The flood and Ancient Chinese Documents

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.

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?

hahaha, how typical of me. I forgot to post the sourceScientists 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.)

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]

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?

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]

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. 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.)

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

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.

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

I was not being sarcastic. I was just giving some examples of analogous scenarios.

Oops.Sorry.I had heard of that, but had forgotten it ... and I exaggerated, too. Mea culpa.

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