Why is evolution so controversial?

quote:

---

Even if humans have always grown exponentially - would you agree that this will not always be so?

---

Well I have never backed off the fact that human population follows an exponential curve. The continuous-growth formula is accepted in all kinds of scientific fields. It is a good statistical tool to determine future population levels. I generalized a (r) to cover the entire human growth history from 1300 bc (I admit this is not very accurate).Here are contemporary growth rates: That is between .013 to .02 for the value of (r). As I have maintained all along growth rates vary (adjust the r).Now a growth rate for 400 bc when Israel entered Egypt. That would be about (.018) for 700 entering Egypt and 1 million exiting. Does this seem so fantastic?

Now you can answer the question How could a breeding population of humans remain at effective zero growth for 50,000 years?

Your posts are too wordy, just condense the thoughtYou have never answered my question. How can human population growth hover around zero for 50,000 years with an initial population of 10,000. This is ridiculous and in need of explanation.

It is used in population gains for bacteria samples, wild fish populations etc. all the time I believe it is a good local approximation You really need to address the zero population growth over 50,000 years. I still say that a local calculated (r) can estimate population gains for humans.

Would you be surprised if there is no answer for a zero growth rate in human population. I have been needling you for a answer that does not exist. You seem like a good sport I would like to talk to you again Thanks for the exchange.

quote:

---

There are several answers to his question in this thread.

---

I am not joking about this, there is no answer. You see one near extinction event after another does not do the job of keeping down the diversity of the population. As soon as the population grows past 10,000 individuals, pocket isolation drives up the diversity. The population must be keep homogenous. The compared genomes of all humans today is observed to be homogenous in this manner. If you allow a bumpy multitude of near extinction events a homogenous population is not sustained . The growth percentage must remain literally zero over 50,000 years.That is like balancing a bowling ball on the head of a pencil. It has never been seen in any wild population ever. You balance your bowling ball on the pencil, I will accept a recent origin of our species.

quote:

---

Why? If subpopulations remain genetically isolated then speciation can occur, just as has happened in the past (there are several sister Homo species in the past, one of them is Homo neanderthalensis).

---

Neanderthals are clearly not a different species than man If they could interbreed frequently Your definition is not my definition of a species.

quote:

---

It is obvious from the world around you that the human population is NOT homogeneous, but has many varieties (races) that are observably distinct even though inter-breeding can and does occur. This is no different that different varieties in other species showing some distinctive geographical variations while maintaining inter-breeding capability.

---

My definition of homogeneous here refers particularly to the genome. In the sense that humanity shows considerable linkage disequilibrium in the population genome. in fact the claim has been that this linkage disequilibrium has been stable in the human genome for about 5 million years and cross over has just manifested itself in the last 5000 years. (research by John Hawks Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1999
Associate Professor of Anthropology At UW-Madison since 2002)

quote:

---

But there is no requirement for all Homo sapiens descendants to stay in the Homo sapiens species. Divergence can occur as it has in the past.
And distinct varieties can develop while remaining in the Homo sapiens species and not staying homogeneous in non-breeding areas of the genome.

---

Your perspective is purely from common descent. Which I have effectively argued against in this thread. No common descent from a HCLCA dictates Homo sapiens are in stasis.Edited by zaius137, : Pasting error....

quote:

---

No, your position is a joke, whether you realize it or not -- because it has been invalidated by objective empirical evidence that contradicts what you claim.

---

Please present the empirical evidence, I have only run across contradictory speculation in the papers I have seen.

quote:

---

Your position is a joke because you fail to understand the evidence for a population bottleneck from two different sources are talking about the same singular event.

---

Please be specific. Without writing a novel.

quote:

---

Your position is a joke because you think "between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago" is a 50,000 year long period rather than the approximate range within which a bottleneck event occurred.

---

My friend to explain linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, there is no recovery except for extended time frames, some as long as 100,000 years.

quote:

---

Another way to say it is that 75,000 +/- 25,000 years ago a population bottleneck event occurred. Curiously this compares quite well with the data from newer more accurate source that says the same singular population bottleneck event occurred ~70,000 years ago. One event, two different sets of data that are conscilient, reinforcing each other and giving us greater confidence in the results.

