Why is evolution so controversial?

Well, there are a number of things wrong with this. Most obvious is your apparent assumption that every mutation in protein-coding DNA must be deleterious, which is known to be false.

It is true that ~1.7% of the genome is subject to constraint as this is approximately the percentage of the genome that codes for functional proteins (the literature varies a bit on the precise percentage, but that's not really relevant here). However, that there is a constraint in no way implies that every single mutation in this genomic region will be deleterious.Actually, the vast majority of mutations in these regions will be neutral, which throws off your calculations considerably. So I'd suggest that if you want to maintain your argument, you take this into consideration -- it's pretty important and you can't ignore it. Until then, your argument is extremely weak IMHO.On a side note, your calculation for U also fails to correct for multiple amino acid changes at the same site. The formula for that is m/100 = -ln(1 - n/100), where m = the number of amino acid changes that have taken place for a given stretch of 100 amino acids in a protein, and n = the observed number of amino acid changes. I'm pointing this out to highlight your oversimplification of the issue at hand. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

My friend Dr. Adequate You know what I have posted here is not my calculations. I only substituted in the 95% similarity in the paper found here:Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford AcademicIf you reject the proceeding calculation you must take it up with Michael W. Nachman⇓ and Susan L. Crowell.All the justifications apply to what I have done.

So do you know how these calculations work? Because they got a different U value than you did. Why is that?

So, what age do you ascribe to modern humans?And what is your evidence?

Elementary my dear Genomicus Obtain the new mutation rate, determine the total mutations per diploid and just plug it in to obtain a new U.

quote:

---

So, what age do you ascribe to modern humans?
And what is your evidence?

---

Before I answer your question, you must answer mine.If all science we observe (science has always rested in the details) can only point to one conclusion would you accept that conclusion?

Nonsense If that information was presented to me by a creationist, no.Quit dodging. What age do you ascribe to fully modern humans?

Oh metaphysical crap. Even better.

As their estimate for U is between 1.5 and 4, and your estimate is 10.7, it is you who is rejecting their calculation, and you who should take this up with Nachman and Crowell. If you think you know better then them, you should say why, rather than referring me to a paper which says you're wrong and pretending that it says you're right.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As their estimate for U is between 1.5 and 4, and your estimate is 10.7, it is you who is rejecting their calculation, and you who should take this up with Nachman and Crowell. If you think you know better then them, you should say why, rather than referring me to a paper which says you're wrong and pretending that it says you're right.

---

Do you get the part where they are using 1.33% divergence between human and chimp genomes and I am using 5% (new finding)Moving onEdited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This thread has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.

As has been pointed out, that is not a new finding. Nor is your substitution legitimate --- they can count the point mutations, you haven't counted the indels. Knowing how big they are isn't the same as knowing how many of them there are.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'd suggest that instead of spending most of your time responding to replies of a general nature, you spend some time responding to my Message 548, Message 549, Message 550, and Message 557. I have rather thoroughly excoriated your arguments, and you haven't responded to any of it.If you want to talk molecular phylogenetics and genomics, let's talk about it. If you want to engage with substantive counterpoints to your arguments, I'd suggest you get to it instead of avoiding the issues I brought up. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.