Why is evolution so controversial?

add [blockcolor=white] and [/blockcolor] codes to get

Enjoy

I see you folks going on and on about various aspects of population dynamics, with you trying to set the groundwork for a 6,000 year old modern human. And failing.But you must realize that science is a cohesive whole and you can't just pull at one thread and hope to unravel the entire construct.The evidence is absolutely against a young earth and a young human species, and it is rather unseemly for you to ignore all of that evidence and try to pursue just one very narrow approach which you think can support your beliefs. You can't just ignore huge amounts of evidence!And to keep this post directly tied into the theme of the thread: Evolution is so controversial because a small number of folks won't accept it, for religious, not scientific, reasons, and run around making a big stink. They have no evidence supporting their positions, as you are demonstrating, but make up for that lack by religious zeal and stubborn denial of the evidence that contradicts their beliefs.In other words, you can't keep ducking the dating issue as that alone disproves your beliefs.

I am sure sfs has gone threw Hawks’s null hypothesis. I think it will put a exclamation on my point. I do not usually do this but I will let the author explain:

quote:

---

We took several different approaches, testing predictions on different kinds of data. For one thing, if the null hypothesis were true, then there should be a whole lot more selected mutations that have already reached or approached fixation, than the relatively small number that we see still varying in human populations. So to test the null hypothesis, we should look for evidence of these fixed selected substitutions.
That's exactly what we did -- we looked at other means of assessing the number of recently fixed and near-fixed variants. http://www.johnhawks.net/...celeration/accel_story_2007.html

---

quote:

---

On the bottom of this graph, we have the European age distribution of variants in our window. This should represent a small fraction of the total number that have happened across this time period. But you can see from this graph, that if the rate was constant, the total number should be very, very large -- since we are looking at 10-generation bins, here we have around 150 predicted substitutions every 10 generations, or around 1/2 per year. Most of these should be way above our window, in fact, as we go back toward 40,000 years ago, almost all should be close to or at fixation.http://www.johnhawks.net/...celeration/accel_story_2007.html

---

In other words, from what sfs does accept by Hawks’s method, the high rate of selection observed now (current levels) shows an impossible number of selections, if extrapolated to the past.Hawks is right sfs is clearly wrong.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

Thanks RAZD..You the man, woman, thing...

quote:

---

I see you folks going on and on about various aspects of population dynamics, with you trying to set the groundwork for a 6,000 year old modern human. And failing.

---

I admit there is no way to get to 6000 years from here. Sorry to disappoint you. Let us move on in the discussion, if needed radio dating. My apologies to all.

Just a thought ... If you multiply the curve for "Predicted fixed and near-fixed variants (constant rate model)" by an exponential decay curve for (correctly modeling) the loss of long sections over time you will get a curve that fits the data better than the "Predicted fixed and near-fixed variants (demographic model)" and that this would show that sfs is correct.Enjoy

Still waiting for your reply to my points. Either admit your argument was flawed or refute my arguments, but don't duck.

quote:

---

If you multiply the curve for "Predicted fixed and near-fixed variants (constant rate model)" by an exponential decay curve for (correctly modeling) the loss of long sections over time you will get a curve that fits the data better than the "Predicted fixed and near-fixed variants (demographic model)" and that this would show that sfs is correct.

---

Possibly (I think most participants have had enough), as I understand it, sfs is arguing discrepancies in the methodology. When something shakes up the little world that some PhDs occupy, the first thing that goes is methodology (no matter how well accepted). You see, by my own admission, I have no skin in the game here. When was the last time you witnessed a Creationist supporting a evolutionist findings? Hawks is very set in his worldview of evolution. What gets me is the backdoor critics that rear their heads when something in science is about to change.I can not prove that sfs is wrong the same way sfs can not prove Hawks is wrong. If so, write the paper so we will read it.

Genomicus...It has been a while, please let us take up one point at a time so we can all participate.Your first point is?

How much time have you spent in a lab performing experiments?When I get results that contradict expectation, the first thing I think is: "I must have done something wrong."Why should I think otherwise?

Why should any PhD be shaken by claims that are founded on false assumptions? There is absolutely no reason why any population should grow at the same rate throughout history.

quote:

---

When I get results that contradict expectation, the first thing I think is: "I must have done something wrong."
Why should I think otherwise?

---

Am I wrong to think that is procedure and not methodology.Methodology: Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study. wikiProcedure: Instructions or recipes, a set of commands that show how to prepare or make something. wiki

quote:

---

Why should any PhD be shaken by claims that are founded on false assumptions? There is absolutely no reason why any population should grow at the same rate throughout history.

---

What discussion are you referring to? Post # would help.

quote:

---

And to keep this post directly tied into the theme of the thread: Evolution is so controversial because a small number of folks won't accept it, for religious, not scientific, reasons, and run around making a big stink. They have no evidence supporting their positions, as you are demonstrating, but make up for that lack by religious zeal and stubborn denial of the evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

---

Really? I have spent a lot of time running down the evidence for evolution. Science is based on evidence measurable by the scientific method. I am a firm believer in empirical evidence. I would like to examine the following:Darwin’s Galapagos finches : This seems to be a trait influenced by epigenetic changes. Epigenetic changes involve switching on or off gene segments by chemical tags acting on the genome and not actually changing the genetic code. Well, where did the coding segment for the trait originate?
How would Darwinian evolution explain epigenetic changes? The DNA segment not used for long stretches of time is not culled from the genome. Should it not be identifiable as a non selection in a allele cluster? Swept from the genome by a classic selective sweep.

I tend to doubt that. You are pursuing one very narrow line of evidence, and posters here have showed you where you are wrong.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.