Why is evolution so controversial?

quote:

---

And there is a huge amount of evidence out there that you are ignoring--evidence which disproves the beliefs in a young earth and a recent origin for modern humans.

---

My finding is that every time you speculate about a phenomena (particulars of evolution), there is always a alternate or more complete explanation. It is the global view, of all evidence for evolution, that will show evolution not only incomplete but incongruent.

quote:

---

Yes, a procedure is a method. If you're questioning your procedures then you are doing methodology.

---

Would that include sfs's objection to Hawks?

Good post...

quote:

---

It would be vulnerable to genetic drift just like the other 80% or so of the genome that does not have selectable function.

---

No, The tagged gene segment is what genetics has labeled highly conserved. The exact generational transfer mechanism is still unknown. What is sure is that the epigenetic transfer mechanism is far more complicated than the information it transfers. This involves a separate transfer mechanism in chromatin. See some speculation here: How is epigenetic information maintained through DNA replication? | Epigenetics & Chromatin | Full TextWhere would you fit this into the evolution paradigm? Let me try to fit it in1. Genetic Drift.. No, gene segments are highly conserved.2. Gene Flow No, allele recombination is not a primary mechanism for epigenetic inhearatence.3. MutationsNo, tags are not initiated by genetic mutation.4. Natural Selection No, natural selection does not modify the tags.Where do you place it?Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The evidence produced by science that shows an old earth and modern humans originating from earlier forms some 160,000-200,000 years ago fills multiple floors of major libraries as well as hundreds of museums and other similar facilities.

---

Creationists would label all of those earlier hominids apes. I already argued that examination of the human genome shows it is young. John Hawks says that Neanderthals were closer to humans than modern humans today, this drags along all the other so called lines of homo that went extinct. All human.

quote:

---

If you have evidence that contradicts this it would be nice if you would present it. And at the same time you present it to various peer-reviewed journals, please consider presenting it here as well.

---

I have done just that

quote:

---

But be aware that you have to overturn multiple fields of science, and evidence accumulated over several hundred years, so you better make it good. (And check the various PRATT lists for those arguments that have already been refuted.)

---

The evidence is evidence not the interpretation of it. I do not want to overturn science (I am the one using it here to show evolution is wrong). I do not have to overturn evolution because science is overturning it.

quote:

---

In this thread, all you have shown is that you don't fully understand the science. For example, you failed to understand that a 1,000 base indel is counted as a single mutation, not as 1,000 individual mutations. You also assume that populations always increase in number at a set rate. There is absolutely no science to back this up.
In other words, I would suggest some introductory jousting lessons before you go tilting at windmills, Don Quixote.

---

A complete misrepresentation of my posts. I never claimed any of this.

quote:

---

You used indel count in an equation which required a mutation count, and then insisted that others provide peer reviewed documentation that you were wrong. That's pretty solid evidence that you don't understand the subject.
As for population growth, I agree that Taq has oversimplified your errors by saying that you are requiring population to grow at a constant rate. What you actually are claiming is that population always grows at an exponential rate where you've allowed for some small variation in the exponent.

---

Yes, I used indel count of 95%, here are half a dozen papers promoting just that issue, similarity between 93% and 95%:Just a moment...Just a moment...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...020924_dnachimp_2.htmlCharacterization and potential functional significance of human-chimpanzee large INDEL variation | Mobile DNA | Full TextComparative Genomic Analysis of Human and Chimpanzee Indicates a Key Role for Indels in Primate Evolution | SpringerLinkAn initial map of insertion and deletion (INDEL) variation in the human genome I showed that even if you use 98.7% similarity and the new "measured mutation" rate of 1.1 x 10^-8, you get about a 13 million year divergence of humans and chimps (calculated via accepted calculations). That number is proposed by several authorities in the field of genetics, that confirms the calculation I use.I accept your assessment of Taq’s comments. Just to clarify my position:I advocated using the simple exponential growth formula with a local growth percentage to estimate human population growth. I did this because humans alter their environments caring capacity yielding a good short term estimate (local estimate). I also noted the exponential growth rate can be normalized to to end population found here: Error Page Yes, that derived calculation is far better than the simple one I used. I do not dispute that.

See above...

The good lawyer example for putting down creationism. I like it. Except all the good lawyers are also the best liars.

quote:

---

Humans are apes.

---

"However, science tells us that animals can have cognitive faculties that are superior to human beings."Read more at: http://phys.org/...2-humans-smarter-animals-experts.html#jCpThis could explain my frustration as it relates to evolutionists.

quote:

---

You are introducing a red herring. What is being questioned is not the particular indel count, but the use of the count in an equation that was expecting a mutation count. You have yet to justify doing that or to give a satisfactory response to anyone who has questioned you.

---

Maybe we should discuss this further.Your argument says that indels do not count as divergence percentage between humans and chimps (countable mutations) because they are not SNPs. I get that and got that. What you do not understand is that stand alone SNPs can not account for the differences between chimps and humans. I could reduce this to a simple logic point by saying that we are genetically closer to the HCLCA than to chimps.Now does the HCLCA look more like a chimp or a human? Paleoanthropology would most defiantly say a chimp. But our genes would say that human genes have to be closer to the HCLCA than a chimp. Do you see a dichotomy here?If you like, ignore that pointEven if you count each indel as a single mutation because those mutations affect coding (my citations) you get ~125 million mutation events (~45 million in chimp and ~45 million in humans the rest exist in both) regardless of bp lengths. This gives you a best similarity of .125/6.4 or ~2%.I regress back to Nachman, Crowell.t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 2%
Ne= effective size of population ~10^5
(u)=mutation rate 1.1 x10^-8t= .5(k/u-4Ne) from Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford AcademicYou still get a divergence time of ~14 million years.That is giving concessions to the evolutionist. Further differences must be noted in the regulation segments of DNA. Epigenetic’s is just one of those differences.Your right doc...
My mistake you must add this to the SNPs2% + 1.3% gives 3.3% recalculating gives 26 million years since divergence.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.Edited by zaius137, : Needed revision.

Good post...

Good post...

quote:

---

Counting an indel as single mutation is exactly what you cannot do because a single mutation can remove or insert lots of indels. I believe the second reference on that list you provided actually says that explicitly.

---

Don’t quit yet. If you could cite the exact passage of that second reference you mention that says that explicitly you can prove your point. If I am wrong about this whole thing, I would rather you point it out now.Maybe I missed something in the citations or I need to study this more.

New papers showing a drop in human chimp similarity abound. Regardless if the percentage number I used is right, the conclusion is still bad for evolution.Here is representation of a SNP verses a indel event. Both are mutations and both decrease the sequence similarity (bp count is irrelevant). Humans and chimps are far different than just 1.3% in their genomes. It seems like a perfect storm in new genetic discoveries all against common descent.Outlining the individual problems from genetic studies:There are not enough mutations available since divergence to accommodate a 95% similarity. 5.6 million years (the fossil nonsense) is below the needed time frame to produce enough beneficial mutations from divergence. Excessive junk DNA in the human and chimp genome is not real. Ancient bottlenecks in small human populations is unstable and can not explain observed linkage disequilibrium in humans. Epigenetic’s can not be explained by Darwinism. There is a mitochondrial Eve and a Y chromosome Adam.