an

evolutionist.

He's basically one of them.

He's not a creationist, so they can't excuse him of being biased.

So he tried to calculate the time it takes for plants and animals and humans to evolve, and quickly

found out that evolution through natural selection is just impossible.

He based it on the beneficial mutations we get, and he couldn't reconcile the numbers.

In fact, it was a disaster.

So much so that it became known as Haldane's dilemma.

We've known about this since 1957, and we have all ignored it, which is a

pretty sad thing.

This is a quote from John Haldane, which will sum up everything nicely for now.

He worked out that there is only one beneficial mutation that happens every 300 generations.

That means if you want to see 1 ,000 base pair changes in the DNA, we talked about base pairs last time,

you need to wait for 300 ,000 generations.

It may even take a good deal longer or a good deal more.

So assuming a human generation is 20 years, then how long would it take to just change 1 ,000 base

pairs, assuming you can have one beneficial mutation every 300 generations?

Well, that will take 6 million years.

That's what he said.

Well, that's how we can work it out nicely.

So 6 million years for just 1 ,000 base pair changes.

But humans have over 3 billion base pairs, and we have supposedly evolved from ape -like creatures

with a difference of at least 30 million base pairs.

In fact, it could have been more, by the way, maybe even 10 times more.

Next time, I'll probably include those more up -to -date figures because things have changed since then.

But I've been very generous with them, giving them 1 % difference, which gives them 30 million.

So if we take that on face value, well, how long would it take to evolve?

How long would it take if we gave them all the time in the world?

Well, to work that out is not all that difficult.

To see 30 million changes happen within the DNA will take

180 billion years.

180 billion.

That's literally more than the age of the entire universe.

In fact, it's more than 10 times the entire age of the universe.

Actually, if I work with percentage difference between humans and ape -like creatures that evolutionists give us

today, if I was working on today's figures, it will take nearly 2 trillion years.

I mean, this is just phenomenal.

It's just crazy.

It's just never going to happen.

It's over.

That means evolution through natural selection is a bankrupt system.

Evolution is dead.

So what does the evolutionists come up with to dismiss this Haldane's dilemma?

Well, they say a lot of stuff, and I'm going to go through them all.

But I can probably summarize the main ones with these two main objections.

The first thing they say is something like this.

They say, you creationists are so dumb, some of them actually literally say that.

Haldane's dilemma was resolved over 50 years ago.

And all you have to do is to read Wikipedia where you will find the truth.

That's basically what they tell you.

Another thing they say is, these single beneficial mutations are not a problem when applied to the entire

population.

Basically, they're saying, when you add up these one by one mutations to the entire

population, then you get plenty enough beneficial mutations.

So what's your problem, Christian?

See, you're just not checking the facts.

That's what they will say.

All right.

So a while ago, EZ, who's the president of Living Waters, briefly spoke about Haldane's dilemma in

a conference called Evolution Exposed, and he did a great job.

And I think, Terry, you were on that Evolution Exposed.

I think that's probably how we met.

Well, a YouTube channel called Pologia, run by a guy called Paul,

got hold of this recording.

And by the way, I like how Paul used this name to call his YouTube channel Pologia, which is a play on

words on apologia, or apologia, which is the the root word for

apologetics, which I think that's clever.

So I like it.

Well done.

His banner has three photos on it.

It's probably the photos of people he likes the least, who are Eric Colvin, Ken Hamm, and Dr.

Georgia Perdom.

Maybe one day I'll be on there as a guest of honor on their, at least on their banner as

another person they don't like.

Paul claims he used to be a Christian, but now he's on a mission to mock the Bible, Christians and

creation.

He got hold of the recording of the Evolution Exposed conference and made a video against

EZ.

He took a clip talking about Haldane's Dilemma.

He called it Evolution Exposed.

Exposed.

Very creative.

It's basically a rebuttal to Haldane's Dilemma.

So that's what he's done.

In this video, he has a guest called Dr. Dan Stern, or Stern, who says he's an

evolutionary biologist who runs his own YouTube channel called Creation Myths.

He obviously dislikes Christians and creationists too.

So no doubt it's safe to assume that these two guys who are criticizing EZ are going to be

completely fair, unbiased, and totally reasonable in their rebuttals.

So I'm going to go through all their rebuttals in a minute.

And unlike them, I will be fair using real science to correct them.

So to start with this, this is the one that takes about only 20 seconds long.

So I'm going to play that and then I'm going to go through explaining what he says.

Mutu Kimura's landmark paper on neutral theory in 1968 built on Haldane's work

to suggest that most molecular evolution is neutral, resolving the dilemma.

EZ's silver bullet is a 60 year old quandary that was completely resolved by

the scientific community over 50 years ago.

So there you have it.

Haldane's Dilemma was completely resolved by the scientific communities over 50 years ago.

Here's the reference again from the Wikipedia.

It says, Mutu Kimura's landmark paper on neutral theory in 1968

built on Haldane's work to suggest that most molecular evolution is neutral, resolving the

dilemma.

So according to this trustworthy, honorable, and totally unbiased quote in Wikipedia,

Kimura fixed it.

He solved this problem.

See?

Sounds great.

So what's the problem then?

Well, what they don't tell you is that Kimura agreed with John Haldane that natural selection

does not work.

