|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
And your faith in evolution takes more imagination than I could ever muster. Why would I need faith when I have 150 years of evidence on my side?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Good post...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Because evolutionist do no other reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I can not because the out of Africa model is a fraud. Neanderthals were fully human and actively interbreeding with other humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
Words cannot express how little your faith matters to me. I'm a committed secularist: I believe in your absolute right to whatever religion you choose. Equally, I'm totally unimpressed by any argument based in faith; the only agenda I have - relevant to this discussion at least - is that of evidence-based science.
Scientists don't believe in Evolution because of some agenda but because we follow where the evidence leads. The great thing about science is that we can argue based on objectively-verifiable facts so my agenda, and yours, are pretty much irrelevant. The problem for you is that the objectively-verifiable facts do not support the version of history that you are religiously committed to. Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
It's a widely used figure with some evidential basis, although a slightly higher figure of around 23 is probably more accurate. As you say, we have little direct information for extinct species so any value is going to be of slightly questionable accuracy.
In any case I think Zaius use of the figure is perfectly legitimate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I can not because the out of Africa model is a fraud You don't have to accept the Out of Africa model as true in order to determine the genetic outcome of that model. sfs' questions still stand. "Show your work: given a plausible demographic model of the Out of Africa migration, and estimates for the amount of Neandertal admixture, calculate the probability that Neandertal mtDNA would have survived. "
Neanderthals were fully human and actively interbreeding with other humans. If active interbreeding was extremely limited then we wouldn't expect to see neanderthal mtDNA lineages in the modern population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: (indels) are also quantifiable under neutral model calculations. They are in essence a slower molecular clock. If this was not true your 1/7 (u) could not work because you would not have a linear relationship in mutation rates. The majority of all papers dealing with indel variation, directly or indirectly, note that indels must be included in percentage similarity. The paper in question, discounted indels because the paradigm had not changed at that time. Indels must be included in the divergence calculation or you must throw out the entire premise of that calculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Neanderthals were fully human and actively interbreeding with other humans. If that is the case how come they are so morphologically distinct? And so genetically separated?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
I respect your opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2563 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:No, mutations represent mutations. How much divergence they represent depends on big they are. This is simply a fact. There's no opinion here: what you've been saying is wrong. quote:Fine. To go along with that, we'll also need the mutation rate in base pairs per generation. Do you know what it is for indels? It's not the rate you've been quoting -- that's the rate of mutations per generation. If you don't know it, you can't do the calculation. quote:They don't adjust anything. Alignment tools align the parts that align and show gaps where they don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3439 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: How are pigmies so morphologically distinct? My opinion: There has been a very recent bottleneck to a few individuals in very recent human history. At that bottleneck a lot of human diversity was lost. The surviving Neanderthal alleles were pre incorporated in the remaining human genome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2563 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Of course they are. But since we don't have a good direct estimate of their mutation rate, you can't independently check to see whether human/chimpanzee divergence in indels fits with the mutation rate. There's nothing to compare it to. quote:The vast majority of papers dealing with indels having to do with similarity. Indeed, the overall percentage similarity is of very little scientific interest. quote:What paper discounted indels? And what paradigm changed? quote:That depends on what you're calculating and why. So far, in this thread, you haven't been calculating anything connected to the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
How are pigmies so morphologically distinct? Geographical and cultural separation. Pygmies are also nowhere near as morphologically distinct as Neanderthals. You may also be interested in findings reported in this paper on the genetic divergence of African pygmies from other groups.
My opinion: There has been a very recent bottleneck to a few individuals in very recent human history. At that bottleneck a lot of human diversity was lost. The surviving Neanderthal alleles were pre incorporated in the remaining human genome. Perhaps you'd like to quantify this bottleneck? Preferably in a manner which explains why European populations share certain Alleles with Neanderthals that are not found among African populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
(indels) are also quantifiable under neutral model calculations. They are in essence a slower molecular clock. If this was not true your 1/7 (u) could not work because you would not have a linear relationship in mutation rates. The majority of all papers dealing with indel variation, directly or indirectly, note that indels must be included in percentage similarity. The paper in question, discounted indels because the paradigm had not changed at that time. Indels must be included in the divergence calculation or you must throw out the entire premise of that calculation. If you want to include indels, you must take into account the fact that they are not single nucleotide substitutions. They are indels. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024