Why is evolution so controversial?

So does the chimp genome paper if you are counting number of bases instead of number of mutations. The chimp genome paper has 5 million indels covering 90 million bases compared to 35 million substitution mutations. I am claiming that your interpretation of the papers is wrong.

That's exactly what the authors of the chimp genome paper did."Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome | Nature That is the divergence due to substitutions, and continues to be. It is the way that you add them together that is wrong. The authors of the peer reviewed papers do it correctly. You have failed because you are wrong. One indel is one mutation. A 5 base indel is 1 mutation, not 5. A sequence with 20 bases has 20 sites where a mutation can occur. What are the units for divergence? I have already discussed the mutation rate with you multiple times. If you are going to use the 5% divergence as measured by differences in bases then you need to use a mutation rate that incorporates the number of bases changed per generation. You aren't doing that. The mutation rate needs to be about 250 bases changed per generation. You are using 70.

I have given you this calculation several times now.There are 70 new substitutions each generation. If the indel rate is 1/7th of that as sfs indicated, then that is 10 indels.Indels can be more than one base. In fact, the average indel is ~20 bases. 10 indels at 20 bases each is 200 bases.So we have 70 bases changed from substitutions and 200 bases changed from indels. 200 +70 is 270 bases changed per generation. 320 is very close to the 270 I just calculated.

Notice that they used number of mutations instead of number of bases changed.If you are going to follow their lead, then you can't use the 5% figure. When you use number of mutations the indels count as 1 mutation instead of multiple bases.

What are the units? Number of bases, or number of mutations?

The funniest part is that you are trying to claim that the theory of evolution will fall apart once we add in the indels.I took your challenge and added the indels to substitutions for the mutation rate.What happened? You complained about the indels being added to the substitutions.Irony?

Then you can't use a divergence of 5% since that is not the number of mutations, but the number of bases that differ between the two.

The authors of the paper can and do add them together correctly. That is why they get the proper divergence times.The problem is that YOU can't add them correctly. That is why you get different results than the authors do.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.