Home » Intelligent Design » Wikipedia Suppresses Info On Haldane’s Dilemma

Wikipedia Suppresses Info On Haldane’s Dilemma

Wikipedia suppresses Haldane’s Dilemma by Walter J. Remine

The key figure — a limit of 1,667 beneficial mutations to explain human evolution — was brushed aside (by falsely blaming it on creationists, instead of acknowledging that it arises solely from evolutionary theory, evolutionary genetics, and J.B.S. Haldane). This key figure was repeatedly expunged from the article, leaving readers with no idea about the severity of Haldane’s Dilemma. Evolutionists suppressed this key figure. They also suppressed their history — the fact that they never revealed any such figure to the general public.

Much more at the link. Without looking I bet I can guess the names of the wiki-editor POV warriors who won’t allow balance in the article. See here.

Update: Okay, I peeked at the talk page. What a surprise. Our old friends, the ID character assassins, religion hating POV warriors, JoshuaZ and FeloniousMonk up to their usual crap.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

17 Responses to Wikipedia Suppresses Info On Haldane’s Dilemma

  1. “Without looking I bet I can guess the names of the wiki-editor POV warriors who won’t allow balance in the article”

    I can’t say I blame them. Haldane’s dilemma is very damaging to NDE belief. At the very least, it requires a big “What the h…?” from every intellectually honest thinker. Whether it’s just pure laziness or a good ole’ fashioned conspiracy, Walter ReMine deserves a lot of credit for staying on top of this.

  2. Wikipedia’s bias is generally scandalous, so imagine if the problem is that big, if elite darwinists are trying to suppress the problem, what shall we expect from darwin’s supporters

  3. I never knew that talkorigins was a Wikipedia-worth reference.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldanes_dilemma

    (at the bottom, external links)

  4. If the wikipediacs are suppressing valid and important information on evolution, what else are they suppressing?

    Can wikipedia be trusted for anything? These lame drones are putting the integrity and honesty of the whole site under suspicion.

    Someone ought to kick their dirty little a**** off the sites editors list.

    These fustilarians wouldn’t remain a second more if any honest person was controlling the site.

  5. I think that Wikipedia can be trusted on non-controversial topics. But when you get to the hot topics a bias emerges from the editors. If you want to know about the history of video games, you’ll get a pretty good article. If you want to know about the country of Zimbabwe, you’ll get pretty truthful information.

    However, if you start looking up any topics where people have strong opinions: Religion, Intelligent Design, Politics, Linux (haha), etc. then you’re definately going to get bias despit their Neutral point of view claims.

    I’d argue that bias is impossible to get rid of (if you have an opinion, it seeps in — either by why you choose to add or subtract or the way emphasis you point on praise or criticism).

  6. dodgingcars, “I’d argue that bias is impossible to get rid of”

    I fully agree with you. I think that the only solution to the problem of bias is to acknowledge its existance, and to acknowledge one’s own bias.

  7. There is a very telling question by a young student at the end of a pretty good discussion about ReMine’s article on Haldane’s dilemma:

    “I am a secondary shool student and I am making some reaserch in creadion vs. evolution discussion. I found out, that there is the Haldene’s dilemma…. …My point is, wouldn’t it be possible to make an article easy to understand for people, who do not understand biology well (i was taught evolution in school a bit, however there was not a word about the Haldene’s dilemma).”

    (Retrieved from “http://creationwiki.org/Talk:Haldane%27s_dilemma”)

    I’ll bet there was also not a word about any of the other myriad problems with ND evolutionary theory. This is an indictment of the education establishment.
    When these kids grow up and find out about Haldane’s dilemma and all the other things they weren’t taught, and start to ask questions, they’ll be told they don’t understand science. And whose fault will that be?

  8. I am sure if one wanted to there could be a weekly article titled:

    “Wikipedia Suppresses Info on ______________”

  9. I checked out the article that Walter ReMine referenced at ARN: http://creationwiki.org/Haldane%27s_Dilemma.

    It’s amazing the number of evolutionarily optimistic assumptions Haldane made and still came up with an impossible scenario for NDE. In addition, attempts to discount Haldane’s Dilemma by NDEists represent a real lesson in masterful epicycle generation and proliferation.

    Ironically, Haldane’s Dilemma is not a dilemma at all, since macroevolution never took place through random mutation and natural selection in the first place. It would only be a dilemma if it were not expected based on the evidence, and if there were any truth to the proposed creative powers of RM+NS.

  10. Gil,

    On Haldane’s Dilemma, I’ve determined the evolutionist argument goes like this:

    Orthodox evolution theory is a fact, not a theory. Therefore Haldane’s Dilemma must be wrong.

    And that’s all NeoDarwinists have to say about that.

  11. Just for the record, I want to point out that Haldane’s dilemma is only a dilemma for non-telic evolution. Telic evolution does not have the same problem, because (a) the mutations are not independent, and thus can occur in multiple organisms simulataneously, and (b) there may be mechanisms of transferring the mutations in non-descent mechanisms (such as viruses).

  12. If you want to know about the history of video games, you’ll get a pretty good article.

    Ever heard the term “fanboy”? ;)

  13. Forgive all my typos in my last post… some if it’s barely coherent. I think I was in a rush! Yeah… That’s the ticket!

  14. Can someone point me to a good link or other source that talks about Haldane’s Dilemma?

  15. http://www1.minn.net/~science/Haldane.htm
    Remine’s own website is the best source I know of.

  16. JohnnyB-

    Don’t forget the selection process could also be different in a design scenario. We all know how powerful artificial selection has been observed to be. And goal-oriented GAs provide a type of artificial selection…

  17. 17

    JoshuaZ is said there to be part of the “the scientistic cabal that rules over all the creationism-related pages.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ip/JoshuaZ

    Here we find that Felonious is a “highly partisan and sometimes disruptive editor” who works with a clique and avoids proper Wikipedia channels.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....oniousMonk

    With admins like these no wonder Wikipedia is falling apart. I just hope they repent and accept their Savior.

    Admin note: this comment was edited to move the long URL out the first line.

Leave a Reply