Now this is important.

He said rapid selective evolution requires an unrealistically high rate of beneficial mutations.

Why is this important?

Because this hero of theirs agrees with Haldane.

So he agreed that natural selection can no longer be the mechanism for evolution.

So it's dead, which means according to both, both world

-renowned geneticists, Haldane and Kimura, natural selection doesn't work for evolution.

That puts an end to the idea that survival of the fittest is a viable mechanism for creating

anything new in evolution.

It's basically the end.

These are the people they trust.

Okay?

First, John Haldane said it, and now Mutu Kimura confirms it.

So let's be clear.

If evolutionists accept Kimura's solution, if evolution accept that Haldane's dilemma is

solved 50 years ago, like Wikipedia says, and like these guys have said, then they have to agree that they

can't produce anything new with natural selection.

Alright?

So we just don't have enough beneficial mutations.

This is, there is no beneficial mutation that's going to do the deal.

So this is a done deal.

So there is, these so -called scientists can jolly well stop telling our students that natural

selection could possibly produce anything new, which they call evolution.

So they have to give that up.

So let's now come to Kimura.

What did Kimura suggest instead of natural selection?

Well, he said, it's not through beneficial mutations that humans get bigger and better and cleverer, but

instead it happens through neutral mutations.

These are mutations that are strictly neither good or bad.

It's all neutral, neutral, neutral.

Kimura ignored all the good, bad and ugly mutations and kept the neutral ones.

He said, things get bigger and better and cleverer because all these neutral mutations.

Now remember, neutral means it was neither good or bad.

It basically doesn't affect the organism.

It neither improves or hinders it.

If that's the case, then how does it work?

How do these neutral mutations stay in the population, which is now called fixation, if they stay there,

which keeps these mutations in the population?

Well, that's easy.

All you need is a bit of magic and fairy dust called genetic drift.

So what is genetic drift?

Well, it's basically pure luck.

All they need is a bit of luck.

Basically, the evolutionist is hoping for a bit of luck.

So here's the genetic drift in action.

If you have a group of bugs that are, say, green, some of the green bugs could have become yellow because of

a mutation, which is neither good or bad.

It's neither beneficial or detrimental.

But the yellow ones could have survived, not because they're fitter than the green bugs, but because the yellow

bugs are luckier, or because they survived some kind of natural disaster by sheer

chance.

That is it.

There you go.

Simples.

This way, all the green bugs evolved to become yellow bugs.

Therefore, they have evolved from green to yellow.

That's it.

Nothing to do with natural selection or beneficial mutations.

And that's what we call the theory of neutral evolution, in a nutshell.

That's how Motokimura solved the problem, allegedly.

Basically, he got rid of natural selection and introduced neutral selection.

If you believe in the theory of neutral evolution, then you are called a neutralist.

Not a naturalist, but a neutralist.

And those who believe in natural selection are called selectionists.

By the way, neutralists still believe in natural selection, but not in terms of having the power

to create anything new, like selectionists do.

And of course, they're right.

Natural selection couldn't create anything new, because natural selection just selects from what's there.

And there aren't enough mutations to add to anything, or to make anything new.

This new theory suddenly and immediately created this conflict between those who are called neutralists,

and those who are called selectionists.

The selectionists, those who believe in natural selection, said, hey, this is rubbish.

Neutral selection or neutral mutations can't do anything new.

And they're right about that.

And the neutralists, those who believe in neutral theory of evolution, said, hey, wait a minute.

Natural selections through beneficial mutation is rubbish.

It can't do anything new.

And of course, they're right about that, too.

So they're both right about each other.

Neither one of these silly theories can create anything new.

No wonder they are disagreeing with each other.

So all this means that this brand new, shiny and wonderful theory called neutral theory of

evolution that Kimura came up with was given as the main reason why all these different forms of life

exist instead of natural selection.

This is why we have a variety of things, because basically, they were just all lucky.

They had a neutral mutation and by sheer accident or luck, they were selected to be

what they are today, including things like flying birds who are incredibly fine tuned for flight.

They can now fly because they're really, really lucky.

And I want to show you how lucky they are.

Okay, this is really good.

This is how lucky birds are.

Birds are so lucky that it is by pure chance, their perfectly balanced way to center under their wings.

The reason why they can use their feathers to create widespread surface area, which gives them

maximal or maximum lift is because of luck.

The reason why they have feathers in their tail to control navigation is because of luck.

The reason why each feather is connected to a muscle, which lets them move and turn each feather separately to

even make their flight possible is because of luck.

The reason why the central vein of each of their feathers is hollow, making them extra light is because of

luck.

Are you getting it now?

So the reason why each feather is crisscrossed with barbs and barbules to act like

strong Velcro, giving them extra strength is because of luck.

The reason why they have hollow bones supported with struts and bars for strength, for extra

strength, to make them lightweight and to help them with oxygen during their flight is because guess

what, luck.

The reason why they have powerful breast muscles to pull their wings down is because of luck.

The reason why they have an ingenious pulley system to pull the wings back up again is

because of luck.

The reason why they have this high performance breathing system, which is very unique to all the animals, which use

muscles to pump air straight into air sacs and hollow bones.

It's all because you guessed it.

It's luck, luck, luck.

Everything works with luck.

We haven't even talked about things like human brain yet.

