What follows is an account of the exchanges. I will present the discussion as it occurred. I have deleted the exchanges with other posters. I will present ReMine's arguments in red, mine in blue, and any additional comments in black. Where a previous post is being quoted, I will indicate this with italics.

First Exchange 

Robert:   Welcome to the board, Walter. I have a couple of questions.

1). What would you estimate to be the number of beneficial differences separating chimps from humans?

2). Wouldn't chimps have been accruing their own beneficial mutations? For example, they are stronger than humans, so I would assume this is beneficial to the chimps. Since the human line and the chimp line would they have been accruing their own separate mutations, wouldn't it be correct to say that (assuming there are no other problems with the argument) that there would actually be twice as many beneficial substitutions separating humans from chimps? 1667 of these would favor chimps, and another 1667 would favor humans.

Thanks in advance.

ReMine's Response:

ReMine:   I'm not going to entertain that question, as it attempts to misdirect and evade my argument.  My argument is, and always has been, about the limited number of beneficial substitutions available to explain, say, human adaptations starting from some alleged ancestor who lacks those adaptations.  I put the argument that way because it is clearer and tougher.

My argument does not focus on the difference between modern chimps and modern humans -- though evolutionists frequently misrepresent my argument this way.  

-- Walter ReMine
Fellow with Discovery Institute
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
--------------------------------------

Second Exchange

Robert:    I beg to differ, Walter. If you have no estimate of how many beneficial substitutions separate us from chimps, then your argument is pretty weak. You claim that we could have accrued only 1667 according to Haldane's work, but you provide no indication of how far out of the ballpark that might be. For example, if it could be shown that we have a million beneficial substitutions over chimps, you might have a very valid point. In fact, your point would be very well taken.

Has anyone ever attempted to list the possible beneficial substitutions that might separate us from chimps? I can't imagine that it would be too many. How many beneficial mutations to walk upright? Is loss of hair a beneficial mutation? We have to primarily account for speech, upright walking, and increased intelligence. What else? How many beneficial mutations to account for these?

ReMine's Response:

ReMine:   That misrepresents my argument. (And I have pointed that out many times already.)  My argument is not about the difference between modern chimps and modern humans.  It is about the limited number of beneficial substitutions needed to create human adaptations starting from some alleged ancestor lacking those adaptations.  

-- Walter ReMine
Fellow with Discovery Institute
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
--------------------------------------

At this point, I began to wonder why he didn't see the relevance of comparing humans and chimpanzees. I didn't know if he was being purposefully evasive, but the only possible way to test his argument is to look at the living descendants of that hypothetical ancestor.

Third Exchange

Incidentally, since this is such a devastating problem, I assume that Haldane himself was wise enough to completely abandon evolutionary theory? If not, then why not?

ReMine's Response: 

Quote from Robert
Robert: You, through the use of Haldane's work, proclaim that only 1667 fixed, beneficial mutations could have accrued between man and the man/chimp ancestor. Does that about sum it up? (Robert)

ReMine:    That figure (1667) is for an ancestor approximately ten million years ago, which is two to three times the age of the man/chimp common ancestor.  That figure represents the limited number of beneficial mutations (typically nucleotides) available to create those new human adaptations over that period.  

Also, that figure (1667) arises directly from Haldane's result, which is a suitable starting point for discussion.  However, it does not include a number of factors identified in my book that would effectively slow down the beneficial substitution rate further, and which Haldane did not take into account.

Quote from Robert

Robert: What you have done, in effect is the following: 1). Claim that Haldane’s dilemma is some secret evo conspiracy that is covered up.

ReMine:    That is a grotesque misrepresentation.  I said no such thing.  Moreover, I have specifically and repeatedly denied any such evolutionary conspiracy.  That is an old game played over and over on various Internet forums.  I'm reasonably confident such games will now get you booted from this one.

Quote from Robert

2). Apply the mathematics to determine what the dilemma implies.

