H
historyfan81
Guest
evolution is a fact , but what is debated is which of the many theories of evolution is the correct one
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
tafan2
Guest
If I understand it correctly , thr author us making the same claim as the folks at thomisticevolution.com , he just moved it forward from 75000 years ago to 10000 years ago. I posted a reference the other day of another scientists who concludes our most recent common ancestors may have lived less than 10000 years ago.
Interesting tidbit, he claimed that based on the availability of travel and immigration today, any if us whose descendents last more that 3 generations will likely be a common ancestors if all humans in as few as 3000 years (if I remember correctly)
Interesting tidbit, he claimed that based on the availability of travel and immigration today, any if us whose descendents last more that 3 generations will likely be a common ancestors if all humans in as few as 3000 years (if I remember correctly)
B
buffalo
Guest
micro-evolution aka adaptation is a fact and no one argues it.evolution is a fact
B
buffalo
Guest
One other point the evo’s have to contend with is why the 10,000 bottleneck they claim just thousands of years ago. Without the bottleneck our population would be trillions.Without being able to find out more about his hypothesis I
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
I’m an “evo”, I guess, and I’m not sure why I have to “contend” with a “bottle-neck”. About 10,000 individuals seems quite a reasonable gene-pool from which a hominid species could emerge, and it seems that several such species emerged from several such groups from two million to a hundred thousand years ago. Many of these ‘species’ were insufficiently genetically distinct to prevent interbreeding.
The size of the group from which species emerge has little to do with current population, which is much more dependent on environmental factors.
The size of the group from which species emerge has little to do with current population, which is much more dependent on environmental factors.
R
rossum
Guest
Someone has never heard of the Black Death, smallpox, malaria, cholera, famine, war and many other things that affect population size.Without the bottleneck our population would be trillions.
D
Dan123
Guest
Where would we put them all? Populations are elastic, we don’t just keep breeding when there aren’t resources available.Without the bottleneck our population would be trillions.
The last person I asked to show their math on this claim didn’t bother, perhaps you could. What’s the math on trillions of people.
T
tafan2
Guest
Why would it be so large? The bottleneck, nor the time since the bottleneck, are the significant factors which have limited our population growth to it’s correct size. If time was the significant factor, we would have easily had a trillion people after 40 generations, and that is starting with 2 people.
B
buffalo
Guest
“Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms — but this seems to be the message of evolution.” Douglas Futuyma Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution
- Status
- Not open for further replies.