Summations Only

No bacon, he was Jewish.Then, pretty much what Mr. Jack said, so further miracles would be required from God.And welcome to EvC.

Your first statement doesn't follow from the second. A Y-chromosome going to fixation does not mean an extreme bottleneck. Characteristics that have originally occurred in one individual are always going to fixation, bottlenecks or no bottlenecks.It is your Noah story that requires an extreme (and very recent) bottleneck, and makes it necessary that Noah is the Y ancestor. Apart from the evidence that our mutation rate is more than an order of magnitude too low for the Noah story to be true, don't you remember me pointing you to some papers on diversity in elephants/mammoths, and asking you how big a herd you expected there to be on the ark? Elephant divergence including African speciation.Highly divergent sub-species in AsiaAnd it looks like you'll need a whole herd of giraffe on the Ark, as well. It's filling up fast!Edited by bluegenes, : Put in elephant links.Edited by bluegenes, : Added the giraffe paper. I'll check out some other big, hungry animals!

No to the first part. The sons have three wives, and they could be from three different mitochondrial haplogroups. But yes, it's a very small pool, to put it mildly. We would all look pretty much like modern Palestinians if the story were true, but we would be even more homogeneous than they are with such a small founder effect.

Noah's wife isn't a potential "mitochondrial eve", if that's what you mean, because she can't pass her mtDNA on to her sons. If you mean a mtDNA "Eve", no. It could be more recent if a single version of the mtDNA goes to fixation. For example, that would happen immediately if two of the three young couples who survived the flood produced only boys, and no daughters, so that all the surviving females then would have the mtDNA of one of the three wives, and there's nothing else.But if no single mtDNA goes to fixation after that point, then the mtDNA "Eve" would be further back. She would be the first women from whom all three of Noah's son's wives descended via direct maternal ancestry.

Approximate indeed! Firstly, only about 1.5% of the germline mutations will hit on the genes. Feed that in, and you can work out what proportion of the population will mutate on a specific gene. Multiply that by the number of generations back to Adam and Eve, and you get the proportion of the population which will have a variant from the original 4 alleles of Adam and Eve. The answer, with your mutation rate above, is 1/256. So, you can make testable predictions from your model. I vaguely remember asking whether you'd like it to be tested, but I think you disappeared for a while around that time.Anyway, I've worked out a easier to understand falsification of your model. You need ~30 mutations per. generation transfer on the Y chromosome alone to support the Noah flood story.So, now that you know with 99% confidence that your model is false, what are you going to do?

You mean Y Adam. There has to be a Y Adam at some point in history (genetic drift makes it inevitable), so your model couldn't be falsified by a lack of one. Rather, it's a question of when. As I say, it's inevitable, apart from the order which could be either way. In fact, a recent discovery Message 7 shows that the order is the other way around. That discovery also means that I'm being generous in my last post when I say that your model requires ~30 mutations per. generation on the Y chromosome alone. It's really more than double that!BTW, you've been linking to a number of articles in your recent posts that actually contradict your point of view if you read them carefully.Edited by bluegenes, : typo

Sorry, forgot about the rest of your post. They do if you understand them. Certainly. But that's why I was asking you how many elephants/mammoths were on the ark. You don't need thousands of each species, but you can't bottleneck each species down to one pair. I see you're now suggesting 14 members for each species of large animal, which is better genetically, but of course leaves you with the problem that there's no room on the Ark for them all.Let me ask you a question. In your own personal YEC model with your idea of the flood at the P-T boundary, are you seriously suggesting that all the land creatures that we find in the fossil record since the boundary were on the Ark? It's loosely effective, but there are variables. Counting the differences that have gone to fixation between two population groups can give you an approximate time of divergence if you know the approximate mutation rates and generation times. But there are still other variables like effective population size, and all this is why you get people like me giving my personal guestimate of 6 to 13 million years for our divergence from the chimps.

Are you suggesting that all Proboscidea descended from 14 Moerotherium over the last 4,500 years? And at the same time you express incredulity at humans and chimps descending from a common ancestor over a time scale of millions of years? Indicates to whom? DNA analysis tells us that humans certainly did not go through a tight bottleneck of three brothers and their wives 4,500 years ago. And that's in direct conflict with the Ark story.

Look on the thread that's about this, particularly Message 53. Look at the research paper, and if you think I've got it wrong, then tell me where and how.By all means continue the discussion on that thread, because we're likely to be told it's off topic here.