ReMine:   There was no "mathematics" involved -- merely one simple step of arithmetic -- one multiplication.  Rather, my contribution was to clarify the issue, debunk the many false solutions to Haldane's Dilemma, and explain the problem in a manner a wide audience could understand.

Quote from Robert

Incidentally, since this is such a devastating problem, I assume that Haldane himself was wise enough to completely abandon evolutionary theory? If not, then why not?

ReMine:    Haldane was a committed evolutionist.  Perhaps it was for personal reasons.  Or perhaps it was because he flourished nearly fifty year ago, and suffered under the many evolutionary illusions that have since been debunked.  I can identify a great many.  I dare say, not one field is left untouched.  I'd say the half-life on evolutionary evidence is about two decades, before it is neutralized, found erroneous, made irrelevant, or abandoned by evolutionists.  Haldane was partner to some of those mistakes (concerning the origin of life, for example).  Perhaps Haldane also suffered from the same malady as many evolutionary specialists today.  That is, evolutionists from various fields admit the evidence from their own field is not very good, but they somehow believe the evidence from other fields is compelling.  

-- Walter ReMine
Fellow with Discovery Institute
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
--------------------------------------

Note the subtle request from ReMine to have me banned from the board. He is clearly having difficulty answering direct questions, so he begins resorting to alternative tactics. Also notice that he seems to believe that if a logical conclusion is made from his arguments, but he did not explicitly state the conclusion, he has been misrepresented. A perfect case in point is the fact that he claims that Haldane's Dilemma has been obscured, garbled, hidden from the public, etc., but when his accusation was portrayed as a conspiracy charge, he cried "grotesque misrepresentation" and requested that I be removed from the board.

Fourth Exchange

Walter ReMine:   That figure (1667) is for an ancestor approximately ten million years ago, which is two to three times the age of the man/chimp common ancestor.  That figure represents the limited number of beneficial mutations (typically nucleotides) available to create those new human adaptations over that period.  

Robert:   So, then the actual number of fixed, beneficial mutations might be 1,000. Once again, I ask you: Do you have an idea as to what the fixed, beneficial difference between man and this common ancestor is expected to be? If you can't answer that question, your argument is refuted. Actually, I shouldn't say the argument is refuted, because you don't actually have an argument if you can't answer the question.

Walter ReMine:     That is a grotesque misrepresentation.  I said no such thing.  Moreover, I have specifically and repeatedly denied any such evolutionary conspiracy.  That is an old game played over and over on various Internet forums.  I'm reasonably confident such games will now get you booted from this one.  

Robert:    I am well aware of your writings. You state that this problem is known, but ignored by evolutionists. How else would you characterize it? You certainly imply that a conspiracy is afoot. What else is one supposed to conclude from your implication? Please enlighten me, so that you are not misrepresented. Also, do you think the fact that you have had to repeatedly deny this reflects at all upon you? After all, if you have had to deny this repeatedly, then certainly you shouldn't blame me for coming to the same conclusion. I like to think I am a pretty objective person, but it is certainly not a flattering characterization of evolutionists when you say they wilfully ignore an argument against their position.

Walter ReMine:     Haldane was a committed evolutionist.  Perhaps it was for personal reasons.  Or perhaps it was because he flourished nearly fifty year ago, and suffered under the many evolutionary illusions that have since been debunked.  I can identify a great many.  

Robert: I would be interested in seeing the "great many" evolutionary illusions that have been debunked in the past 50 years. I would be specifically interested in those that have been debunked by Creationists. That might be a really good topic for a new thread.

ReMine's Response:

On Haldane's Dilemma

Quote from Robert

So, then the actual number of fixed, beneficial mutations might be 1,000. ... Do you have an idea as to what the fixed, beneficial difference between man and this common ancestor is expected to be? ....  you don’t actually have an argument if you can't answer the question. (Robert)

Walter ReMine:   By Haldane's reasoning, all the human adaptations alleged to have evolved over ten million years would have to be explained by not more than 1667 beneficial mutations -- nominally 1667 beneficial nucleotides (plus some number of neutral mutations).  Those must explain the origin of upright posture, speech, language, the appreciation of music, and all the other human adaptations over that period.  That is simply a fact (and a little known fact), arising from Haldane's paper.  When I first approached evolutionary geneticists with Haldane's result, it came as a shock to them. At first, they attacked the figure, saying it "must be mistaken." Though they clearly understood the problem it raised.  Even the ordinary public is moved by this figure, they readily understand the seriousness of the problem.  

