Why is evolution so controversial?

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:

---

Additionally they estimated the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees to be ~100,000. This was somewhat surprising since the present day effective population size of humans is estimated to be only ~10,000. If true that means that the human lineage would have experienced an immense decrease of its effective population size (and thus genetic diversity) in its evolution. (see Toba catastrophe theory)

---

That wiki link goes to:

quote:

---

The Toba supereruption was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred some time between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at the site of present-day Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The Toba catastrophe hypothesis holds that this event caused a global volcanic winter of 6—10 years and possibly a 1,000-year-long cooling episode.

---

and:

quote:

---

The Toba eruption has been linked to a genetic bottleneck in human evolution about 50,000 years ago,[29][30] which may have resulted from a severe reduction in the size of the total human population due to the effects of the eruption on the global climate.

​

According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000—10,000 surviving individuals. It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.

---

That's one theory. There's another that says:

quote:

---

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.

---

You can read the paper on that one here: Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford AcademicWhat makes you think that the human effictive population size means that the genome is young and that we can't have common decent?

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.

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. I'd say they'd look like a combination of the two of us. The artistic rendition of Ardi looks good enough to me:

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: But not when the population is growing at the rates that humans are.

Then why did you say that it was not tenable? 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? What do you mean? The rate of growth increases over time. What does the Bible have to do with this topic?

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.

That isn't the amount that is needed. Your calculation is wrong.

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. 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. Nah, that's setting the bar too high.Just think about it, which is more likely:

• You've uncovered a calculation that proves that decades of accepted science has been completely wrong
• You made a mistake in your calculation

So? 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?

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

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

What's it like to be such a moron?

You should probably start including that, because the bahavior you've exhibited on this thread perfectly matches that of an idiot. 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 547
Message 572
Message 589

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.

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. 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.

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?