Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[hecd2]

I’m traveling and it so happens I have found a granny-friendly computer. What I really don’t understand is Where did the 1,000 men and 1,000 women come from?

From the 1000 men and 1000 women who were their parents. And them from theirs and so on. The evidence is that the effective population leading to modern humans was about 10,000 over the last million years with a limited number of bottlenecks that reduced the population to about 1000 for no more than a 100 generations.

And why does the gene studies stop at 1,000 or 10,000 breeding pairs. If these breaders were truly human in that they carry the correct genes, they had to have parents, didn’t they?

Yes - I think the difficulty that you are having might be caused by the fact that you think that humans appear all of sudden in a single generation. But attributes which are clearly uniquely human, such as bipedalism, manual dexterity, control of fire, symbolic and syntactical language, theory of mind, reasoning, social intelligence, morals and ethics, religion, art and so on appear over a long period of time, piecemeal and gradually. You cannot say that this generation of pre-humans was not human, but their children were. The population of pre-humans as a whole evolved towards what we would regard as fully human, appearing from palaeontological evidence to reach that state between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago.

If the smaller human population were before divergence from chimpanzees, they wouldn’t have been truly human or as you suggest they were animals. What turns these animals into humans? And does not turn the remaining part of the common ancestor into humans?

The smallest observable bottlenecks in the human lineage are after the divergence from chimps.

If there were lots of common ancestors doing the split for humans, why are humans the same everywhere?

In other words how does a species retain its identity over many many generations. And the simple answer is interbreeding withon the population.

This brings me to another question. Given the variety and locations of apes, were there different common ancestors for them and where were they?

You have to define the population in question before you can ask questions about common ancestors. But if your question is about the origins of extant apes, I believe that the evidence is that humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas had a common ancestor in Africa less than 10 million years ago. I don’t know if there is a strong hypothesis supported by evidence for the location of the common ancestor of this group and orangutans (the evidence is that orangutan ancestry is in South East Asia for more than 12 million years.)

And if humans were really human, what would prevent them from overriding the factors which normally cause a reduced population in the first place?

Nothing. There is no evidence of severely reduced population in human pre-history.

Humans have gone beyond any other species. Why?

Do you mean for what purposes has human attributes evolved, or how have they done so?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm

 

[liquidpele]

While liquid is right in some respects about the article it does set the framework for supporting links that either were already posted or will be. Itinerant I suggest you do some reading for yourself. I think it will be worth it.

So now we do have agreement that devolution does occur. It is a good starting point.

I think the problem is you’re hung on the word “devolution” because it sounds like it’s reverse evolution. It’s actually… wait for it… regular evolution! Remember, evolution says things change to enhance the properties of the species, if loosing aspects of it’s physiology or genetic pool helps or doesn’t hurt, this is just another example. Do you have any examples of an animal loosing a feature that helped it survive in it’s environment?

 

[liquidpele]

Unfortunately, I am overwhelmed with reading right now. I have several books going simultaneously, and I just started another one by Francisco Ayala that I find interesting. And I can hardly wait to read another book I picked up at the library about the fossil record. So, when someone post links to articles I’m not always inclined to jump on the link. I would prefer if the poster summarized the main points or gave a brief synopsis of an article and provided the link for a reference. Such an approach better suits my limited abilities.

You’re better off with books than on-line articles anyway. I constantly wonder if the internet increased or decreased the signal to noise ratio. It seems anyone can claim they’re an expert and start blogging online these days.

 

[itinerant1]

You’re better off with books than on-line articles anyway. I constantly wonder if the internet increased or decreased the signal to noise ratio. It seems anyone can claim they’re an expert and start blogging online these days.

So many books, so little time!

My espresso is done, time to go back to my book.

 

[hecd2]

“These signatures of the extreme population bottleneck (reduced diversity and heterozygosity and an overabundance of common deleterious alleles and rare alleles) will continue to be observable in the genome of the population for tens of thousands of generations after the bottleneck until heterozygosity, diversity and the abundance of rare alleles is restored by mutational variation and random mating. Finally, neutral and deleterious alleles will coalesce at or after the bottleneck and we would not observe ancient alleles or haplotypes which have coalescence dates long before the bottleneck.”

