Why is evolution so controversial?

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.

Quite.Perhaps you should aspire to something more.

Well, surely the onus is on you. I mean, there aren't going to be any recent papers titled (for example) "The Logistic Equation STILL Has A Stable Equilibrium At K". Because no-one gets published asserting that truisms are still true. If you think that the existence of stable equilibrium is one of those axioms that's been thrown out (and your argument seems to depend on it) then it would be your job to find a recent paper saying so. Here is Velhurst's original paper on the subject, published in 1844. If you think it has been superseded, let us know where.

quote:

---

There are plenty of critics within the field -- where do you think the "explosion of new supposed of hominids" comes from? Dogmatic pontificators?

---

The evidence of a very recent ancestor is closer than ever. The linkage disequilibrium is moving too fast according to new findings. The suggestion is that evolution is moving 100 times faster than thought. If a individual was determined to be an ancestor of 500,000 tears ago they might only be as recent as 5,000 years. Now there is a coalescence of sorts in these findings. The finding that point mutations are happening at a slower rate than once predicted (~ 1.1 x10^-8 as opposed to 2.58 x 10^-8... about half) and that linkage disequilibrium is occurring 100 times faster than predicted. A recent origin is the best explanation. The mutation rate in humans can not support a 5.6 million year divergence from chimps and measured linkage disequilibrium dictates a young origin of humans.

quote:

---

Here is Velhurst's original paper on the subject, published in 1844. If you think it has been superseded, let us know where.

---

Very funny how about english. I am one of those assimilated americans, you know the culturally challenged group.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

Such an exercise would be pointless. Most of your posts here draw complaints about your failure to address a point, about issues about which you are wrong (including evidence or argument backing up the point) and questions of statements in which you merely assert when an argument is required.At this point, a primary issue that you have not addressed are the responses to your assertion that periods of zero population growth represent an unstable equilibrium.At a minimum a claim that an equilibrium is unstable would need to point to forces that would drive the system away from equilibrium, and to a lack of a restorative force. Instead you play silly games about wanting the mathematics regarding equilibrium recounted to you? Why do we owe you that when you yourself haven't kept up your end? If you don't understand what constitutes a stable/unstable equilibrium, then what is the basis of your bowling ball comparision?A second point you have not responded to is the responses to your statement that cycles of population growth and decrease cannot result in lack of diversity. At this point we just have your assertions otherwise facing arguments indicating why you are wrong.The unaddressed points regarding population growth being exponential as long as we allow the exponent to change as needed are quite numerous and easy to find. This is totally backwards. You are the one who makes stuff up and cites essentially nothing. Why don't you owe the rest of us a source when you post your silly assertions? Why is it not enough for us to show that your assertions produce predictions that are not correct?It's pretty easy to get people like RAZD to do some homework for you if you ask. But pretending to know when you don't is probably going to result in people doing the minimum necessary to show that you don't know what you are talking about. You've already gotten more of a response than you've earned.NoNukes outEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why isn't a reference provided for this? And how does this match up with your claim that there hasn't been enough time for man/chimp split millions of years ago?

To NoNukes I can get better responses when talking to drunk.

And I can make better posts than yours when writing drunk.

Excellent post. Cheers!

You too my friend... Excellent post. Cheers!

What's it like to be such a moron?

Any real comments?Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What's it like to be such a moron?

---

First question I ask myself when going to bed at night At least for now my question excludes idiot. In case that question ever pops up at night, How do you answer?An idiot, dolt, or dullard is an intellectually disabled person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Idiot - Wikipedia