Why is evolution so controversial?

quote:

---

The scenarios are, actually, tenable when you take into consideration the exponential population growth that humans have gone though:

---

No surprise, any high school math student knows about the population growth curve. Fish, fowl, insects All follow that curve. Even humans. By the way, why doesn’t that curve start back 200,000 years given the growth constant for humans?Wow, your graph corresponds to ~4300 years of growth in population Let us see, what event as recorded in the Bible corresponds to ~4300 years ago.

quote:

---

Then why did you say that it was not tenable?

---

Because humans are not and can not sustain 600 mutations per generation per individual. We are only about 70 mutations per generation per individual now.

quote:

---

However, you can't directly plug 5% into the formula you're using. That's because the formula is based on the percent identity estimated from point mutations, not indels. If you trace the formula you're using back to the primary literature, you can see that it's all about point mutations -- indels don't work in the formula if you're going off of gross percent dissimilarity. The formula comes from Kimura's landmark 1983 work. Read it.
It's not really biologically appropriate to conflate indels with point mutations in this context, and you can't use that formula with indels unless you count each indel as a single mutational event, instead of treating each difference in base pair as a single mutational event. Make sense?

---

Yes at the time the paper was accepted there was no controversy about mutation rates because indels were not in play, that is because they were not thought to affect protein coding. I have not seen any appropriate argument that indels are excluded in equivalency to SNP’s since about 2001. The statistics are the same. I am not an expert here but I can do the math. Maybe you are referring to a paper I do not have access to.I really need a quote (in the literature) from you to back up your point. I have not been able to reject 95% similarity as a calculable quantity (I have tried in ernest). I will stop my claims about indels if you can present a objective counterclaim.It has already been found that the necessary point mutations to reconcile a chimp human split at 5.6 million years is deficient by about half the needed mutations, since this paper was written.Calculated: 175 mutations per generation.Found empirically: 70 mutations.In regards to SNP mutations outside protein coding (those in supposed junk DNA). Well that DNA is not just junk is it?If you remember from the chimp genome project about 700 million bp did not align. Those so called long repeats and duplications. What do you think the actual divergence will end up as?Maybe 75% or 80% similarity Just asking. By the way your responses are very thoughtful thanks.

quote:

---

Read the rest of that page for the complete explanation. You, like Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering, former President of the ICR and co-creator of "creation science", made the fundamental mistake of using an invalid mathematical model. You both used the "pure-birth model", which makes the assumption of unlimited resources so there are no limits placed on population growth. In reality, the environment can only support a limited number of critters (eg, bunnies, humans), so as the population approaches that limit, known as the environment's "carrying capacity", its growth starts to slow down, stop, and even go into fluctuation between periods of growth and decline. The model that takes carrying capacity into account is called the "logistic model" and even that model cannot take into account other significant factors, such as predator-prey cycles and catastrophic events (eg, the Black Death, during which the European population's growth rate declined) and migration (which is a factor when trying to model the growth of the US population).

---

Silly people Don’t believe everything you read at talkorigins.comDid you know that (r) the rate of natural increase is a unit less factor that auto adjusts environment, reproductive rates and food source (among other things). The value of accepted (r) is between .01 and .005 for humans. The plague in Europe and the world wars do affect the value of (r). Otherwise humans usually settle in environments conducive to their well being and reproductive benefit.Now lets look at the bunnyN = ne^rt
Biblical (r) prior to the plague = .007 to .01I will use post plague and world wars for a value of (r) = .005About the number of individuals around the year 2500 bc (scratch this, it is prior flood)If you use (r) = .005 from 4300 years ago and 8 individuals in the ark you get a population of 7 billionYou know what is even sillier 10 thousand humans hanging around for 50,000 years with effective zero population growth. You know that long narrow bottleneck theory that is accepted in evolution dynamics.using (r) = .005 over 50,000 years with an initial population of 10 thousand you get (OOPs error overflow). My calculator does not display such large numbers.Now who’s proposition is sillier?Numbers don’t lie people doEdited by zaius137, : My error

quote:

---

If you are going to use indels, then you need to treat them as single mutations. 1.33% divergence is correct because 1.33% of 3E6 is 39.9 million mutations, the total number of substitutions and indels added together.
Also, you only have an effective population size of 1,000. That's way low. Most calculations use a minimum of 10,000, and many have 100,000.

---

I think that would be 1.33% x ~6.4 billion (remember diploid genome).Went back in my notes, I did use 10,000, just recorded wrong.

quote:

---

N = ne^rt

​

Are you kidding? Are you really that clueless? Don't you know what that equation is? It is the pure-birth model. The one that doesn't work because it doesn't take the environment's carrying capacity into account.

---

No it is not look at the equation. A pure-birth model is not a continuous-growth formula. Before you go off into left field do a little reasearch. I will take you back to your high school days you did go to high school?Exponential Functions: The "Natural" Exponential "e"

quote:

---

Let's pretend that we are Asgardians. After having placed that couple on that island, we return 1000 years later. What do we find? How many people are living on that island now?

​

According to your population model, with an r value of .005 we would find about 297 people living on that island. That island that cannot support more than 100 people. Would you care to explain how that many people could living there? And if we had waited for 2000 years, as we Asgardians could easily have done, then you would insist that we should find 44,053 people living on that island which cannot support more than 100.

