Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 541 of 969 (739269)
10-22-2014 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 540 by New Cat's Eye
10-22-2014 11:39 AM


Re: What if God used evolution to create man?
It's presumable ultimately derived from the 1993 Takahata paper and it's a broadly quoted figure. Other more recent estimates have been a bit lower.
It's certainly the case that there have been significant bottlenecks in human population history and, accordingly, humans have a low effective population size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-22-2014 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 587 of 969 (739429)
10-23-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by Taq
10-23-2014 6:46 PM


Re: What if God used evolution to create man?
It's worth noting at this point that there is no single and coherent definition of what the difference between two sequences is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Taq, posted 10-23-2014 6:46 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by Taq, posted 10-23-2014 6:56 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied
 Message 598 by Genomicus, posted 10-23-2014 8:32 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 606 of 969 (739455)
10-24-2014 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by Genomicus
10-23-2014 8:32 PM


Re: What if God used evolution to create man?
My point is that there are lots of different ways you can quantify it and none of them are unambiguously correct nor do any of them have a clear claim to being the way to do it.
Your method is just one way of doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Genomicus, posted 10-23-2014 8:32 PM Genomicus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Taq, posted 10-24-2014 1:07 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(1)
Message 802 of 969 (740225)
11-03-2014 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 800 by zaius137
11-03-2014 1:18 AM


Re: A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.
I am familiar with the evo perspective but my personal view differs somewhat.
That doesn't make any sense. Mitochondrial Eve is only a meaningful concept under the evolutionary perspective. The very calculations are, like everything else in biology, saturated in evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by zaius137, posted 11-03-2014 1:18 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by zaius137, posted 11-03-2014 3:14 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 831 of 969 (740345)
11-04-2014 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 807 by zaius137
11-03-2014 3:14 PM


Re: A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.
Oh dear, not the most credible source, I'm afraid. Cherry-picked data and a confused blending of methods doesn't give a reliable estimate.
I suggest you'd be rather better off reading the research of actual scientists rather than agenda-driven drivel of creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by zaius137, posted 11-03-2014 3:14 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 833 by zaius137, posted 11-04-2014 11:34 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


(2)
Message 845 of 969 (740384)
11-04-2014 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by zaius137
11-04-2014 11:34 AM


Re: A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.
Words cannot express how little your faith matters to me. I'm a committed secularist: I believe in your absolute right to whatever religion you choose. Equally, I'm totally unimpressed by any argument based in faith; the only agenda I have - relevant to this discussion at least - is that of evidence-based science.
Scientists don't believe in Evolution because of some agenda but because we follow where the evidence leads. The great thing about science is that we can argue based on objectively-verifiable facts so my agenda, and yours, are pretty much irrelevant. The problem for you is that the objectively-verifiable facts do not support the version of history that you are religiously committed to.
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by zaius137, posted 11-04-2014 11:34 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 850 by zaius137, posted 11-04-2014 1:29 PM Dr Jack has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 846 of 969 (740386)
11-04-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by frako
11-04-2014 2:51 AM


Re: Any real evidence for evolution, point on point.
It's a widely used figure with some evidential basis, although a slightly higher figure of around 23 is probably more accurate. As you say, we have little direct information for extinct species so any value is going to be of slightly questionable accuracy.
In any case I think Zaius use of the figure is perfectly legitimate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by frako, posted 11-04-2014 2:51 AM frako has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 849 of 969 (740390)
11-04-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by zaius137
11-04-2014 1:12 PM


Re: A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.
Neanderthals were fully human and actively interbreeding with other humans.
If that is the case how come they are so morphologically distinct? And so genetically separated?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by zaius137, posted 11-04-2014 1:12 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 852 by zaius137, posted 11-04-2014 1:36 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 854 of 969 (740395)
11-04-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 852 by zaius137
11-04-2014 1:36 PM


Re: A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.
How are pigmies so morphologically distinct?
Geographical and cultural separation. Pygmies are also nowhere near as morphologically distinct as Neanderthals. You may also be interested in findings reported in this paper on the genetic divergence of African pygmies from other groups.
My opinion: There has been a very recent bottleneck to a few individuals in very recent human history. At that bottleneck a lot of human diversity was lost. The surviving Neanderthal alleles were pre incorporated in the remaining human genome.
Perhaps you'd like to quantify this bottleneck? Preferably in a manner which explains why European populations share certain Alleles with Neanderthals that are not found among African populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by zaius137, posted 11-04-2014 1:36 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024