If you read the paper below, you can see that the family that includes mammoth, mastodons, Asian elephants, African Savannah elephants, and African forest elephants has a very similar history to the great ape family, and this takes place over the same time period. They have similar generation times, and their divergence on genomes is similar in quantity and type. It makes no sense that you can see them as evolving from a common ancestor and not see us and the other great apes as doing the same.Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forest and Savanna Elephants | PLOS BiologyYou would need groups of all of those 5 species on your crowded Ark.As for new genes, and the increases on genomes, I'm happy to get back to explaining duplication, neofunctionalization, subfunctionalization, and sub-neofunctionalization again, if you want. There's plenty of evidence for it, as I've explained before, for those of us who know how to read history on genomes. Paralogs are everywhere.But that's off topic here. But you're wrong, and YEC is soundly falsified. See Message 60 for the conclusive evidence that backs up my statement. And that's not the only way I can falsify YEC with genetics.

Your link does not support your claim that the earliest inhabited caves are in Turkey, and the dating contradicts your model. But more importantly, how do you decide the age of such sites if you do not accept scientific dating methods?Anyway, there are cave remains ranging from Africa to south-east Asia that have been dated to more than the 45,000 yrs. BP. Here's a recent example from Laos.The Turkish stone building site, Gbekli Tepe, you mention may be the earliest known stone building, but it's easier to build in wood, and if you accept the Turkish dating, you have to accept this: 11,500 yr old building in BritainAnd no-one is suggesting that that hut is likely to be anywhere near the first in the world!Edited by bluegenes, : Added link

Laos link

quote:

---

Radiocarbon and luminescence dating of the surrounding sediments provide a minimum age of 51—46 ka, and direct U-dating of the bone indicates a maximum age of ∼63 ka.

---

46 to 63 thousand. Try this one: A dozen small ~14,000 year old huts in South AmericaOld, old cave.I'm correct about caves and buildings. However, buildings aren't really relevant, because it just depends on where we happen to have found them. Humans were certainly in Africa, the Middle -east, Asia, Europe and Australia before they were in South America.If you are accepting dating as relative, then Ethiopia or South Africa might be the places with the earliest modern human relics (not necessarily in caves).More buildings here, if you want them: Stone Age Habitats. First known stone buildings may be the stone and fired clay huts in Czechoslovakia at ~23,000yrsEdited by bluegenes, : Added stone age habitats link

I see what you mean, but those little pies are misleading, as I've explained to mindspawn before. Outside Africa, they are showing more recent subdivisions just to illustrate our spread around the world. But inside Africa, they don't show the equivalent sub-haplogroups.The chart below gives a good idea of the true story. Take a chunk of the mitochondria, and you can find pairs of Africans who will differ more on it than any two out of Africa people will from each other, although you'll find the same quantity of difference between us outsiders and people on the L0 branch as you will between non-L0 Africans and L0 Africans.It's similar with the Y-chromosome (and that shows on the chart I'm using on the "genetic falsification" thread).Sub-Saharan Africans have the most genetic diversity all over the genome, simply because most of the population, until recently, was there, and the rest of us show evidence of a "founder effect" bottleneck (often more than one, like native Americans and Australians). We outsiders are all L3 Africans.

The map's standard (you can find it on wiki and elsewhere). It's just trying to give a general idea of human dispersal from Africa, but it doesn't actually show diversity properly. As it is about migration, your last comment seems reasonable if you're talking about "pie diversity" rather than genetic diversity.But it isn't just mindspawn who thinks that the greatest region of mtDNA diversity is likely to be the region of origin of modern humans. That's why I've pointed out that they don't bother segmenting the African Pies. All of the out of Africa stuff comes from M and N, which are divisions of L3. If we did a pie chart map for the time that they emerge, there would be a two segment, two colour pie outside Africa, and a multi-segment (more than 20) multicoloured pie inside. Africa got off to a big head start so far as mtDNA diversity is concerned.Still today, we can find significantly more variations on the mitochondria from a collection of individuals in Africa than we can from a collection from the 5 other continents. That's what biologists mean by diversity, and Africa is certainly where it is.That's the effect we'd expect from any region if modern humans had emerged there and remained there for a long time in considerable numbers before dispersing out of the region in relatively small groups who were mainly from the same area within the region (a likely scenario, if migration was mainly from North-east Africa into the Middle-East).

You don't need to make mistakes about the papers you haven't yet understood on two different threads. Go to the correct thread, and make your mistakes there. Tell us why the authors somehow forgot to compare the "Y" of individual "A" to any others.