Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 6:34 AM
105 online now:
Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (4 members, 101 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,132 Year: 13,738/21,208 Month: 3,220/3,605 Week: 6/556 Day: 6/54 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam
dennis780
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 61 of 118 (606930)
03-01-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 11:34 AM


quote:
While it is certainly possible that the human line could be traced wholesale back to around 500AD, the idea that the entirety of humanity is descended from two individuals from such recent a pairing is patently ridiculous.

Hi Phage,

If anyone is using the pop. models to argue Adam and Eve's existance, then their arguement is amazingly flawed. However, you can quite easily use those models to argue that humans have NOT been in existance for millions of years, as suggested by evolutionary teaching. This is a fair arguement, with logical and documented evidence. Though the population growth would FIT with the Biblical teaching, it would also fit with countless other religious, and even many scientific beliefs. This would be an arguement against evolution, not for creation or christianity.

Can someone point me to the graphs everyone is speaking of? I'm having difficulty finding the resources for the claim.

Thanks,
Dennis


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 11:34 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 4:25 AM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2011 9:33 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1508 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 62 of 118 (606931)
03-01-2011 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Europa
02-28-2011 11:48 PM


If we are descendants of an ancestral population, why do we ALL have the traits that could "trace" our family line to one single being?

Well we don't have 'The traits', as should be obvious now, we have mitochondrial traits which can be trace back to ME, men have y chromosomal traits that can be traced back to YA. In theory we could do this for any discrete genetic trait and they would probably identify lots of different MRCAs for each trait, because sexual mixing would confuse the lineage of the traits and some ancestral traits will be lost entirely. All of these estimates will give us dates much further back than that of our actual MRCA, and it is perfectly possible that many people will have absolutely no genetic contribution from that MRCA even though they are descended from them.

Why don't we have a mixture of traits that would tell us our great, great, ... great grandmothers were different people?

Because, as I just told you in the last post, they weren't. When you get to you Great-great ... etc. grandparents they were all the same people, that is the entire point of the Identical Ancestors Point. As we go further back in time every modern day individual has an increasing pool of ancestors and the world population gets smaller. A natural consequence of this is that at some point the ancestral pool for everyone alive today will overlap 100%.

If we go down a few great's to more recently however then of course we can discriminate different lineages, we do it all the time in genetic analyses. If we couldn't then how would genetic fingerprinting work? Or haplotype mapping.

Could this be because we have not tested for other family lines?

No, the IAP is a direct consequence of population growth and the nature of human reproduction. We need 2 parents to be born, who themselves needed 2 parents to be born and going back far enough we all needed exactly the same large set of ancestors to be born.

Or could this be because there really aren't other family lines?

Exactly, but this doesn't mean there never were simply that there aren't now, the other lines went extinct, similarly if we went a couple of thousand years into the future all of these things might have changed with a different ME, YA, MRCA and IAP having been established. This is because all of these things are determined retrospectively based on the constitution of a given population and a future population will have a different constitution to the current one.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Europa, posted 02-28-2011 11:48 PM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 03-01-2011 9:44 AM Wounded King has responded
 Message 66 by Europa, posted 03-01-2011 1:26 PM Wounded King has responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1508 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 63 of 118 (606933)
03-01-2011 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by dennis780
03-01-2011 4:03 AM


However, you can quite easily use those models to argue that humans have NOT been in existance for millions of years, as suggested by evolutionary teaching.

No you can't. People who don't understand populations biology or genetics can apply simplistic mathematical models that they believe show this, but only because they aren't bothered by such trivialities as having their models bear any resemblance to reality.

This is a fair arguement, with logical and documented evidence.

Wow, you just saying that totally convinced me, hallelujah, praise the lord.

Can someone point me to the graphs everyone is speaking of?

Are you sure you are on the right thread? You are the first person here to mention graphs.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by dennis780, posted 03-01-2011 4:03 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 111 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 64 of 118 (606953)
03-01-2011 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Wounded King
03-01-2011 4:07 AM


Hi, WK.

Wounded King writes:

and it is perfectly possible that many people will have absolutely no genetic contribution from that MRCA even though they are descended from them.

Can you explain this for me (if you don't mind the brief tangent)? I'm having a tough time seeing how this is possible.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 4:07 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 10:56 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1508 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 65 of 118 (606983)
03-01-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Blue Jay
03-01-2011 9:44 AM


In meiosis chromosomes segregate on the basis of random assortment. So in theory it is possible for an organism to produce a gamete only having genetic material from one of its parents. This is extreme and almost certainly never happens but the random assortment of chromosomes during meiosis does mean that genetic material from some ancestors is continually being lost in different lineages. Other factors mitigate this such as crossing over but the principle still stands.

For a more detailed analysis see this page.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : Changed 'zygote' to 'gamete'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 03-01-2011 9:44 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 03-01-2011 3:50 PM Wounded King has responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2099 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 66 of 118 (607027)
03-01-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Wounded King
03-01-2011 4:07 AM


Thanks WK, for the explanation.
Much appreciated.

A natural consequence of this is that at some point the ancestral pool for everyone alive today will overlap 100%.

This is fine.
But, do you think we are assuming that it will overlap 100 percent?
Think of the hypothetical scenario where there were 10 Eves (or 10 Adams) that were the fisrt humans. Suppose all 10 of them began the human population. What would be the difference we should expect to see in our population of today?

This is a little different question. But would like to know your views on this.
Do you think primate to human change was a catapulted change?
I mean a macro-mutation sort of a change?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 4:07 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 3:26 PM Europa has acknowledged this reply

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1508 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 67 of 118 (607049)
03-01-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Europa
03-01-2011 1:26 PM


But, do you think we are assuming that it will overlap 100 percent?