---

Authorities have issued conflicting theories in that area. As far as I know the recovery time is still tens of thousands of years. I am particularly interested in you showing me a proposed recovery time.

quote:

---

And again you fail to understand that the period of the extinction event was not 50,000 years but a brief period within an approximate 50,000 year accuracy range -- at some point between 50,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago a brief bottleneck event occurred ... at some point around 75,000 years ago (+/- 25,000 years) a brief bottleneck event occurred -- an estimate that is now confirmed by new data showing that approximately 70,000 years ago a brief bottleneck event occurred -- ONE event, One brief bottleneck event.

---

Again no citation I can look atPlease less Razmataz and more citation... thanksEdited by zaius137, : No reason given.

OK DocI honestly could not follow your reasoning.I think stability in this case can best be represented by a phase-plot using population dynamics. The logistic model is:

Setting the differential to zero, two zero growth crossings are found, one stable the other unstable. The upper population (N (k)) is dictated by the carrying capacity of the environment and growth is exponential to that point. The lower population(N(0)) is the population dictated by the statistical model needed to fulfill the requirement of the bottleneck and is determined by statistics (some low population over long time spans). I want to make it clear that carrying capacity is variable per the environment. Any "assigned population" on the populaten axis will exhibit the same instability as the first crossing point.It is a bowling ball resting on the head of a pencil.All the details found here:NO REDIRECTEdited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Make equations more easily visible.

quote:

---

Curiously I have already presented it -- that you failed to understand it is not my fault. (Search thread for your post with "supper" in it).

---

Yet you still draw the same wrong conclusions. Inventing impossible bottleneck scenarios because evolution science needs to establish why the human genome exhibits linkage disequilibrium; it is ad-hock and scientifically unsustainable.

quote:

---

So you take a speculative extreme view as fact because it suits your beliefs

---

I have backed up all my arguments with accepted science. Just because speculative extreme views are held by some does not deter a logical examination by curious laymen (myself).As for your other comments. You still do not understand, that the low population choices that evolutionists present have nothing to do with caring capacity; because they do not know it (their argument is circular). We are not Buffalos or even bacteria, we have reason and intelligence, Humans can and do modify the caring capacity of their environments. Yes human population growth is exponential and with adequate normalization can be modeled mathematically.

quote:

---

So there is, literally, an infinite number of things the population can do which will result in the same heterozygosity as though the population had stayed exactly the same over the same time period.

---

Possibly, but I usually consider the Occam’s razor in such matters and reject fairy tails out of hand.

quote:

---

And where did you demonstrate that they were wrong? Post number and quote please.

---

Unfortunately, I can not persuade a individual that has outgrown logic."Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75."
Benjamin Franklin

Bozo could prove Evolution.A final hope for the theory of evolution could rest on Bozo. He is the ideal example of natural selection, symbiosis, mutation, gene drift and horizontal gene transfer. The fossil record shows that Tiktaalik’s flippers explain Bozo’s flipper like feet in an amazing way. Fossil evidence may be somewhat lacking for his direct ancestry but that should not be considered an obstacle for traditional evolution. Although my right wing Christian friends have cast doubts that maybe Bozo is just some want to be actor dressed up as some freak.What do they know? They also consider evolution as want to be science.
My frustration here is not with the critics of evolution but the lack there of. The branches of that hominid family tree, according to the theory, should support the phylogenic tree. But these days’ recent findings in the fossils are causing an explosion of new supposed of hominids. You evolutionists have no reason for concern; evolution will just change its view (again).

quote:

---

The question on this thread is "Why is evolution so controversial?" and you have made an interesting, convoluted and sometimes funny argument, but not one that - even if accepted - would change biological evolution teaching or alter the Theory of Evolution.

---

I apologize for being off point. Most of what we have talked about here has been rehashed many times in other threads, so it is hard to keep things fresh.

quote:

---

Your problem is more internal inconsistency and failure to address known facts of population growth.

---

I think it might be a good idea for you to clarify any points in this discussion and what responses are incomplete.From my perspective, I would like some citations of actual papers (that are available in full) when you claim my point is unsubstantiated. This subject is changing fast in scientific circles and even recent papers throw out previous axioms.

quote:

---

The "final hope" rests on the overwhelming, crushing evidence of the fossil record, genetics, morphology, etc. And yeah, it seems pretty damn final. This is why the opponents of evolution are reduced to posting gibberish about clowns. Apparently that's their final hope.
Let us know how that works out for you.

---

It was a jest nothing more.