So why did they buy into this nonsense?

Well, first of all, because people who don't want to believe in God will believe in anything else, even if it seems absurd, just like

the Bible says, they confess to be wise, they became fools.

Secondly, because if they don't accept this, then what's the alternative?

Well, they'll have to agree with Haldane and reject evolution.

Also, Kamora did something that got people confused.

They got confused because Kamora did something very naughty.

He presented his figures in a confusing way, which was not immediately obvious to everybody.

So you see, unlike Haldane, who did the right thing, he calculated the beneficial mutations

by calculating evolution cost, or substitutional cost.

Well, Kamora did it backwards.

That means Haldane calculated what we see in nature, and from that he worked out what we get.

That's called substitutional cost, which is easy to see.

But Kamora, he muddied the water by presenting his figures in terms of evolution load,

or by using substitutional load.

So what does it mean?

Well, it means that Kamora looked at what we need to make a human and change the figures assuming

that we get many neutral mutations.

And to make it more obscure, he presented the results as a formula.

That's not only confusing, but it's also not immediately obvious he manipulated the figures to work.

You see, when Haldane presented his figures, it was easy to see what was happening.

But it was not so easy with Kamora.

Unlike Haldane, the average person couldn't possibly work out if Kamora figures were right or wrong.

Basically, Kamora worked it backwards and used the word load instead of the word cost.

The experts say that the substitutional load assumes that evolution occurs within the

available time, and then calculates the difference in survival rates that would be required.

So this is saying, I'm going to translate it for you, with substitutional load, as opposed to the cost,

you first assume that evolution is true, then you see how much time you have, you see how many

mutations you need, and then make the figures fit.

That's called cheating.

And then if that's not bad enough, they started swapping and changing the terms, the word

load and cost to confuse everyone.

Evolution has started, so I'm going to read it out.

So evolution has started misusing the words load and cost, causing even more confusion.

So they started to use the word load and cost interchangeably.

So now nobody could work out what they were talking about.

Well, this is not education, right?

This is this is called confusion.

It's an actual mess.

But let's ignore all that and assume the figures are true and accurate.

Let's ignore that the terms were confused.

Let's ignore the fact that the terms are confusing.

Let's ignore the fact that Kamora worked it all backwards and confused everyone.

Let's pretend that Motu Kamora was right about the numbers.

You can't get fairer than that.

Now, according to this theory, how many neutral mutations do we need to make an ape -like creature evolve to a

human?

Well, without boring you with the details, the theory suggests, or Motu Kamora said, that we

need 182 neutral mutations per generation to make it work.

But there are a few problems with this.

Problem number one, we don't get 182 neutral mutations per generation.

That's a pretty significant problem.

But even if we did get that, because we're nice people and we're going to give him all the benefit of doubt, even if

we did get 182 neutral mutations per generation, it's still not going to

help Kamora.

That's because getting 102 neutral mutations per generation will cause something called a disaster in the

population, if it was used the way that Kamora wants to use them.

So why is that?

Because, pay attention to this, according to Kamora's own words, not mine, their

own words, 90 of any mutation would be harmful once they got translated into

protein.

They call this expressed, okay?

But these neutral mutations have to be expressed, otherwise nothing changes.

So let's work things out here.

If 90 of the neutral mutations became harmful, just like Kamora tells us when they are expressed,

then if you had 182 so -called neutral mutations, we will end up with 164

harmful mutations per generation.

Wow.

That's a problem.

Why is that a problem?

Well, it's a big problem because 164 mutation is

164 times higher than the rate that would normally cause species to become

extinct.

We have a name for this.

It's called error catastrophe.

That means humanity would just go extinct.

In fact, species would normally disappear with much lower rates than that.

In fact, 164 times lower.

This is terrible.

So problem number one, we don't get 182 neutral mutations per generation.

Problem number two, if we did get 182 neutral mutations per generations, and they get translated to

protein, we stand over 16 ,000 chance of going extinct,

according to Kamora's own words.

The very solution Kamora offers to evolve life is what kills it.

It's strange that any evolutionist would want to proudly suggest that Kamora solved the problem.

It shows that they know very little about Kamora's theory or even about Haldane's dilemma.

And if that's not bad enough, problem number three is that Kamora relied on the rest of this theory to work with sheer luck,

right?

We looked at that genetic drift.

It's basically one big gambling machine.

It has nothing to do with science.

It shouldn't have been called the neutral theory of evolution.

It should have been called the fantasy theory of evolution.

I like how Oxford Dictionary defines the word fantasy.

It says a pleasant situation that you imagine, but that is unlikely to

happen.

Evolutionists love pleasant stories that are unlikely to be true, like a fairy tale.

How desperate do you have to be to make up a story like that?

Now, I know what you're thinking.

Why doesn't somebody say something?

Well, first of all, I am somebody and I am saying something, but you'll be happy to hear

I'm not the only one saying something.

When Kamora published his theory in February 1968, which was more than 10 years since Haldane's

dilemma was introduced by John Haldane, he basically said, well, if beneficial mutations don't work, then it

must have been neutral ones.

Literally.

Well, within seven months, September 1968, a British theoretical and mathematical evolutionary

biologist and geneticist called John Maynard Smith, very famous guy, who was a

selectionist, that means he believes in natural selection, criticized Moto Kamora in his scientific paper.

