Why is evolution so controversial?

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 If you think it has been superseded, let us know where.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.

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

Excellent post. Cheers!

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

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

quote:

---

Yeah -- it was a really bad study. It misrepresented the findings of the Voight et al. study and it didn't take into account how much easier it is to detect recent selection than older selection. The paper should be dropped into the ocean and forgotten.

---

sfs unbelievable. Why are you even talking to me? I thought you had enough our last go-around. Well as for my part I really like talking to you. So let’s see if I can turn you into a creationist (obviously I failed last time).I will first ask you your opinion on why how much easier it is to detect recent selection than older selection.

Great post... Cheers!

Great post... Cheers!

quote:

---

So will you concede that your initial argument for a recent human origin falls short? Otherwise, I'll be expecting a biologically sound response to my points above.

---

I have some more information that might help this discussion to continue, all good things come to those who cook... I mean wait.Right now let us talk with sfs.

Razd my friend this conversation is a topic in itself But my plan is to lead into it slowly I think that slowing down to address other details at the moment might help. We will tie all this in my friend. Thanks for getting back to the conversation, i thought you dropped out from boredom.

quote:

---

Much easier. The long-haplotype tests that the Hawks paper referenced lose all power after about 20,000 years or so.

---

Is this the gist of your opinion?

quote:

---

These results are intriguing (and controversial they've already generated much discussion within the scientific community), but they do have limitations. The technique that the researchers used (looking for genomic evidence of past hitchhiking events) is reliable, but it is not particularly good at detecting very old or very recent episodes of selection. That's because old advantageous mutants have been around for so long that recombination and mutation may have already wiped out the evidence of their selective sweep. Evolution in the fast lane? - Understanding Evolution

---

I have read some information concerning the topic of classic selective sweeps in humans. The claim is that there might be zero evidence that they happened in recent evolution. I think that would be about 250,000 years in evolution perspective.A young genome of say 6000 years might just work out fine. Please speculate.Edited by zaius137, : corrected from the paper

Sorry Coyote We need to talk about your points, but since I am the Creationist here (population 1). Can we stay on the immediate topic. I think that time will bring us back to your points.

Great post Cheers! As we belly up to the bar once more.