Walter ReMine and Haldane's Dilemma (take 1)

Walter James ReMine has now joined the CreationWiki to bring enlightenment about Haldane's Dilemma to the general public. ReMine isn't a computer programmer, he is an electrical engineer, so he is actually outside the scope of my salvation project - and I anyway have reasons to believe that he's beyond redemption. In the section Walter ReMine and Haldane's Dilemma ReMine presents himself as an "Intelligent design theorist". What's wrong with "Baraminologist"? Anyway, ReMine is no loger a Discovery Institute Fellow, so we may wonder, if he uses this title with permission. ReMine "brought Haldane’s Dilemma to general readership in 1993". Seeing that nobody has read his book The Biotic Message, this may be a slight exaggeration. Further we are informed that the core problem is "the Haldane limit", the 1,667 beneficial mutations granted for human evolution. The number 1,667 is ReMine's. In The Cost of Natural Selection (1957), J.B.S. Haldane did mention the number 300 as a suggested average number of generations between gene fixations. The number 1,667 derives from dividing 10 million years with 300 generations with 20 years between generations. The 10 million years is a conservative estimate of the time since the hominid line split from the (other) apes. So, yes, indirectly the number 1,667 derives from Haldane; but it's not his limit. Also it's not mutationd, but gene substitutions, we are dealing with, and that makes a difference. As for the meaning of "limit" see the article's Talk page. ReMine claims that "evolutionists did not communicate Haldane’s Dilemma to the general public"; but what was there to communicate? That there is a limit to how fast evolution can go? Well, who claimed anything else? The dinosaurs went extinct; have the evilutionist conspirators ever denied this? But don't worry - ReMine has done his to inform the general public about how the evilutionists have confused the whole thing to hide is away. In AiGs Technical Journal 19(1), 2005, is a paper by ReMine that explains everything, Cost theory and the cost of substitution - a clarification. According to ReMine, "[l]eading evolutionary geneticists, including James Crow and Warren Ewens, peer-reviewed the paper and acknowledge it is correct. " So why was it not published in a standard science journal, but in a creationist-specific journal? ReMine forgets - out of modesty - to write that Crow and Ewens rejected his paper, because it contained nothing new; it's material had been known since the 1970s. I could write a paper saying that 2+2=4. It would be correct; but hardly ground-breaking news. More to follow ... Cheers for now.