He said, Moto's calculations were erroneous.

Well, of course it was erroneous.

It was made up.

John Maynard Smith said, Kamora's assumption may be seriously wrong by several orders of magnitude,

and that Kamora's estimate of evolution may be too low by several orders of magnitude.

Okay, let me translate that for you.

He's saying Kamora's figures were just made up, like really badly made up.

And then six months later, in 1969, another scientist called Peter

O'Donnell criticized John Maynard Smith for criticizing Kamora.

He said, Maynard Smith escapes from Haldane's dilemma by using a model that allows selection, that's

neutral selection, natural selection, to act on very many more loci

than in the model of selection for an optimum.

But I believe this model is an unrealistic as Haldane's, which he criticizes Kamora for using.

Okay, so I'm going to translate that for you.

He's saying, it's all well and good for John Maynard criticizing Kamora, but his solution is

no better.

Because John Maynard used natural selection to solve the problem using silly big numbers.

And of course, Peter O'Donnell was right.

So they fought over this theory back and forth to solve Haldane's dilemma for decades.

On one hand, they accept Haldane's dilemma, evolution means evolution is doomed.

But on the other hand, if they accept Kamora's solution, then it's no better because evolution is still doomed.

So whatever they do, evolution ends up being doomed.

This is not good news for them.

So in 1983, 14 years later, Kamora writes a book called

The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution.

This is not a cheap book.

I have to pay for it.

And it was several pages long.

And in his opening, the very first sentence of his preface, he literally says why he wrote the book.

The first few words were, this book represents my attempt to convince the scientific world

that the main cause of evolutionary change at the molecular level, changes in the genetic material

itself is random fixation of selectively neutral or near neutral mutation or

mutants, rather than positive Darwinian selections.

So in this book, he's basically, he's basically destroyed any hope

that Darwin, the Darwinian evolution by natural selection could possibly be true.

He just dismantled it, in other words, okay.

So it was goodbye Darwinian selection after this.

So how many creationists knew this?

Well, fast forward exactly 50 years from when Kamora first wrote this paper on Neutral Theory of

Evolution, to May 2018.

So it's not too long ago, at Oxford Academic, two scientists, Kern

and Hahn, came out and criticised Kamora.

That was a very brave thing to do, right?

Because you could be rejected by the scientific community for doing this.

They say in this paper, in this perspective, we evaluate the explanatory power of the Neutral

Theory of Molecular Evolution 50 years after its introduction by Kamora.

We argue that the Neutral Theory was supported by unreliable theoretical and empirical

evidence from the beginning, and that in light of modern genome scale data, we can firmly

reject its universality.

Wow.

So he's saying the theory was based on unreliable information, and that we should

reject it.

What does that mean?

That means Kamora didn't actually solve the problem.

Kamora made things up.

What happened to doing good, honest scientific experiment these days, right?

These guys went on to say, we believe that the Neutral Theory has been

overwhelmingly rejected, and that as a field, we must continue to develop alternate theories

of molecular evolution.

So let me translate this.

They're saying Kamora's theory is absolutely rubbish, we reject it, others reject it, and we need a

better solution.

Well, guess what?

Not only was Haldane right, we now still don't have a solution for this

evolution.

We're back to square one, evolution is dead.

Haldane said it's dead, Kamora came along to try to fix it, and it turns out his theory is

dead too.

And this is how proudly evolutionists tell us that Haldane's dilemma has been

resolved.

But only around six months later, in November 2018, guess what happened?

A new paper came out criticizing Kern and Hans' criticism.

It's like a circus run by clowns.

They keep going back and forth, and they keep changing their minds.

It's worse than the English weather, if you've ever been here.

All the people who understand this theory point out clearly that it's far from being settled.

This website called Science Direct talks about different authors who discuss this theory.

They openly say at the core of the dispute is the Neutral

Theory of Molecular Evolution.

Did you miss it?

He called it, it's a dispute.

Guys, Kamora never solved anything, he just created more problems.

The one and only thing we can all be sure of is that Haldane was right, and he's still right today.

And nothing has been changed.

They've been criticizing each other for decades, there were many people involved, all putting their pennies worth.

By the way, I have most of these papers and articles, it cost me a fortune.

It never occurred to any one of them, that maybe, just maybe this evolution idea could

actually be false.

So what's the conclusion?

Well, whatever Kamora came up with to fix the problem, whether true or false, one thing is for sure,

Haldane was and still is right.

The fact that Kamora tried to fix it means Haldane had to be right.

Otherwise, why try to fix it.

But the fact that he didn't fix it means that the whole idea of evolution is now dead.

So whichever way you look at it, evolution through natural selection is certainly dead.

And it could never be used ever again to explain how evolution supposedly happened.

But the real annoying thing is, apparently no one sent that memo to any of our science teachers,

or our school professors, or our people, or people who write our education books, or those who make scientific TV

programs or museums, to tell them that evolution through natural selection is dead.

And worst of them all is Richard Dawkins, who seems completely oblivious to all this debate.

And also, he seems totally oblivious to Haldane's dilemma that says that natural selection doesn't work anymore, regardless

of whether Kamora was successful or not.

How do I know this?

Well, watch him try to explain the evolution of the eye on BBC in 2015.

