Why is evolution so controversial?

What the hell does talkorigins.org have to do with my essay? I very clearly stated that I wrote it on 08 June 1991, which was several years before the talkorigins.org web site even came into existence. A few years before the general public had even been granted access to the Internet. Which is why I had originally posted my essay on CompuServe, a dial-up service -- again, as I clearly stated.I am the author of that essay and I did perform the research. I read each and every one of the thirteen sources that I cite in the bibliography.I want to recommend that you go visit your talkorigins.com site, but I won't. It's obviously a porn or infected site that preys on fools such as yourself who have no idea what they are doing; it's a very old trick, like WhiteHouse.com and nassa.com were and maybe still are.But I would recommend very strongly that you do go visit the real site, talkorigins.org. You have a lot to learn and that is a good site through which to learn. Assuming that you are capable of learning, which is contraindicated by your conduct so far here. A constant that automatically adjusts to other factors? A constant that is not constant? Whatever kind of math did you learn?Oh no! Kent Hovind used to teach math and science in his own private Christian high school. He did that for 13 years, so he claims to have done it for 15 years, apparently a victim of his own ignorance of the subject matter. I have often wondered what that experience had done to his students. Are you one of those poor souls? No wonder you don't understand math! I feel so sorry for you! 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.You go through all that trouble to quote part of what I had posted and you never even bother to read it? Here it is again; read it this time:

quote:

---

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" ...

---

BTW, I presented a bibliography of all my sources. What was your source? "Now who is proposition is sillier?"?????? WTF? What is that supposed to mean? It's gibberish!Oh! Did you mean to say: "Now whose proposition is sillier?"? Was that it? Jeez! Why didn't you just say so? I hadn't heard anything about Hovind mis-teaching English as well.Here's a scenario. Two people, male and female of appropriate breeding age, are left on an island. It's a nice island with plenty of food and water and shelter. Got a very nice climate too. The only drawback is that the island can only support 100 people. Well, that's no problem for our couple, but it could become a concern for their descendents.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.According to the logistic model, in which r is a function of the current population size (as I clearly explained), population growth would slow down as we approach the island's carrying capacity of 100, approaching zero and even going negative when we exceed that level.So after 2000 years, I would predict that there would be no more than 100 people on that island, whereas you would insist that there should be more than 44,000.Whose proposition is sillier? Yours is absolutely ridiculous! Yep! That's creationists for you, alright! That's all that they do. That's all that they can do, because the truth does not support their contrary-to-fact claims.Don't believe anything you read on creationist sites. They're lying their asses off to you.Edited by dwise1, : minor fixes: question mark, "the talkorigins.org web site"Edited by dwise1, : anything, not everything

Really? You're bringing grammar into this?Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

I read words! I do not sound everything out inside my head, but rather I read the words that are written. And I find it confusing when someone uses the completely wrong word. Which then becomes irritating. Why should it be too much to expect that he/she/it write in English?

1. It is English. It's just not perfect English.2. He/she might not be a native English speaker.3. Quibbling about your "opponent's" grammar kinda distracts from the issues.I mean, c'mon.

Oh, he is a native speaker of English. A non-native speaker would not make that kind of error. A non-native speaker's errors involving word choice would not be based on sound. I know that, having been a non-native speaker on several occasions and having communicated with non-native speakers on a programming forum.I do not demand perfect English, rather I request comprehensible English. Nor are issues about grammar "quibbling". As a life-long student of several languages, several human and several computer, I understand the vital importance of grammar. Grammar is the very structure of the language. Grammar is what enables a language to convey meaning. Without grammar, without its structure, attempts to use a language descend into gibberish.As written, what he wrote was gibberish; it had no meaning. As spoken, what he wrote might be mistaken for comprehensible English. But on this forum we cannot enjoy the luxury of hearing what he wrote, but rather can only read it as the gibberish that it is.You complain that it is a distraction, but your complaining about it is what's creating that distraction. Give it a rest.

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.

Wasn't the ancestor to all apes already adapted to trees? And aren't all apes except us and gorillas adapted to trees? It seems more likely that we left the trees after diverging.I guess I'm speculating just as you are.

Yeah, I think the split was probably back a lot further than I was thinking.

Bullshit. It reflects on the whole quality of the argument. If the debater is that sloppy with grammar they are probably with the rest of their argument. As shown by the crap this joker is trying to pass off.

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"

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 State something correctly, and then condescend. Have you gotten anything at all right during your recent return? Condescension when you are wrong makes you look like a total idiot.

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.

Would that r be between the values you indicated?Would the derived value of r be useful for predicting the population after a further 100 years?How do you use a pure exponential growth expression to model a population that levels off?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

This is a good point, and worth stressing. Any result is tied to the methodology. In order to compare apples to apples, the methods need to be comparable. Unfortunately, creationists like the drastically change the methods of comparison in order to cast doubt on the results from other methods, as in this example.Zauis is also switching methods while pretending the numbers are comparable. The 5% that he is citing is the number of bases that differ between the two genomes. He then pretends that this is the same as the number of mutations.So while we can all agree that the choice of algorithms, methods, and definitions is somewhat arbitrary, this doesn't mean that you can arbitrarily compare results.