The next response was that evolutionists began claiming that Haldane's analysis was mistaken in some way or another.  Many attempts were made at that for some years.  My book dismantles these pseudo-solutions.  

A few fringe evolutionists are recently attempting a different tactic.  They posture that the above figure isn't a problem (but evolutionists haven't published that -- it is not remotely a mainstream view), on that basis they attempt to brush aside Haldane's Dilemma altogether, with no further ado.  "Robert" and "Huxter" (both posting under pseudonyms) attempt that tactic in this forum.  

Quote from Robert

You state that this [Haldane's Dilemma] problem is known, but ignored by evolutionists. How else [other than "conspiracy"] would you characterize it?

"How else?" There need be no "else".  Precisely -- It doesn't need to be characterized any other way.  Haldane's Dilemma got confused and garbled, and fell into obscurity for forty years.  The problem was never clearly communicated to the public, and scarcely even to students of evolution.  Evolutionists were negligent.  

Quote from Robert

You certainly imply that a conspiracy is afoot.

No, I never said anything about an evolutionary conspiracy.  I said evolutionists were negligent. I said they were mistaken.  I'm just reporting the facts, not reading minds.

Quote from Robert

Do you think the fact that you have had to repeatedly deny this reflects at all upon you?

Answer:  No.  I think it reflects human nature, when people are confronted by opposing facts which they cannot readily explain, they tend to brush it aside in various ways.  In this case by falsely branding it as another kooky "conspiracy theory".  It's their attempt to make the whole thing go away.  To me, it's a sign they've lost their ability to cope.  It's a sign I am successfully communicating the facts, and they simply don't know how to cope with it.  

Quote from Robert

.... it is certainly not a flattering characterization of evolutionists when you say they wilfully ignore an argument against their position.

That's another misrepresentation. I never said evolutionists "wilfully ignore" counter-arguments.  Indeed, in most cases I try to take evolutionists out of the picture altogether. (Literally by taking them out of my sentences!  Though this is often not easy or convenient.)  For example, "Haldane's Dilemma was obscured and ignored for forty years."  When evolutionists bring up the "conspiracy" issue, I see they are trying to divert the discussion.

-- Walter ReMine
Fellow with Discovery Institute
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
--------------------------------------

Notice the beginning of a bizarre obsession with my identity. ReMine sought to cast aspersions on my arguments with this line of reasoning. He also accused me of being a "fringe evolutionist" for simply demanding evidence for his assertions. Note that ReMine is also clearly misrepresenting me. My argument was not that 1667 beneficial mutations could account for human evolution. I was just asking for evidence, since he is making the assertion, that 1667 beneficial mutations can't account for human evolution. Regardless of the fact that this was pointed out to ReMine, he continued to make the accusation. This is an extremely dishonest debate tactic, because it means that he is purposefully misrepresenting my position in order to attack it.  

Since it was evident that ReMine was not going to attempt to scientifically justify his assertions, I decided to do a calculation to determine whether or not we can reasonably conclude that 1667 beneficial mutations can't account for human evolution.

Fifth Exchange

Robert:      OK, this latest post from you was much better and better addressed the points I have been making. In no way should you assume that I am just trying to win a debate here. I am asking tough, critical questions to establish first of all that we don't spend too much time looking for a suspect until it has been clearly established that a crime has been committed. (I hope that analogy is clear).

You actually answered a question that I was about to ask as well. I was going to ask whether 1667 mutations = 1667 base pair substitutions. You confirmed that it does. But, first things first:

Walter ReMine:     A few fringe evolutionists are recently attempting a different tactic. They posture that the above figure isn't a problem (but evolutionists haven't published that -- it is not remotely a mainstream view), on that basis they attempt to brush aside Haldane's Dilemma altogether, with no further ado.  "Robert" and "Huxter" (both posting under pseudonyms) attempt that tactic in this forum.