Every time I try to understand genetics research, I get this feeling that there is some information missing. Pardon me, but I get the feeling that the theories are being backed by some research and a lot of theory or guesswork.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know how to put this more elegantly, but I think the reason that you’re feeling that information is missing is that you are missing the information, not that the information does not exist or that scientific conclusions are based mainly on guesswork. I can only explain things so far on threads like this, and it’s no surprise that unless you have studied, say, population genetics, in detail, you will miss 95% of the detail surrounding the research - for example Ridley’s textbook on evolutionary biology devotes 160 pages to population and quantitative genetics. Of course, no-one expects you to have that specialist knowledge. I do my best to represent the research simply, but it’s almost impossible to include detailed explanations of critical concepts in population genetics such as Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, equilibrial heterozygosity as a function of effective population, or what the Tajima D statistic tells us about population growth and selection in the context of threads like these.

For example,
how can something be observed in the genome for tens of thousands of generations?

Well, in the case of humans we don’t observe it for tens of thousands of generations (although we can observe founder effects for many generations over rapidly generating species). What I meant was that these signatures of extreme bottlenecks remain in the genome for tens of thousands of generations after the bottleneck. We know that because diversity can only be restored by mutations that become fixed in the genome and we know how many mutations must be fixed to restore the levels of diversity and heterzygosity and how long on average it takes to fix a mutation in a population of 10,000 or 100,000.

When the abundance of rare alleles are restored, how is the final timing determined?

See above - the length of time it takes for rare alleles either to drift to extinction or to become common - which is a known function of population size.

And when does one observe ancient alleles or haplotypes which have coalescence dates long before the bottleneck?

When? When one looks and the ancient alleles are there. (Ancient alleles and haplotypes have long coalescence times which are measured by the degree of difference between different alleles at those loci).

And if the bottleneck was actually the beginning of a population, there wouldn’t be ancient alleles before it was existing.

I’m not sure if this is a question or a statement. The coalescence of alleles is truncated at an extreme bottleneck by loss of genetic diversity, but if there is no bottleneck, they can be older than the species. Some human alleles coalesce to 2 million years ago - long before the human lineage arrived at Homo sapiens.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/homo_pan_divergence.htm

 

[hecd2]

Yes.

I call this Idvolution - God breathed the DNA language into some basic kinds. From there we can account for all the diversity of life. As time has gone on information has been lost

You don’t have to be a professional biologist to realise that this is utter nonsense.

The diversity of life depends on genetic diversity and that diversity cannot be carried in some “basic kinds”.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

You don’t have to be a professional biologist to realise that this is utter nonsense.

The diversity of life depends on genetic diversity and that diversity cannot be carried in some “basic kinds”.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

WIth the vast amount of information it carries and areas thought to be junk DNA common among species with different homologies is a pretty good argument for it. DNA carries the instruction set for all life.

 

[buffalo]

DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation

 

[hecd2]

New findings show that DNA has not changed all that much.

That’s not what this popular article says at all. It is almost inevitable that when you post a link to something, your gloss introducing it completely misrepresents it.

Her overall theme is that “while nobody disagrees that there has been a general trend towards complexity” some things can be lost in evolution. Well we know that. She illustrates her theme as follows:

• Major example taking up more than half the article is the claim that the primitive condition in bilaterians is a CNS, and that this was lost (being substituted by a neural net) in some species. She then points out that this view is controversial and that there is counter-evidence
• A version of a single protein that is implicated in the vertebrate immune system was found in a coral. No mention of its function in the coral or whether homologues are found in other organisms or why this implies a loss
• Hox and Sonic hedgehog patterning similar in basal actinopterygian and tetrapods. She says the author claims that this means that primitive fish had something like limbs which were lost in their descendants. The paper of course claims no such thing - but merely taht a particular pattern of Hox D expression is conserved in lobe-finned fishes and tetrapods and lost in ray-fineed fishes
• A parasitic barnacle that doesn’t look like a barnacle as an adult. (Barnacles are crustaceans that have given up swimming and glue themselves by the head to substrates as adults , so there is another example of lost function).
• A rotifer that has given up its adult phase (like newts)

And this is your justification for claiming that “DNA has not changed all that much”? Did you understand what you were reading? Did you even read the article?

By the way, the article was published in New Scientist and is entitled “Evolution: hacking back the tree of life”. The rest of the title you posted was added by the creationist who posted it on Free Republic.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

The diversity of life depends on genetic diversity and that diversity cannot be carried in some “basic kinds”.

WIth the vast amount of information it carries and areas thought to be junk DNA common among species with different homologies is a pretty good argument for it. DNA carries the instruction set for all life.