It actually hurts me to watch this.

It's only one minute.

So watch it.

And then I'll explain what happened.

The eye really is extraordinary.

But can something so complex evolve in gradual stages?

Richard, the eye is such a complex structure.

I can understand why some people find it hard to believe is evolved out of nothing.

Even Darwin commented on its complexity, didn't he?

Yes, Darwin said that it was impossible to imagine.

So what would the first step be?

That could be the first step.

Okay, if you imagine perhaps if you imagine proper man made lens, bring the bag forward a bit there, they're

perfect.

That's not what you might call a real lens.

Think of that as just a blob of gunge.

Once you've got that, then because it works a bit better than nothing at all.

You've got the raw material for natural selection to go to work.

So did you hear him?

Did you hear what he said?

He said you've got the raw material for selection to go to work.

He's promoting the idea that through millions of beneficial mutations and through natural selection, evolution makes an eye.

Now that flies in the face of Haldane's work, who said it's not possible since 1957.

It also flies in the face of Kimura's work, the evolutionist hero, who agreed

with Haldane that beneficial mutations can't create anything.

And it also flies in the face of all these other scientists who had anything good to say about the neutral theory of

evolution.

I can't tell whether Dawkins is just being ignorant or straightforward

deceitful.

I mean, there's a fine line there.

So once Haldane's dilemma sold over 50 years ago, it's not even close.

And we still don't have a working theory for evolution.

It just doesn't work.

So Christians, this is another tool in your books, use it.

The next thing they say is you dumb Christians, the single mutations are not a problem when

applied to the entire population.

Going back to the evolution guru, from the Pologia YouTube channel, who

commented on Izzy's talk on Haldane's dilemma.

This is how they phrased it.

So I want to play this, it's only 20 seconds long, and then we'll go ahead and explain it.

The first problem with this math is that evolution is a massively parallel process.

Within each generation, you don't have one person or one lineage mutating and potentially stumbling

upon beneficial mutations.

You have the entire population, everyone experiencing mutations all at the same time.

The framing of the argument as it's done here assumes that each mutation must occur one at a time.

And only after mutation number 10 ,563 has occurred and fixed in the population,

can mutation number 10 ,564 appear.

That's not how evolution happens.

Okay, well, unfortunately, this is what happens all the time.

People say these things because they have no idea about Haldane's work.

I don't know if people have spent more than 10 minutes looking into or researching this topic before they have anything to

say about it.

What's confusing about this person is that he's saying he's an evolutionary biologist.

If he really is an evolutionary biologist, then he should have understood what Haldane's dilemma was.

Here's a video of me doing open air when someone said exactly the same thing.

And by the way, if you're doing open air on the box, and you're talking to someone who's standing on the box opposite you,

try to stay focused on that person.

Don't get sidetracked by people who shout from the side.

Otherwise, you'll be drifted from one person to another.

And it's also disrespectful towards the person you're talking to.

And it also looks like you're arguing with people and they all start shouting and talking to you and have to respond to them rather than

debating or discussing it with them properly.

So this happened to me when I was doing this Haldane's dilemma myself.

It's only a few seconds long.

I just want you to hear it for yourself because it does happen, sadly, more often than it should.

...you get per generation.

Your argument is valid for one breeding pair.

Right.

What's your name again?

Ken?

We're going to talk in a minute.

We're going to do this in one minute.

Right.

I'm going to focus on you because we're going to be talking to one person at a time.

All right.

So if someone wants to talk to me, I'll make them wait until it's their turn.

And only if they are willing to stand on that box in front of me.

I don't like engaging with people who start shouting from the crowd.

Now, this guy said the same thing.

He said, your argument is valid for one breeding pair, not simultaneous breeding pairs occurring every year, every

day, every second with mutations stacking up over 3 million years.

That's how you get cumulative 30 million mutations, which is exactly what the other guy said.

So he's saying, you're not taking the entire population into account.

He's saying it's different when you take the entire population into account, who are all producing

mutations at the same time.

You Christians who don't seem to get this.

But this is really bad because what they're really saying is that Haldane forgot to take into account the

entire population as a whole.

He just took one male and one female and forgot everyone else.

This is laughable.

Is that likely?

Well, he's also claiming that Kimora was so dumb, he forgot to tell Haldane to

include the population as a whole.

Not only that, but he's also saying that every scientist that looked into this for more than half a

century now, didn't realise or think for one moment of pointing out to Haldane or Kimora

and say, hey, guys, this is not really a dilemma.

Just take the whole population into account.

Now, if Haldane really didn't forget, or if he really did forget to take the entire population into

account, then this wouldn't be a dilemma, would it?

It wouldn't make sense.

Now, let's be clear.

This is a popular process that happens to the entire population.

That's not the problem.

The problem is once a beneficial mutation happens, you want those who have the mutation

to all outlive the ones that don't have the mutation, whoever they are.

Those without the mutations are no good and take up resources and must go.

That process must then repeat itself across the entire population again and again.

Each generation without a beneficial mutation must die.

The ones with a beneficial mutation, whoever they are, and however many of them are, must survive.

Those with the mutations must survive.

That's what Haldane was talking about.

These survival rates and reproduction rates come at a cost.

The cost is what Haldane called the cost of evolution.