Robert:      My dictionary defines pseudonym as "A fictitious name, especially a pen name." Since my name is actually Robert, then you are unjustified in making this charge. My name is Robert, and that is the only name that I use. I am really at a loss as to why you would even bring such a thing into the argument. After all, I have heard of Walter ReMine, but I don’t know who you are. True, I can possibly track you down and contact you, but you can do the same with me through the PM function here. Let's try to leave irrelevant points out of the argument, shall we?

Second, I guess it is my turn to cry "grotesque misrepresentation". I never said that 1667 wasn't a problem. I asked you to make some attempt to justify that it is. After all, you are the person making the claim that it is a problem, therefore you should certainly be expected to offer some evidence that it is. You have now made some attempt at stating qualitatively why this would be a problem, so we can press on somewhat. By the way, what is a "fringe evolutionist"? Would they be somehow different from mainstream evolutionists?

Now, on to the heart of the argument:

Walter ReMine:    By Haldane's reasoning, all the human adaptations alleged to have evolved over ten million years would have to be explained by not more than 1667 beneficial mutations -- nominally 1667 beneficial nucleotides (plus some number of neutral mutations).  Those must explain the origin of upright posture, speech, language, the appreciation of music, and all the other human adaptations over that period.  

Robert:   Now, we are making progress. Let me explain a little bit more in depth as to why I feel it is important that you justify that 1667 is actually a problem. If I misrepresent your argument, it is certainly unintentional, and I ask for some clarification. Since we know that there are some 30-60 million fixed differences between humans and chimps, we can infer that there are, let's say, 15 million between man and the human /chimp common ancestor. Now, you acknowledge that the rate of fixation for neutral mutations can be very high and is not limited by the dilemma. We also know that the vast majority of mutations are neutral. So, when confronted with a number like 15 million, it is important to know what part of that number is actually relevant to the problem. It seems to me that you have put the cart before the horse is stating that 1667 is a problem. So, let's try to establish that there is indeed a problem.

The key question that I would ask is how many neutral mutations per beneficial mutation? 100? 1,000? 10,000? I don't know, but I do know that neutral mutations vastly outnumber beneficial mutations. If  the ratio is 10,000 to 1, this would equate to 1,500 fixed, beneficial mutations out of the 15 million. I don't know whether or not that number is reasonable, but it is certainly wise to work through the logic and try to get a feel for where the number should be. I hope this better helps you understand where I am coming from. I am not trying to obfuscate, misdirect, or evade your point. I am merely trying to establish that you indeed have a valid point.

OK, now let's take a closer look at what constitutes a beneficial mutation to try and further get our hands around this problem. It would be helpful to have a table where we list advantages that man has over this alleged ancestor. But, all we have to reference is the chimpanzee. So, what are the primary advantages that man has over the chimpanzee? You mention several above, which would fall into categories like speech, intelligence, upright posture, etc. How many different categories would there be? Many of the distinct advantages that we enjoy would be lumped together under "Intelligence". I would be very hard-pressed to name 20 different distinct areas where we have a clear, beneficial advantage over chimps.

But, remember that we are talking about the human/chimp common ancestor. So it would be a safe assumption to split the difference between chimps and us. In other words, when we say that upright walking must be covered under this 1667 limit, we must remember that it is quite possible that the ancestor was already capable of walking upright. He may have had the ability to communicate. But, let's assume that we have to get from chimp-like locomotion to upright walking. How many beneficial/neutral mutations does it take? I don't think that anyone here would dispute the fact that very minor genetic differences can lead to large phenotypic differences. In addition, since we are talking about beneficial mutations, each and every one of these would make some type of phenotypic change in the organism. Therefore, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that it would have taken relatively few beneficial mutations to result in upright posture. Could the number be as great as 100? I can't say, Walter, but the burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one arguing that it is a problem.

