[elfman2]

"The basic answer to that question is known as the Haldane Dilemma, after the famous mathematician and population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane who published his work in the mid 1950s. The basic answer is that you would need trillions and quadrillions of years, and not just the tens of millions commonly supposed. "

It takes all of two minutes to google up how the Haldane Dilemma is invalid .

“Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.

More in-depth analysis of the Haldane Dilemma here .

I think a reasonable person can be a believer in creation or ID, and I have absolutely nothing against them. But there’s something seriously wrong with someone who goes out of their way to misrepresent evolution.

[grey_whiskers]

I think a reasonable person can be a believer in creation or ID, and I have absolutely nothing against them. But there’s something seriously wrong with someone who goes out of their way to misrepresent evolution.

"Going out of their way to misrepresent" .NE. "Not doing sufficient background"