What you see in front of you is what Haldane thought is the cost of survival.

So did Haldane forget to take the entire population into account?

Well, in Haldane's 14 -page paper that deals with this dilemma, he mentions the fact that

he's addressing the entire population more than 30 times.

Now, think of how embarrassing that would be.

If Haldane, who's a population geneticist, actually forgot to take the entire population into account, it's

absurd to even suggest it.

Check out these ridiculous complicated formulas.

Do you think he would need these complicated formulas if it was just talking about mutations

between just one male and one female without taking the entire population into account?

I don't even know how to say this without laughing.

Now, if Haldane really missed something as obvious as that, what do you think the scientific community would say?

Let's be honest, they wouldn't call it Haldane's dilemma.

They would call it Haldane's biggest misunderstanding.

They would call it Haldane's error, or Haldane's dumb inability to work out mutations across the

population.

It took them over 10 years to address the problem properly.

Think about how embarrassing that would have been if Kimura came along and tried to solve the problem, but didn't

realise that Haldane actually forgot the obvious.

That wouldn't make Haldane the super clever guy who everyone said he was.

That would also make Kimura specifically dumb for not noticing it.

So this evolutionary biologist guru on YouTube is basically telling us that he's better than Haldane, he's better than

Kimura, and he's better than every scientist that came after them to solve the problem.

What a crazy thing to say.

Don't get me wrong.

If this was John Harris working out the figures, then I get it.

I could have missed something out as obvious as that.

But we're talking about the world leading population geneticist who ever lived in the last 60 years.

How disrespectful to even suggest that.

In fact, anyone who's doubting this should

just visit the evolutionist Holy Scripture, otherwise known as Wikipedia, where it

clearly points out that Haldane took the entire population into account.

In fact, it wasn't the creationist who called this a Haldane style lemma.

It was an evolutionist called Lee Van Velen in 1963, who coined this phrase, he called it the

dilemma for the population.

Why is this evolutionist in Wikipedia talking about dilemma for the population, if it's not a dilemma for the

population?

And why are they all panicking to try to solve this problem, if it's not a problem?

Now suggesting this, that this is not a dilemma by this person on YouTube

makes this problem even more embarrassing to the evolutionist because either he is wrong, or everyone

else is wrong.

Either way, someone is wrong.

That doesn't speak very well of evolutionists who can't seem to fix the problem.

I wonder what they're teaching in our students and colleges and universities these days.

How are they graduating with this mentality?

I have no idea.

Even when Kimura was addressing this problem, he based it on the entire population.

When John Maynard Smith criticized Kimura, he addressed the effect this has on the entire population.

When Peter O'Donnell criticized John Maynard Smith, he talked about how natural selection

acted on the entire population.

In 2018, when Kern and Hahn criticized Kimura for his neutral theory, they

talked about the effect this has on the entire population.

Even when the paper against Kern and Hahn was published, they talked about how the

natural and neutral theory of evolution affect the entire population.

What else can I say?

When I first discovered this YouTube channel, I took each claim this guy made and responded to each

one of them one by one on his channel.

I was hoping that I'll get some debate going, but nothing happened.

I was ignored.

I was even nice to all my comments.

Let me show you how I responded to this one.

This is when he said evolution is a massively parallel process within each generation.

You don't have one person or one lineage mutating and potentially stumbling upon a beneficial mutation.

You have the entire population, everyone experiencing mutations all at the same time.

So I wrote back saying, this is indeed a very confusing statement.

Anyone who studies population genetics and is familiar with Haldane's work would not make such a

statement.

Therefore, please clarify.

Are you suggesting that Haldane did not take the entire population into consideration when calculating

beneficial mutation in the population?

I thought this would be the best and gentlest way of pointing out the problem, the claim that they

made.

I then said, even Lee Van Wallen acknowledged this in his paper.

The fact that Motokimura felt he had to resolve the problem proves that Haldane couldn't have forgotten

about this parallel process and include the entire population in this formula.

Otherwise, Kimura would have corrected him.

In fact, why would John Maynard Smith, Peter O'Donnell, and various other scientists, I can name a few

more if you want, call it a dilemma if it's a simple matter of including all these parallel

processes?

This seems misleading and confusing.

Please explain.

Now, needless to I say, should I say, I got no response.

It's just weird that anyone would try to recover from this dilemma by saying that evolution is a parallel

process.

If he could really solve this dilemma by simply saying it's a parallel process, then without a doubt, this guy should be

world -renowned like Haldane for this insightful suggestion and go down in history as the one

who solved Haldane's dilemma.

I think it's safe to say that John Haldane, who is a population geneticist, along with all his peers,

took the entire population into account.

I think this is just about covers everything the average evolutionist would say to get out of this dilemma.

And if it wasn't for our friends from Pologia, a YouTube channel, this would have been the end.

But thankfully, they have given me more material to work with, which are things we can deal with very

quickly here.

By the way, their channel is full of ignorant, uneducated atheists who take a great deal of pleasure in insulting

Christians in their comment section, especially on this topic, which I'm very disappointed

about.

If you read through the comments, you'll be very surprised and disappointed, I'm sure.

So let's look at what else they have to say to dismiss Haldane's dilemma.

As I said, I'm going to go through those fairly quickly now.

And hopefully I'll finish on time.

