Why is evolution so controversial?

quote:

---

sfs can explain it much better than I can, but "not aligning" is not a synonym for "0% homology". If you don't know where the sequence fits in the chimp genome then you can't even compare it to the human genome to begin with. Therefore, you have no evidence that the unaligned sequence would have 0% homology. Even random sequence will have 25% homology.

---

Believe it or not sfs and I have hashed this out over a year ago. I never claimed 0% homology. By the same token sfs could not claim (100%) homology. It is as I have argued here, what are the important genes and how different are they?Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

You are wearing a hole in the carpet my friend...Site identified, site compared. Site unidentified site not compared.

Then where did you get the 70% from? How do you determine divergence when the DNA under question hasn't even been compared? I find that to be a strange statement since your main argument is based on a paper that compares pseudogenes.

There are 20 identified sites in seq B.Perhaps you want to try again?

quote:

---

Believe it or not sfs and I have hashed this out over a year ago. I never claimed 0% homology. By the same token sfs could not claim (100%) homology.

---

If by "hashed out", you mean that you made rambling, inaccurate claims, I corrected you, and you ignored me, then yes, we hashed it out.

quote:

---

Then where did you get the 70% from? How do you determine divergence when the DNA under question hasn't even been compared?

---

I was very carful to claim that it could be as high as 70%, not that it was.

quote:

---

I find that to be a strange statement since your main argument is based on a paper that compares pseudogenes.

---

Are pseudogenes important? My only complaint here it the ~1.5% divergence.

quote:

---

If by "hashed out", you mean that you made rambling, inaccurate claims, I corrected you, and you ignored me, then yes, we hashed it out.

---

I remember I maintained a point on several issues.If I remember correctly, your little program you wrote was using asexual reproduction rates contrary to our sexual reproduction discussion, your similarity in protein coding segments was not using the poisson distribution like you should have. etc.The past is the past, I always say....Ohh... by the way I did prevail in the discussion on alignment.

quote:

---

I remember I maintained a point on several issues.

​

If I remember correctly, your little program you wrote was using asexual reproduction rates contrary to our sexual reproduction discussion, your similarity in protein coding segments was not using the poisson distribution like you should have. etc.

​

The past is the past, I always say....Ohh... by the way I did prevail in the discussion on alignment.

---

I don't know how many encounters we've had. The one I found is the one where I wrote the following: "What you've written is complete gibberish." It was. Everything else you wrote in that thread was also either wrong or completely meaningless.Of course you think you prevailed. That's because, as is obvious from this thread, that you understand so little of what you're talking about that you can have no way of telling when you're wrong.

Why would you expect the 10% of the genome that wasn't compared between humans and chimps to be different than the 90% that was compared? Are pseudogenes important for what?Why do you continue to complain about statistics you don't understand?

quote:

---

There are 20 identified sites in seq B.

​

Perhaps you want to try again?
How many mutations over those 20 sites? And the resulting percentage?

---

If you identified 20 sites then it is bp per bp on each segment. You have sites 7-11 100% divergent. Divergence per site is:Number of mutations = 5Number of sites = 20Number of divergent sites is 5/20 or 25% divergent (75% similar). As per the definition... "compared" Mutation per site.If the site is 20 bp then you have 1 mutation per site.number of sites = 1number of mutations = 1divergence is 100%..But you only compared 1 site.Would you like to use the bp per bp comparison for the entire genome?I thought you claimed that a single insertion is counted as one mutation?Are you retracting that statement?Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Of course you think you prevailed. That's because, as is obvious from this thread, that you understand so little of what you're talking about that you can have no way of telling when you're wrong.

---

Then I can use the 1/7(u) again?

There is only 1 mutation.Want to try that again?

If (u) is 1.3%, then an additional indel rate of (u)/7 would be a total of 1.49%. That would work for me.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Why do you continue to complain about statistics you don't understand?

---

I understand the papers I cited claim more than 1.5% divergence counting indels. So far no argument you have made causes me to doubt The authors conclusions, since they are recognized authorities in the field.Are you still claiming they are wrong?

Again (u) is not a percentage. It is rate of mutation per generation.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.