Maybe this is why the problem has been ignored. Because from the logic I just worked through, it is still not apparent to me that there is a problem at the definition stage of your argument. You may very well have stumbled onto something here, but the idea really needs to be better developed before it will be taken seriously by mainstream biology. I submit that if you can make more than a qualitative argument that 1667 is far too few to account for the differences, mainstream science would certainly listen. Because I am aware that there are a number of biologists who have heard your argument defined, and they do not believe that 1667 is an unreasonable number of beneficial mutations separating us from this ancestor. For the record, I still haven't taken a position on the issue, because I think it is very important to understand all sides of an argument before jumping to conclusions.

Walter ReMine:    When evolutionists bring up the "conspiracy" issue, I see they are trying to divert the discussion.

Robert:    Another clear misrepresentation. You have charged that evolutionists are aware of this very serious problem, but they ignore it. To me (and apparently to a number of others) that implies something pretty serious. I don't think my conclusion is unjustified, but this is certainly not an important point to get hung up on. But to say that I am trying to divert the discussion, while at the same time I am hammering home points key to your argument, is a little misdirection in itself.

ReMine's Response:

On Haldane's Dilemma

"Robert" writes:

Quote from Robert

1667 mutations = 1667 base pair substitutions

No.  I said 1667 mutations equals "nominally" 1667 base pair substitutions -- because the point-mutation/substitution is the type far-and-away the most frequently invoked by evolutionists, and reflects our current understanding of what nature most frequently provides.

Quote from Robert

Walter ReMine: A few fringe evolutionists are recently attempting a different tactic. They posture that the above figure isn't a problem (but evolutionists haven't published that -- it is not remotely a mainstream view), on that basis they attempt to brush aside Haldane's Dilemma altogether, with no further ado.  "Robert" and "Huxter" (both posting under pseudonyms) attempt that tactic in this forum. Robert: .... Let’s try to leave irrelevant points out of the argument, shall we?

It's not irrelevant.  The evolutionary position espoused (effectively anonymously) under the pseudonyms "Robert" and "Huxter" does not remotely represent mainstream science. Their position is almost completely absent from the technical literature -- and totally absent from literature intended for the public.  Yet it would be so easy to communicate. Leading evolutionists would need publish in the lay pop-science magazines, "We believe the origin of all mankind's adaptations from around ten million years ago, can be adequately explained through the natural substitution of no more than 1667 beneficial nucleotides (plus some number of neutral mutations)."  They have gotten nowhere near such a public position.  At the very least, until they do, it's a problem.  The disparity between Haldane's limitation and the evolutionists' public position is a problem.  

The public can readily understand this problem, and we ought communicate it to them -- rather than brush it aside (as evolutionists "Robert" and "Huxter" attempt to do).

Quote from Robert

Since we know that there are some 30-60 million fixed differences between humans and chimps, ...

Once again, that is not my argument.  My argument is not about the raw genetic difference between modern humans and modern chimps.  Because that particular approach introduces confusion factors and needless complications that make the problem less transparent and more available to evolutionary just-so story-telling.  The moment someone goes that direction, they have distorted and misrepresented my argument.  I formulated my argument specifically to provide clarity and avoid those pitfalls.  

For example, such a 'raw genetic difference' between modern lifeforms (30-60 million, in his example) substantially underestimates the total number of substitutions that would be involved, and thereby would underestimate the severity of the problem.  In many cases, multiple substitutions are expected to be made at the same site, and this would appear as "only one genetic difference" in the final difference count.  The genetic code itself constrains there to be some multiple substitutions, because it would rarely provide total latitude of amino-acid change via a single substitution.  Also most selective effects are said to be concentrated in small regions of genes -- in other words, the beneficial substitutions are not distributed evenly across genes, but are concentrated into small regions, thereby making multiple-substitutions at the same site far more likely.  There are more factors that my book expands on.  You can already get the idea.

Quote from Robert

you acknowledge that the rate of fixation for neutral mutations can be very high and is not limited by the [Haldane's] dilemma.