Okay, so this is 50 seconds long.

So listen to this and tell me what you think.

The math here ignores two important aspects of how evolution works.

And this is the fundamental problems with arguments like this one.

But before I get into those problems, I'll start by noting that Haldane's dilemma refers to Haldane's

determination that under a very specific set of conditions, there is a limit to the rate at which

beneficial mutations can accumulate within a population.

In his own writings, Haldane describes a number of situations in which his framework does not apply.

And subsequent developments in evolutionary theory, like neutral theory, have further limited the degree to which his

work is generally applicable.

So claiming all the other problems aside, that Haldane's limit imposes some kind of universal or

generalizable limit on the rate of evolution is itself not a valid claim.

Okay, so here are my responses that I put on their channel on each one of those.

I'll go through them quickly.

He said Haldane's dilemma refers to Haldane's determination that under a very specific set of conditions, there is a

limit to the rate at which beneficial mutations can accumulate within a population.

So I left a comment on the YouTube saying this, this seems confusing, please provide the reference

from Haldane's paper that clearly specifies these conditions.

Having read the paper myself, I can't see any specific set of conditions that exclude mammals or vertebrates within

the general population.

A direct quote will be helpful.

I can tell you I did not get a response.

He then said in his writings, Haldane described a number of situations in which his framework does not apply.

I said, please show me where in Haldane's paper he says that I can't see this in this in his work, nor

in Kumoto Kimura's paper, perhaps you're referring to page 523, where he referred to one exception for

rapid evolution for the first land vertebrates, but Haldane admits that this is very exceptional and dismisses it.

He then continues to describe his framework.

Neither Haldane nor Kimura made an effort to resolve this exception.

Is there another exception I'm not aware of?

What other exception are you referring to?

Still waiting for a response.

He then said in subsequent developments in evolutionary theory, like neutral theory, have further

limited the degree to which his framework is generally applicable.

I said, what exactly are you referring to?

Is this with reference to Kumoto Kimura's neutral theory of evolution, but according to the paper I have, Kimura

proposed the neutral theory slash genetic drift as an alternative alternative solution to natural

selection in order to solve Haldane's dilemma, not to limit it.

In what way do you mean that the neutral theory limited the degree to which Haldane's work is

generally applicable?

According to Kimura, Haldane's work no longer causes a problem for him, rather than limiting it.

I'm interested to know how did the neutral theory further limit the degree of Haldane's work?

I mean, I just, I just wanted clarification.

This seems such a generalized comment that it's almost meaningless.

I just needed explanation.

What do you mean by these comments?

You make it sound like you've read through it and understood what it says.

And, and you have this amazing rebuttal, but there is no meat behind it.

So again, I got no response.

And finally, this is my favorite probably of all the ones he came up with.

So it's a 35 second long one, and it's the last one.

So enjoy.

The second problem is that once all of these different mutations appear in different individuals, they can become

linked via recombination.

You may remember crossing over from high school biology.

That's what we're talking about here.

Every generation, you pass on a mix of your mom's alleles and your dad's alleles to your kids.

If one mutation occurred in mom and a different mutation occurred in dad, those two separate changes may be found

together in your kids due to recombination.

So it's the parallel nature of evolutionary change and the process of recombination, bringing separate mutations

together that invalidate this argument.

All right, basically, he's talking about recombination, which is when a child picks up some traits from both parents.

That's it.

First of all, it doesn't matter how many mutations or where they come from.

If it's beneficial, then the offspring must still outlive everyone else.

I think that's clear.

But I'm going to be kind and ignore all of that.

Because what's funny is that this guy is not aware that Chase Nelson wrote a review or

an essay on Haldane's dilemma and spoke specifically about guess what, recombination.

Chase Nelson is a research fellow at the National Cancer Institute, National

Institutes of Health in Maryland and visiting scientists at the American Museum of Natural History

in New York City.

So it sounds pretty clever.

And he specifically studied the mechanism to do with evolution, or if anyone knows about

recombination, it's this guy.

So we're going to let this expert explain to this YouTube friend, basically what happens.

This is what Chase Nelson said, mutations might arise in separate individuals, their

descendants might then mate, affording an opportunity for genetic recombination to place

the two mutations in the same genome.

So far so good.

Chase Nelson agrees that mutations could happen in different people in the

population and agrees that they can get married and have both mutations in the same genome.

So congratulations, our YouTube friend got that one right.

So what could possibly go wrong?

Well, you see, what can go wrong is what Chase Nelson says afterwards.

There were several obstacles to this scenario.

First, recombination is random, and has no tendency to link beneficial alleles more often than

to separate them.

Unless the two mutations interacted to boost their collective S by

several orders of magnitude, the letter S, by the way, is the number of offsprings they can have, random

extinction would remain their most likely fate.

So let me translate this for you.

Recombining two mutations is random at best, and not to mention the mutation itself is already random,

it's not likely to link beneficial mutations together, it's more likely that they get separated.

And unless something very special happens, it will most likely cause their extinction.

Wow.

You know what's funny about this recombination?

Haldane already thought about it.

Chase Nelson points this out in his paper saying, nature has trouble selecting several

traits simultaneously.

In 1957, that's when John Haldane wrote his paper, JBS Haldane

recognized the difficulty encountered by breeders selecting for multiple characteristics at once.

