|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So when and how did your bottleneck happen? If you would have kept reading after where you cut off your quote, you would have seen the following in the wiki page you linked to:
quote: That wiki link goes to:
quote: and:
quote: That's one theory. There's another that says:
quote: You can read the paper on that one here: Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic What makes you think that the human effictive population size means that the genome is young and that we can't have common decent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Instead of being 1.33% divergent from chimps, we are now found to be 5% divergent from chimps. There are simply not enough beneficial mutations to explain a divergence from the chimp. We didn't evolve from the chimp. We evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp. How much of that divergence from chimps is due to our evolution from the common ancestor, and how much of that divergence is due to the chimps evolution from the common ancestor? Neither of us species hold all of the evolution from the common ancestor. Some of it is ours and some of it is their's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Please read what I said carefully.. I said diverged. I still don't like it. If you're talking about humans diverging from chimps, then you are implying that both humans and chimps exist. But what you are trying to calculate, is how much divergence both chimps and humans have from their common ancestor. Neither chimps nor humans existed at that time.
So did the common ancestor look more like us or like the chimp? I would say neither. I'd say they'd look like a combination of the two of us. The artistic rendition of Ardi looks good enough to me:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All these bottleneck scenarios involve some kind of low population over extended time frames. That is not really tenable when you take into account the needed mutation rates for divergence between the human and chimp genome. You're talking about the amount of divergence we see today, right? The scenarios are, actually, tenable when you take into consideration the exponential population growth that humans have gone though:
A heavy mutation load in a small population tends to cause that population to be susceptible to sudden collapse (or a sustained downward spiral in population). But not when the population is growing at the rates that humans are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:No surprise, any high school math student knows about the population growth curve. Then why did you say that it was not tenable?
Fish, fowl, insects All follow that curve. Even humans. Huh? Humans are a species. Fish, fowl, and insects are not species. It is impossible for very many animals to follow that same curve or we'd all be walking all over each other. What are you talking about? Do you have a graph as well?
By the way, why doesn’t that curve start back 200,000 years given the growth constant for humans? What do you mean? The rate of growth increases over time.
Wow, your graph corresponds to ~4300 years of growth in population Let us see, what event as recorded in the Bible corresponds to ~4300 years ago. What does the Bible have to do with this topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I don't understand why we should favor a guess that chimpanzees actually lost a bunch of human features which is what would have to happen if our common ancestor looked like Ardi. I figure after we/they left the savanna they ended up adapting to the trees. That is, our common ancestor was already on the route towards what you'd call modern humans features but then when the chimp-side split off they evolved the more monkey-like adaptations because they ended up in the trees. But I could be completely wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Because humans are not and can not sustain 600 mutations per generation per individual. That isn't the amount that is needed. Your calculation is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes at the time the paper was accepted there was no controversy about mutation rates What do you mean by controversy, and what is the point of mentioning it? Look, whatever the rate of mutation was, is what it was. It doesn't really matter what evidence we had a particular time, nor how confident we are in the changes to our understanding that we've uncovered. Regardless, you're going to want to use the most appropriate figure possible.
I can do the math. Yes, but you're using the wrong value for one of the variables. You've misunderstood what the variabe represents and have used the wrong data for it.
I really need a quote (in the literature) from you to back up your point. Nah, that's setting the bar too high. Just think about it, which is more likely:
So?
It has already been found that the necessary point mutations to reconcile a chimp human split at 5.6 million years is deficient by about half the needed mutations, since this paper was written. Calculated: 175 mutations per generation. Found empirically: 70 mutations. Obviously that calculation is way off. Why do you think that is? If its because you think that humans and chimps didn't evolve from a common ancestor, then from a scientific perspective: how the heck else did they get here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah, I think the split was probably back a lot further than I was thinking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
And I can make better posts than yours when writing drunk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What's it like to be such a moron?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
First question I ask myself when going to bed at night At least for now my question excludes idiot. You should probably start including that, because the bahavior you've exhibited on this thread perfectly matches that of an idiot.
In case that question ever pops up at night, How do you answer? I don't, because I'm not a moron. That's why I asked you: you seem to have the necessary experience. But if you ever want to get back to the topic of this thread, I have 3 unanswered posts to you that you could start on:
Message 547Message 572 Message 589
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I haven't been following this thread, and trying to go back and read it just gave me a headache. Is he making some kind of coherent point about linkage disequilibrium? No, he is not. What is clear is that he doesn't like evolution and he is willing to lie and cheat to try to make his points. He doesn't understand the equations he's using, nor the variables that are within them. He's desperately grasping at any straw he can to try to make some kind of point that humans did not evolve from primitive apes over the course of millions of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The findings are correct by Hawks and there is an apparent acceleration in recent evolution of humans, about 100 times faster than in the past. Our population has exploded in the recent past. Here's that plot again:
With so many more people, there's that much more mutation going on, and that makes it look like evolution is happening faster - from a genomic perspective.
Your claim that the paper was mistaken in its conclusion based on method. Here is a citation about recent selective sweeps not being relavent in recent human history (~250,000 years). Selective sweeps are going to be more prominent in a smaller population. So since our population has increased so rapidly recently, then it makes sense that selective sweeps are going to become negligible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
the first thing that goes is methodology 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024