I must start out by saying that I have not read this book. However, I saw a creationist present the follwing quote from it the other day:



"Haldane calculated that it would take (on average) 300 generations (>6,000 yrs) to select a single new mutation to fixation, given what he considered a 'reasonable' mixture of recessive and dominant mutations. Selection at this rate is so slow that it is essentially the same as no selection at all. This problem has classically been called 'Haldane's dilemma'. At this rate of selection, once could only fix 1,000 beneficial nucleotide mutations within the whole genome in the tiem since we supposedly evolved from chimps (6 million yrs). This simple fact has been confirmed independently by Crow and Kimura(1970), and ReMine (1993, 2005). The nature of selection is such that selecting for one nucleotide redues our ability to select for other nucleotides (selection interference). Simultaneous selection does not help.



"At first glance, the above calculation seems to suggest that one might at least be able to select for the creation of one small gene (of up to 1,000 nucleotides) in the time since we reputedly diverged from champanzee. There are two reasons why this is not true. 1. Haldane's calculation were only for independent, unlinked mutations. Selection for 1,000 specific and adjacent muations could not happen in 6 million yrs because that specific sequence of adjacent mutations would never arise, not even in 6 billion yrs."

-pp 128-9





Now, I will ignore for the moment that this Cornell 'geneticist' cites creationist electical engineer Walter ReMine for anything having to do with genetics, but if this quote is accurate, then Sanford either does not understand Haldane's model - AT ALL - or he is purposefully misrepresenting it to make his silly position seem more viable.



And apparently he isn't willing to talk about it - I emailed him more than 2 weeks ago, only asking if the quote was accurate. No reply.



Can anyone here verify the acuracy of that quote?