So it doesn't work the way our evolutionist friends are saying.

Haldane has already thought about it, and Chase Nelson, who's written his essay on this topic, discusses it.

So there are no surprises here.

Now, I don't know how to break this bad news to this YouTuber who says he's an evolutionary biologist, but

recombination ain't going to solve the problem.

If it could, you would have heard about it from Haldane and Motokimura or any of the other scientists who got involved in

this study, whether friend or foe.

So this YouTuber must have a real low opinion of John Haldane and Motokimura,

and every other scientist who has ever spoken on this issue.

And what's more interesting is that I, John Harris, seems to have more respect for John Haldane and

Motokimura than all these other evolutionists put together.

Doesn't seem reasonable.

I believe if John Haldane were alive today, this YouTuber will get this look from him.

He wouldn't be very impressed.

I thought that was humorous.

So to this comment about recombination, I responded with a nice quick post to his YouTube

saying, can you please clarify this statement in view of what Haldane and Chase

Nelson say about the problem of selecting several traits simultaneously?

It seems you are not aware that generally the number of individuals combining several characteristics

decrease exponentially with each additional requirement.

Needless to say, I got no response.

And to finish with, I think we can safely say evolution is dead.

I'm afraid it's over.

Anyone who says that evolution is possible through gradual beneficial mutations should take that claim to

a natural history museum, because that's where archaic things belong.

It should be buried along with all the other dead fossils.

Because evolution is dead, dead, it's dead.

Hopefully you know why I called this theory the fantasy theory of evolution, because it's just a fantasy.

And a fantasy is something that's based on your imagination, which means it's not true.

I want to end this presentation by giving the last word to an associate professor from UCLA.

She'll explain to us exactly why some people don't accept the theory of evolution, like you and me.

I think she's right, and makes a good point.

And it summarizes perfectly everything I said within 15 seconds.

So here it is.

The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think is they don't

have imaginations.

That is so true.

I love the way Ray answers her.

He's so quick on his feet.

So there you have it.

Haldane Zalema, the destroyer of imaginations.

That was it.

I hope that was helpful.

Please share your thoughts and let me know what you think.

And yes, I'm here to answer any more questions if you have, if I haven't answered them all.

So in the meantime, I will stop sharing.

And then hopefully I'll be able to see you better.

Well, we thank you for that.

It was very good information.

It.

Seems like I have a question, Terry.

Yeah, well, okay, it was.

See it seems so irrefutable is what I was going to say.

Go ahead, Robin with your question.

This is so important.

What is a car phone warehouse?

I saw that in your video.

You saw my video?

Yes.

Oh, that one.

Oh, that would be in Leicester, which which area I think in the UK.

What is a car phone?

Well, car phone warehouse are people who sell mobile phones, or you call them cell phones,

right?

Something like that.

Yeah, that's what it is.

What do you want to come along and buy some?

Well, no, it just looks so.

1950s, you know, car phone.

I'll tell them they'll be very happy about that.

But sorry to interrupt you, Terry, I just would have forgotten if I had.

You did listen to the entire presentation afterwards, right?

Did you?

You didn't miss anything after that, right?

Oh, no, I was googling the whole time.

Car phone.

What is car phone warehouse?

Our British transplant, um, in our in our zoom room has commented to

translate for us cell phone.

Thank you, Rachel.

So is that is that really what what you guys call it in?

Yeah, well, we got phones, but the car phone warehouse is kind of very well known

organization who provide cell phones for us.

I get.

Oh, so it's an actual business.

That's the name of.

This.

Can you use your car phone when you're fishing?

Sorry, I'll stop now.

I honest I'll stop.

Is this still being recorded?

Yes, it is.

We can call off the recording.

Actually, it doesn't seem like we have a lot of questions, at least for the public side of things.

So we could go ahead and do that.

Now let's go ahead and wrap things up.

And then we'll spend some more time a little extra time in the in the zoom room and let people ask you

questions.

So it was a really informative, informative presentation.

We really do appreciate it.

It was very good information.

One more time, john, remind everybody where they can find you.

Okay, well, Living Waters is basically easy to find.

Because if you're doing if you want to find our website, just go into Google and type Living Waters Europe.

If you want to find us on Facebook type Living Waters Europe.

If you want to find us on TikTok, you type Living Waters Europe.

Just don't forget the Europe part.

Because if you forget the Europe part, you'll end up in America and therefore, which is great.

But that's not where you find me personally.

So if you want to find us in Europe, just add that word Europe and we'll come up.

So that'll be helpful.

And that did I say YouTube?

I'm sure I did mention YouTube.

Yes.

Same thing.

Yeah.

Perfect.

All right.

And again, we are Creation Fellowship Santee.

And if you don't want to miss any of our upcoming speakers, you can send us an email at Creation Fellowship Santee.

Santee is spelled S -A -N -T -E -E at gmail .com so that you get on our list.

We promise not to spam you but we will send you invitations to all of our upcoming presentations.

And just as a little plug next the next two weeks we have another

two part series but with two different speakers both from Creation Training Initiative.

We have Mike Riddle and Dr. Anthony Silvestro who will be coming to talk to us about apologetics for

the 21st century.

So you won't want to miss that.

And with that, we're going to go ahead and sign off the public side of things for tonight.