Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The flood and Ancient Chinese Documents
dragonstyle18
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 58 (54255)
09-06-2003 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by JonF
09-06-2003 7:02 PM


Re: the flood was when?
Point taken. I need to do more investigating. next time see if you can make your argument without sarcasm. I understand your frustrations but few people become convinced of a alternate view via insult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 09-06-2003 7:02 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by JonF, posted 09-07-2003 9:22 AM dragonstyle18 has not replied

dragonstyle18
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 58 (54257)
09-06-2003 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by JonF
09-06-2003 7:02 PM


Re: the flood was when?
Okay, I just found a source which seems to think that we are not as genetically diverse as everyone has been saying. It appears to be from a doctor at Harvard. Any ideas, thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JonF, posted 09-06-2003 7:02 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-06-2003 8:30 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

dragonstyle18
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 58 (54258)
09-06-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by dragonstyle18
09-06-2003 8:29 PM


Re: the flood was when?
hahaha, how typical of me. I forgot to post the source
Scientists have observed that there is a major problem in the human population that doesn't fit Darwinian theory. The genetic diversity of humans is much less than that expected from a population that theoretically speciated several hundred thousands years ago. According to Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) "It's a mystery none of us can explain." Their conclusion is that the human population must have went through a "population bottleneck" of 10,000 or fewer individuals from 400,000 to 12,000 years ago. However, Jan Klein (Max Planck Institute, Tbingen, Germany) and Dr. Francisco Ayala (University of California, Irvine) say that a population of 10,000 does not represent a bottleneck, since this is the standard breeding population of many species. Another alternative is that modern humans did not evolve from apes, but were created more recently than 400,000 years ago. Many recent studies support this hypothesis (see below). (Gibbons, A. 1995. The mystery of humanity's missing mutations. Science 267: 35-36.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-06-2003 8:29 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by John, posted 09-06-2003 8:54 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 09-06-2003 10:18 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 58 (54261)
09-06-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by JonF
09-06-2003 6:42 PM


Mankind did not pass through a genetic bottleneck within the past few million years.
Are you sure about that?
I understand that Homo Sapiens experienced a significant genetic bottleneck event some 80,000 years ago. We were down to some 10,000 individuals. I don't have a cite for this, but doubtless somebody does (somebody with access to all those scientific journals that as yet aren't available for free.)
Oops, Dragon beat me to it. I don't see that a genetic bottleneck of 10,000 individuals is any evidence for special creation, however. And I'm curious what "studies" could confirm the presence of God, or of the supernatural.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by JonF, posted 09-06-2003 6:42 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-06-2003 8:43 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 51 by Asgara, posted 09-06-2003 8:45 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 09-07-2003 9:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

dragonstyle18
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 58 (54266)
09-06-2003 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
09-06-2003 8:32 PM


What I was defending against was just that everyone was saying how genetically diverse we are as humans and how 50-60 thousand years can't explain this. What I was hoping to present was someone's opinion that we are not at all as genetically diverse as we should be if our human origins were say millions of years old. Aside from what I posted isn't it also true that modern humans only differ from one another by 6 or so base pairs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2003 8:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2003 8:49 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 51 of 58 (54268)
09-06-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
09-06-2003 8:32 PM


Hi Crash,
I don't have access to the scientific journals, but I do have some cites for you.
404
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/...tany606microevol/Shannon_Tieken.htm
{Shortened display form of 1 URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2003 8:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 58 (54269)
09-06-2003 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by dragonstyle18
09-06-2003 8:43 PM


What I was defending against was just that everyone was saying how genetically diverse we are as humans and how 50-60 thousand years can't explain this. What I was hoping to present was someone's opinion that we are not at all as genetically diverse as we should be if our human origins were say millions of years old.
As far as I know, the science bears you out on that, at least. We only have the genetic diversity of a species that experienced a bottleneck some 80,000 years ago, which is why I thought it was weird for JonF to claim that we haven't experienced any bottlenecks in a million years.
Aside from what I posted isn't it also true that modern humans only differ from one another by 6 or so base pairs?
I'm not sure what you mean. The difference between you and I is way, way more than six base pairs. On the other hand the difference between you and your parents may be less than 6, even.
The number of mutations (effacious or not) - which may be what you're talking about with base pair differences - for the average human, I've read here, is somewhere between 5 and 50, or something. (I've heard a lot of figures, to tell you the truth.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-06-2003 8:43 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 58 (54272)
09-06-2003 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by dragonstyle18
09-06-2003 8:30 PM


Re: the flood was when?
quote:
Jan Klein (Max Planck Institute, Tbingen, Germany) and Dr. Francisco Ayala (University of California, Irvine) say that a population of 10,000 does not represent a bottleneck, since this is the standard breeding population of many species.
Sounds like a semantic objection to me. One group says the evidence points to our having been reduced to around 10,000 and calls this a bottleneck. Another group replies that 'you didn't use the word "bottleneck" correctly.' What I don't see is an objection to the point-- we were once, and for a long time, reduced to a few thousand individuals.
Additionally, our growth rates over the last 10,000 years or so have been astronomical for creatures our size. I'm not sure we should be comparing our mutation rates/numbers with species that did not have such rapid population explosions.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-06-2003 8:30 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 54 of 58 (54286)
09-06-2003 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by dragonstyle18
09-06-2003 8:30 PM


Re: the flood was when?
Where did you get that paragraph, dragonstyle?
I have that article from Science in front of me, and two phrases in your quote are indeed in the article, but that's it. The nonsense about "humans did not evolve from apes" in directly antithetical to the point of the article - that human diversity is lower than that in chimps and gorillas, our closest surviving relatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-06-2003 8:30 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Asgara, posted 09-06-2003 10:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 55 of 58 (54289)
09-06-2003 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coragyps
09-06-2003 10:18 PM


Re: the flood was when?
Hi Coragyps,
Dragonstyle's quote wasn't from the Science article. It was word for word from this apologetics site.
Other articles on this site offer just as shoddy information. The very next article after the one about genetic bottlenecks seems to say that the MtDNA Eve studies show the date of origin of human life.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coragyps, posted 09-06-2003 10:18 PM Coragyps has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 56 of 58 (54330)
09-07-2003 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by dragonstyle18
09-06-2003 8:10 PM


Re: the flood was when?
I was not being sarcastic. I was just giving some examples of analogous scenarios.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dragonstyle18, posted 09-06-2003 8:10 PM dragonstyle18 has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 57 of 58 (54331)
09-07-2003 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
09-06-2003 8:32 PM


Are you sure about that?
Oops.
Sorry.
I had heard of that, but had forgotten it ... and I exaggerated, too. Mea culpa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2003 8:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 58 of 58 (54351)
09-07-2003 2:11 PM


Terminally Off-Topic
Closing this one down.
I refer all to the Human Origins forum topic Genetic 'Bottlenecks' and the Flood.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024