Yes, the neutral substitution rate is not limited by Haldane's Dilemma, but it is limited by other things.  My book gives a straightforward argument, the theory and data come from evolutionists (Kimura mostly), so the essential concept cannot be brushed aside as unsupported.  Summarizing extremely briefly here, the argument allows the substitution of only 25,000 expressed neutral mutations over that ten-million year time period of human evolution.  Arguments of this type have some force.  

That would seem to contradict what I said in a previous post, but it doesn't.  Here it is again:  You (or creationists in particular) can justify rapid rates of raw "genetic diversification" if you are willing to accept much that is non-beneficial.  And the "much that is non-beneficial" turns out to be generally unacceptable to evolutionary theory, which results in the above mentioned limitation.  If you don't understand that, don't worry, I'm just cueing you that there is much more to these issues.

Quote from Robert

The key question that I would ask is how many neutral mutations per beneficial mutation? 100? 1,000? 10,000? I don’t know, but I do know that neutral mutations vastly outnumber beneficial mutations. If the ratio is 10,000 to 1, ...

He is telling just-so stories there.  Harmful mutations have to fit in there somewhere, and he left no room for them.  For example, it is thoroughly implausible if harmful mutations are only one or two (or even three) orders of magnitude more frequent than beneficial mutations.  On the other hand, if harmful mutations are that frequent, then they are about as frequent as his neutral mutations, which violates our measures of actual mutation rates -- and, as it happens, the harmful mutations would be frequent enough to put the population into error catastrophe under current evolutionary/genetic models.  

These are the kinds of issues that come to bear on his approach -- lots of extra issues and complicating factors, and lots of his evolutionary story-telling.  Next comes more of his story-telling:

Quote from Robert

I don’t think that anyone here would dispute the fact that very minor genetic differences can lead to large phenotypic differences.

His just-so story won't fly here.  Evolutionists don't get to pick-and-choose the mutations, they must accept whatever nature provides, and nature provides -- far and away -- mutations of small phenotypic effect.

Quote from Robert

it is certainly within the realm of possibility that it would have taken relatively few beneficial mutations to result in upright posture.

If it takes "relatively few" beneficial mutations to result in upright posture, then it would be relatively easy to experimentally demonstrate.  Experiments don't show that, or the origin of any such comparable new designs today.  In other words, he's telling a just-so story.

Quote from Robert

Maybe this is why the problem has been ignored. Because from the logic I just worked through, it is still not apparent to me that there is a problem ...

My prediction is fulfilled.  He took a long, detoured, indirect approach, which introduced confusion factors and just-so story-telling  -- and he considers this suitable justification for why the problem was ignored.  That's why I vehemently object when evolutionists take that approach and misrepresent my argument.  

My argument is utterly simple and direct -- arising straight from Haldane's reasoning with no extra fuss -- nominally 1667 beneficial nucleotides to create our human adaptations.  That's total substitutions -- not the raw difference count between the starting and ending organisms.  

That's before making deductions for the factors my book identifies, for which Haldane did not account.  For example, Gould says the typical species spends at least 90 percent of its time in stasis, where little or no detectible change occurs.  At face value, this would reduce the above number by 90 percent.

Quote from Robert

You have charged that evolutionists are aware of this very serious problem, but they ignore it.

No, that's not what I charge.  Here it is again:  Haldane's Dilemma was garbled, obscured, mistakenly pronounced "solved", and brushed aside for forty years.  I say evolutionists were mistaken and negligent -- that's what I said about them.

Quote from Robert

To me (and apparently to a number of others) that implies something pretty serious. I don’t think my conclusion is unjustified,

Whatever conclusions he is drawing, they are his conclusions, and he ought not foist them off onto me.  I made my charges clearly above, if he goes any further than that, he's on his own.  I've repeatedly denied any conspiracy theory -- when evolutionists bring up conspiracy, they are trying to divert from the real issue.  

And diverting the issue costs him nothing, because "Robert" ... is anonymous.  