---

Now you are being obtuse. I did say that an (r) takes into account environment too.You must calculate a new (r) for that island, you know with a initial population over a set time frame ending in a final population. Do the math and you can predict a population at some reasonable point in the future.No I am not a prophet, I can do simple math.

quote:

---

Perhaps you should do some of that research. A pure birth model results in an exponential growth rate of exactly the same form as the continuous growth formula.
Here is a link to reference deriving the relationship. See the derivation illustrated by formulas (1), (2), and (3) in the following paper.

​

Error Page

---

In the first sentence you seem to affirm the validity of applying the continuous-growth equation.I did skim read the paper With some modification to the continuous-growth equation you can normalize the end population to a limit of resources. This works good for bacteria in a jar with limited growth media. But humans are bit smarter than bacteria right? We do grow most of our own food for example, that is true for all recorded history.My point if you renormalize a (r) to a local environment, the renormalization to end population is not necessary. Unlike bacteria we do not live in a jar.My point still stands

quote:

---

The yield per acre and the people needed per acre has changed drastically through time, and it even differs between modern societies.
You have made an unwarranted assumption that the human population has grown at the same rate throughout history.

---

I do admit it is a stretch I did not imply it was not.But a lesser stretch than claiming a human population of ~10,000 has a effective zero growth over 50,000 years. The old long bottle neck nonsence.

quote:

---

Now, if you had actually learned any math, then you would know that a value which is dependent on another value is not handled by a constant, but rather by a function. A pure-birth/death model uses a constant rate, whereas a logistic model uses a rate which is a function of the conditions, primarily of the population size.

---

Actually the function for (N resulting population) is the constant-growth eqation. I used (r) as a local constant. Again you only persist in obscuration.Referring back to the paper you cited, the deterministic and stochastic models for population growth do not further your arguments.Since I am not being either precise or exhaustive about human growth rates, but only outline a general truth, your objections are only a side show.Look at my illustration:Effective zero population growth in humans from a initial population of 10,000 over 50,000 years is a fairytale. It is a whole cloth fabrication and defies logic.Your illustration the bunny concerning human population since a flood, although creative, fails to supersede the bottleneck as being the more ridiculous.You construct a straw-man argument and battle me over minutia.

P.S. Try to shorten your novel like responses so I do not have to spend all day parsing the Bull

quote:

---

Yet again, I wrote that essay! I read the 13 resources in my bibliography. Dr. Henry Morris is apparently the ultimate source for your human population growth claim, so you really should learn what his model was. I present his treatment of his idea starting from his 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, up to three of his presentation of it in the mid-1970's and ending with another presentation in 1985; it's all right there in the bibliography. I chased down some of his own sources (though I learned when researching his moondust claim that he could not be trusted to have actually read or even looked at the sources that he "cited", but then that's common for creationists) and compared what they were claimed to have said v what they actually said. And I cited critics of the model.
But of course you didn't understand any of it. Assuming that you had even attempted to actually read it.

---

My point still standsYou can write any essay you want, but still have not addressed my point I am not here to read an essay.My example:Effective zero population growth in humans from a initial population of 10,000 over 50,000 years is a fairytale. It is a whole cloth fabrication and defies logic. I wait for a answer Otherwise you can keep your straw man to yourself.About exponential growth in human populationStep back and look at the recorded of human population . The one posted from the wiki is good. Does the curve look exponential? Define a growth curve yourself and we can discuss it (and I can repudiate it).Now about that zero population growth Have populations ever been shown to be flat and not be on the verge of extinction? Show me and we can look at the particulars.You pass the class for excess verbiage now show me you can present a reasonable argument.

quote:

---

What an odd model, population seemed to be doubling every 500 years but in the last 200 years we've increased in population size by seven-fold. What a silly idea.

---

What is the challenge here? To fit a (r) to your numbers? I can do that. Now here is your questionEffective zero population growth in humans from a initial population of 10,000 over 50,000 years is a fairytale. It is a whole cloth fabrication and defies logic.How can it be true?

According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000—10,000 surviving individuals.[32][33] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.[34] Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

quote:

---

You just cannot model population size with a single simplistic formula.

---

I agree and I was carful not to be dogmatic about the formula I used (it provided only a foil for my point.).The illustration is that human growth is exponential. I like the graph supper.Now you can answer the question How could a breeding population of humans remain at effective zero growth for 50,000 years?

quote:

---

The challenge is that since using your numbers and model produces absurd results -have to admit this or show how I'm wrong.

---

What absurd results are you referring to? My simple point is that human population growth is exponential by all observable and recorded evidence.

quote:

---

The maximum sustainable population size was steady until such time as methods and technology existed (ie., agriculture) to increase the maximum sustainable population size, at which point the population would increase in size until it found a new plateau. By 5,000 years ago or so, the plateaus were short lived and they became shorter and shorter till they stopped existing. Right now we are growing at a huge rate - chasing a maximum sustainable population size that we are continuing to find ways of increasing. If Malthus was right, there is a real risk we'll hit a plateau and it will hurt.

---

The problem is that if you are talking 50,000 or 70,000 year time frames and we were fully human back then (no significant evolution in 50,000 years). With our enlarged brains why is the last 5000 years so magical? Technology only reared it’s head now?Your story can be reallocated to the other fables of evolution.