Only in as much as we assume that 2+2=4 and that most people have 2 parents. This isn't something highly theoretical and speculative, it is a natural consequence of sexual reproduction and what we know about historical global population levels.

What would be the difference we should expect to see in our population of today?

Well if we started off with 10 Adams or 10 Eves then there wouldn't be a human population. Beyond that the question s too vague to answer, it is highly dependent on when this founder population is proposed to have existed.

This is a little different question. But would like to know your views on this.
Do you think primate to human change was a catapulted change?
I mean a macro-mutation sort of a change?

Macro-mutation isn't a term in much common usage in modern evolutionary biology. This is principally because with an improving knowledge of genetics, particularly developmental genetics, it has become clear that small genetic changes can have substantial, what might be considered macro, morpholgical/phenotypic effects.

I certainly don't think there is any reason to think that the divergence between humans and chimps, for example, would have been a dramatic evolutionary jump except perhaps in the longest geological time scales.

There was an extensive thread a while ago about reconciling observed mutation rates with the degree of genetic divergence between humans and chimps and the estimates of when the split occurred. The rates and estimates seem to be compatible.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Europa, posted 03-01-2011 1:26 PM Europa has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 68 of 118 (607050)
03-01-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Wounded King
03-01-2011 10:56 AM


PEDANTRY ALERT!!!!!

In meiosis chromosomes segregate on the basis of random assortment. So in theory it is possible for an organism to produce a zygote only having genetic material from one of its parents.

This is worded a bit strange. A zygote can not have chromosomes from just one parent, otherwise it would still be a haploid cell. I think you meant to say that each parent could pass on chromosomes from just one grandparent on that side. For example, the mother could pass on chromosomes that came just from her father and none from her mother. Or you could replace "zygote" with "gamete" in your original post and it would make more sense.

For 23 pairs of chromosomes the chances of this occurring are 1 in 2^23 or about 1 in 8 million. It is the same odds of flipping tails 23 times in a row.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 10:56 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 4:25 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Dr Jack, posted 03-02-2011 3:58 AM Taq has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1508 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 69 of 118 (607055)
03-01-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
03-01-2011 3:50 PM


Thanks for the correction
You're right, sorry about that, I meant gamete.

For 23 pairs of chromosomes the chances of this occurring are 1 in 2^23 or about 1 in 8 million. It is the same odds of flipping tails 23 times in a row.

Sure, but there are billions of people on the planet and the further back up the ancestral chain you go the lower the numbers get, until at some point they are a virtual certainty.

For great grand parents the page I referenced before calculates it as 1 in 747 without taking account of crossing over.

Even when you factor in crossing over the numbers are still inevitable after about 10 to 20 generations.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 03-01-2011 3:50 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9550
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 70 of 118 (607077)
03-01-2011 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by dennis780
03-01-2011 4:03 AM


dennis780 writes:

However, you can quite easily use those models to argue that humans have NOT been in existance for millions of years, as suggested by evolutionary teaching.

Who claims that humans have been existence for millions of years?

I'd sure like to see some of that easy modeling? I believe you are blowing smoke about what can be shown using simplistic population models.

Edited by NoNukes, : I'm bad at tags


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by dennis780, posted 03-01-2011 4:03 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 71 of 118 (607109)
03-02-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
03-01-2011 3:50 PM


Taq writes:

For 23 pairs of chromosomes the chances of this occurring are 1 in 2^23 or about 1 in 8 million. It is the same odds of flipping tails 23 times in a row.

It's worse than that, because chromosomes undergo crossing-over during meiosis so chromosomes inherited from both parent are mixed together before being passed on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 03-01-2011 3:50 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Wounded King, posted 03-02-2011 4:08 AM Dr Jack has responded
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 03-24-2011 12:37 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1508 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 72 of 118 (607110)
03-02-2011 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Jack
03-02-2011 3:58 AM


It's worse than that, because chromosomes undergo crossing-over during meiosis so chromosomes inherited from both parent are mixed together before being passed on.

The article I linked to upthread puts that figure at 1 in 70 trillion with crossing-over.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Jack, posted 03-02-2011 3:58 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Jack, posted 03-02-2011 5:05 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 73 of 118 (607111)
03-02-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Wounded King
03-02-2011 4:08 AM


Apologies, I missed this link.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Wounded King, posted 03-02-2011 4:08 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1508 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 74 of 118 (609401)
03-19-2011 10:07 AM


Bump for Europa
I'm just bumping this thread since Europa seems to be effectively trying to open another one on pretty much the same subject. In fact I don't see why any of the questions in the new thread wouldn't be appropriate here, indeed we have effectively already answered most of them here. I'm wondering why Europa wants a new thread for us to rehash exactly the same explanations.

TTFN,

WK


Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 03-19-2011 8:47 PM Wounded King has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 75 of 118 (609420)
03-19-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Wounded King
03-19-2011 10:07 AM


Re: Bump for Europa
Hi WK,

Wounded King writes:

I'm just bumping this thread since Europa seems to be effectively trying to open another one on pretty much the same subject.

I hadn't seen this thread until today and being me I have a hypothetical question.

Many assume that in Genesis 1:27 God created one woman and one man.

The actual text says, "God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God created he (him there is no Hebrew word translated him); male and female created he them".

It says them so there could have been hundreds even thousands.

So if there was many people in existence at this time and then their descendants were all destroyed but 4 men and 4 women 2k years later. Could this produce the most recent descendant of living mankind as well as the diversity we see today? Just asking.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Wounded King, posted 03-19-2011 10:07 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2011 9:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 03-20-2011 6:23 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017