-- Walter ReMine
Fellow with Discovery Institute
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
--------------------------------------

At this point ReMine had clearly run out of arguments, as he purposefully misrepresented my arguments several times. The fact of the matter was that I was merely taking the position that ReMine should provide evidence for his assertions. He accused me of "just-so storytelling" for merely doing a calculation based on the known genetic differences between humans and chimps. He offered nothing in return. Yet the burden of proof is on him. Note that he also started writing my name in scare quotes. I found this obsession of his to be particularly bizarre. But, I decided that I would also play that game in my next reply.

Sixth (and final) Exchange

Robert:   On the one hand, "Walter", you claim that the problem is being ignored; on the other you claim that mainstream biologists think it is a big problem. These positions are mutually exclusive.

But perhaps you did not see my earlier post that clearly addressed a number of issues you rehashed in your latest post. Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are guilty of misdirection, evasion, and misrepresentation. Since you seem to still have an issue with some of these matters, allow me to briefly address them.

Regarding pseudonyms, once again you are unjustified in making this charge. In fact, I am fairly confident that if I had impugned your character in two consecutive posts, they would have been promptly deleted. Second, and probably more important, is the fact that my identity makes not the slightest difference regarding the strength of my argument. I can understand that it may be somewhat intimidating not knowing whether the person on the other end of the argument is the President of the United States, or a homeless person using the Internet at the local library, but I can assure you that the identity of the person will not affect the strength of a good argument. Continued harping on this matter should be exposed for the very clear attempt to change the subject that it is.

Now, let's get on to the heart of the matter. Once again, I assert that you have charged full scale into the prosecution of a crime without establishing that a crime has been committed. If you were making your case in a court of law, it would have thus far failed to establish the burden of proof. Let's try to address that issue before moving on.

“Walter ReMine”?:     It's not irrelevant.  The evolutionary position espoused (effectively anonymously) under the pseudonyms "Robert" and "Huxter" does not remotely represent mainstream science.  Their position is almost completely absent from the technical literature -- and totally absent from literature intended for the public.  Yet it would be so easy to communicate.  Leading evolutionists would need [sic] publish in the lay pop-science magazines, "We believe the origin of all mankind's adaptations from around ten million years ago, can be adequately explained through the natural substitution of no more than 1667 beneficial nucleotides (plus some number of neutral mutations)."  They have gotten nowhere near such a public position.  At the very least, until they do, it's a problem.  The disparity between Haldane's limitation and the evolutionists' public position is a problem.

Robert:    You are guilty of a grotesque misrepresentation of my position. Once again, I am not making the claim that 1667 beneficial nucleotides separate man from the alleged ancestor. I said I don’t know. Good science would dictate that a scientist attempting to revolutionize and overturn reigning paradigms should have adequately done his homework. In this case, as in any case on any scientific subject, you are expected to firmly establish the basis of your argument. By providing no estimate of how many beneficial nucleotides separate man from the alleged common ancestor, you have failed to do so.

In addition, this has been pointed out to you already, but you have already charged that this entire argument is absent from mainstream science. You have said that it has been ignored and cast aside. Therefore, if we are to accept your assertion, ANY view on the matter does not represent mainstream science. Otherwise, I expect you to support your position that 1667 beneficial nucleotides are far too few to separate man from the alleged common ancestor. Failure to do so means that your thesis is bankrupt right out of the gate. This is the key point that I am making, and I request that you address it. Only then, can we move on to other issues, such as the fact that more recent work seems to indicate that there is in fact no dilemma at all. But let's walk before we run.

"Walter ReMine":   Once again, that is not my argument.  My argument is not about the raw genetic difference between modern humans and modern chimps.  Because that particular approach introduces confusion factors and needless complications that make the problem less transparent and more available to evolutionary just-so story-telling.  The moment someone goes that direction, they have distorted and misrepresented my argument.  I formulated my argument specifically to provide clarity and avoid those pitfalls.  

