Why is evolution so controversial?

Why isn't a reference provided for this? And how does this match up with your claim that there hasn't been enough time for man/chimp split millions of years ago?

Comments are scarcely needed. The entire article absolutely shreds your position here without countering the theory of evolution in any way. Someone here might well have cited this paper in rebuttal to some of your assertions. My question for you is why you even bothered to link to this article?

quote:

---

The parallel to humans is obvious: The human population has grown from a few million people 10,000 years ago to about 200 million people at A.D. 0, to 600 million people in the year 1700, to more than 6.5 billion today. Prior to these times, the population was so small for so long that positive selection occurred at a glacial pace, Hawks says.

---

So the part you quoted is based on this kind of population data. What's your point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If there is anything funnier than zaius137 pretending to understand biology, it is zaius137 rambling on about physics. Don't encourage him.

You used indel count in an equation which required a mutation count, and then insisted that others provide peer reviewed documentation that you were wrong. That's pretty solid evidence that you don't understand the subject.As for population growth, I agree that Taq has oversimplified your errors by saying that you are requiring population to grow at a constant rate. What you actually are claiming is that population always grows at an exponential rate where you've allowed for some small variation in the exponent.Still pretty clear that you don't know what you are talking about. But keep on tilting zaius137.

And the problems with that normalization were also pointed out by dwise1. Since populations do not always grow and indeed do not always change at exponential rates, when you adjust the exponent so that the end population is matched, the expression fails to match intermediate points.Anyone can link any initial population to any end population with an exponential expression. But if the values in between are wrong, that is an indication that the model is wrong. You are introducing a red herring. What is being questioned is not the particular indel count, but the use of the count in an equation that was expecting a mutation count. You have yet to justify doing that or to give a satisfactory response to anyone who has questioned you.Go back and take a look at the last question Taq put to you with this point in mind.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I yield. Counting an indel as single mutation is exactly what you cannot do because a single mutation can remove or insert lots of indels. I believe the second reference on that list you provided actually says that explicitly. And at least three people here have asked you about that point repeated.So I have not challenged the similarity percentage at all. Maybe I would get to that point once I get you to see your initial error. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are welcome to have the last substantive post on the topic. Is that a problem for you?