Why is evolution so controversial?

additional humorous claims by Zaius* the human growth is exponential, and that variation in actual population numbers from the idealized "pure growth" formula can be easily accounted for by adjusting the constants to different values for different time periods.* that one article talking about a human bottleneck occurring between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago and another article talking about a human bottleneck occurring 70,000 years ago are talking about two different events rather than the same event.* that the article on the human bottleneck occurring between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago means that the population stayed at the bottleneck level for 50,000 years with zero net growth.Some other minor claims were also made, but these (&Dr A's) are the main ones being discussed.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

They are unsubstantiated because YOU haven't provided citations from actual papers that document YOUR claims. The onus is on you to support claims you make, rather than expect people to go off on a wild-goose chase.Enjoy

Which means either you did not understand the article or the genetic study was in error -- the objective empirical evidence from several sources show the earliest Homo sapiens was 160,000 years ago: this makes the 5,000 year date for an earlier ancestor rather preposterous ... and applying Occam's razor (as you boast about using) would mean rejecting the single paper based on dubious genetics (see other replies to your post) instead of the consilient findings of generations of archaeologists from different countries\universities\foundations\etc.Curiously, the findings from fossils and radiometric dating are used to correct dating derived from genetic studies, because genetic studies make assumptions about mutation rates to calculate past events, and those assumptions are only valid when they are calibrated from known fossil dates.Genetic dates cannot be used to correct fossil dates. Rather they are like dates derived from the geological strata before radiometric methods were developed: they are relative dates that show the order of events without the actual dates of the events. Looks like silly misunderstanding to me ... he's talking about modern Homo sapiens versus Homo sapiens at the time of neanderthals (and he is still wrong for reasons sfs has pointed out in Message 720). Curiously your article claims that the rate of mutation is speeding up in modern humans compared to older Homo sapiens ... more reading incomprehension?Enjoy

I still have no idea what argument he thinks he's making about linkage disequilibrium, but whatever it is, it's wrong. There's nothing about human LD that is at all suggestive of a recent origin for humans.

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

I'm still waiting for some response to my several posts concerning your belief in a young origin for modern humans.You seem to be trying to hide the fact that you really believe modern humans had their origin about 6,000 years ago.How, then do you account for the fact that we have mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) from a skeleton in southern Alaska that is 10,300 years old? Or another skeleton from western Montana that is 12,600 years old? And both are of the same haplotype as living individuals all down the coasts of North and South America? (And that's not all.)What these two examples show is that there is no origin for modern humans ca. 6,000 years ago and certainly no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago.Even my own research shows there was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. I have recovered mtDNA from a skeleton dated 5,300 years old that is directly related to individuals still living in this part of the western US. This shows there could not have been a flood more recently as that would have ended that haplotype.So, if you are going to continue to advocate a young origin for modern humans, you had better start presenting some solid data. Your faux math has not done very well so far.And continuing to ignore my posts does not do your cause much good. Evidence is evidence, and it won't go away if you bury your head in the sand.

Also, please speculate on what would happen if ifs and buts were apples and nuts.

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.

quote:

---

I still have no idea what argument he thinks he's making about linkage disequilibrium, but whatever it is, it's wrong. There's nothing about human LD that is at all suggestive of a recent origin for humans.

---

I disagree, the process of crossing over will degenerate linkage between genes from generation to generation. Hundreds of thousands of years will dissolve links between genes involved in recombination. A young genome will exhibit high orders of linkage disequilibrium an older genome would not.

I'll be awaiting your response to my specific points.

Thread participants, please do not post to this thread unless you have something meaningful to add to the discussion, such as evidence, information, data or clarifying explanations.

quote:

---

Is this the gist of your opinion?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

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.

---

Speculate about what? Your summary of the claims of unidentified people? Make an argument and then we can discuss it. Right now you seem to be arguing both that there's been lots of selection in recent human history and no selection in recent human history.And no, a 6000 year old genome does not work out just fine. It contradicts everything we know about genetics: LD, heterozygosity, allele frequency spectrum, population differentiation, the recently published 45,000 year old human genome. It has nothing to do with reality.