Robert:    Perhaps you can show where I implied otherwise? I understand that is not your argument (clarified after your first charge of misrepresentation), but unless you are prepared to produce this alleged ancestor, all you have to work with are humans and chimps. That is how I, personally, would approach the solution to the problem. But, since you approached it another way, I am certainly interested to see your methodology, and especially your conclusions as to the expected number of beneficial nucleotides that separate man from the alleged common ancestor.

 “Walter ReMine”:    He is telling just-so stories there.  Harmful mutations have to fit in there somewhere, and he left no room for them.  

Robert:   Perhaps you misread my post. Otherwise you are once again guilty of misrepresenting my position. I told no story, I asked a question.

 “Walter ReMine”:   His just-so story won't fly here.  Evolutionists don't get to pick-and-choose the mutations, they must accept whatever nature provides, and nature provides -- far and away -- mutations of small phenotypic effect.

Robert:    Perhaps you misread my post. Otherwise, you misrepresent my position. Or do you dispute the fact that very minor genetic differences CAN lead to large phenotypic differences? Your response implies that you do.

“Walter ReMine”:   If it takes "relatively few" beneficial mutations to result in upright posture, then it would be relatively easy to experimentally demonstrate.  Experiments don't show that, or the origin of any such comparable new designs today.  In other words, he's telling a just-so story.

Robert:     I assume that you have references to show that these experiments have been attempted? Otherwise, I am not the one guilty of story telling.

“Walter ReMine”:   My prediction is fulfilled.  He took a long, detoured, indirect approach, which introduced confusion factors and just-so story-telling  -- and he considers this suitable justification for why the problem was ignored.  That's why I vehemently object when evolutionists take that approach and misrepresent my argument.

Robert:   I don’t believe your tactics here are lost on the objective observer. It is very clear that you are merely trying to divert from the issue that you can’t support your thesis. Otherwise, I would expect your next reply to make a clear argument for how many beneficial nucleotides separate man from the alleged common ancestor, and how you arrived at that conclusion. I attempted to demonstrate for you how one might go about that. You misrepresent that as "introduced confusion factors and just-so story-telling". Since it is clear from your objections that you surely have a better way of justifying your argument, we are all waiting to see it.

--------------------------------------

Despite the fact that my final post merely engaged in some of the same tactics that ReMine had instigated, it was deleted. I modified it and reposted it, and it was once again deleted. I received the following message from the anonymous "Moderator 3":

Moderator 3: Post deleted.  Repetitious of matter covered previously.  Posturing about "grotesque misrepresentation", and "Walter", etc.

Keep it concise and to the point.

Do not waste reader's time.

If you have nothing new to say, then you're done.

My response to the note from Moderator 3:

I can understand your embarrassment at the trouncing I put on Walter. But your deletion of my post is disgusting. I did nothing that Walter didn't instigate. He constantly impugned my integrity and he was doing nothing BUT posturing when complaining about my anonymity. He accused me of grotesque misrepresentation, when the fact of the matter is that he blatantly and wilfully misrepresented my position (saying 1667 beneficial mutations was enough, when I said it is unknown). This was pointed out to him on multiple occasions, but this was allowed to continue. He also repeated his pseudonym charge. One of the reasons you gave for removing my post was “repetitious of matter covered previously”. If you are unwilling to rectify this by also moderating him, then please delete me from your membership.

Also, the timing of the deletion is noted. The post stayed up all day while posts before and after were edited or deleted. It was only deleted after midnight, when Walter usually signs onto the board. My guess is that he recognized the difficulty of responding to my post, and asked you guys to help. Congratulations. You have now left his latest statements and grotesque misrepresentations appear to be unrefuted.

I understand that this put you in a difficult position, as my post was devastating to Walter's position. However, I did nothing that Walter didn't instigate. I know that to moderate me, and then leave Walter's post alone would be perceived as a clear double standard, and for good reason.

It was clear to all concerned that this is what would eventually occur - winning via moderation. I just didn't expect it to take less than a week. But again, I understand the damage control mode that you guys had to go into in order to protect the reputation and keep the myth alive with respect to one of the biggest names in Creation Science.

Sincerely,

Robert
------------------------------