In a single or a few genomes? You must be joking, or not really understanding what you’re reading and writing. You don’t get from Eomaia scansoria to Pan troglodytes and the hundreds of thousands of species in between from giant sloths to naked molerats with four alleles per locus. Mammal genomes carry about 20,000 genes and have some important non-coding regulatory sequence. The rest is LINES and Alus and tandem repeats, not rich ground for specifying the diversity that we see.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

You have not accurately characterized what I said, and so your objections miss the point. First, Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution theory. I don’t think this idea ever registered with you.

Are you familiar with the evolutionary theories of Motoo Kimura?

 

[grannymh]

Granny, they were the children of their parents.

Good point.

Given the number of years, the female is fertile plus the mating urge of the male, each set of parents would have had numerous children. This means that the 10,000 or 1,000 (breeding pairs) minimum human population would consist of family clusters of brothers and sisters.

Since a family of brothers and sisters are produced by two parents, there is a new population figure increased by seven (for example) humans per set of two parents. When one does the math, a smaller population of parents can produce a subsequent larger population.

Now, when one looks at the parents of the children who make up the 10,000 or 1,000 breeding pairs, the same principle of fertility and mating apply to the parents of the parents. And there is, again, a smaller population producing numerous children.

Thus, the concept that the minimum human population could only be 10,000 or 1,000 breeding pairs misses the mark. In other words, the mathematics of reproduction trumps.

Ah, one says. There was a divergence of ancestor populations. That is a possibility. But as in the case of pre-humans, not all populations survived. Also, one needs to look at environmental causes, food supplies ample or meager, etc., which would result in further population splits.

Could there be an extreme founder effect? There is the possibility of one man and one woman left on their own. Given human superiority over brute animals, the odds of these two producing a large group of surviving descendants are favorable.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[rossum]

Ah, one says. There was a divergence of ancestor populations. That is a possibility. But as in the case of pre-humans, not all populations survived. Also, one needs to look at environmental causes, food supplies ample or meager, etc., which would result in further population splits.

As far as we can tell the 1,000/10,000 bottleneck happened at about the same time as the Toba eruption. That would have killed a large proportion of the then existing human population, resulting in the bottlenecking effects we see in the human genome today. As you correctly say, environmental effects can be very important.

Could there be an extreme founder effect? There is the possibility of one man and one woman left on their own.

No. We know that since we diverged from the chimps our population has never dropped below 1,000 breeding pairs. It is possible that we had a smaller population of ancestors before we split from the chimps, but then it would not have been “one man and one woman” but “one male ape and one female ape”. There are too many alleles we share with the chimps to allow a population that small.

Given human superiority over brute animals, the odds of these two producing a large group of surviving descendants are favorable.

But those descendants would show signs of having very similar genetic heritage. For example Cheetahs had a severe genetic bottleneck about 10,000 years ago - possibly a small as a single family. Today you can graft skin between different Cheetahs; they are so genetically similar that they do not reject skin tissue from each other. Humans do not show such signs so we know that for as long as we have been Homo sapiens we have had a larger population.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

As far as we can tell the 1,000/10,000 bottleneck happened at about the same time as the Toba eruption. That would have killed a large proportion of the then existing human population, resulting in the bottlenecking effects we see in the human genome today. As you correctly say, environmental effects can be very important.

Thank you. Being at an hotel granny-friendly computer, my time is limited. Your link is most interesting, especially since it led me to John Hawks’ website. He is on my list to find when I return home.

No. We know that since we diverged from the chimps our population has never dropped below 1,000 breeding pairs. It is possible that we had a smaller population of ancestors before we split from the chimps, but then it would not have been “one man and one woman” but “one male ape and one female ape”. There are too many alleles we share with the chimps to allow a population that small.

I am in the midst of tracking down research papers. What are your favorites which support the above? Being a direct descendant of the doubting apostle, I like to see for myself.

But those descendants would show signs of having very similar genetic heritage. For example Cheetahs had a severe genetic bottleneck about 10,000 years ago - possibly a small as a single family. Today you can graft skin between different Cheetahs; they are so genetically similar that they do not reject skin tissue from each other. Humans do not show such signs so we know that for as long as we have been Homo sapiens we have had a larger population.

rossum

In my view, similar genetic heritage is a given considering the unity of creation. Thus, I look for other kinds of general evidence.

 

[hecd2]

I am in the midst of tracking down research papers. What are your favorites which support the above? Being a direct descendant of the doubting apostle, I like to see for myself.

Did you read the fifteen or twenty I gave you six months ago ?

Alec

 

[tjm190]

Whether or not animal testing will be effective is determined via a line of thinking that involves evolutionary theory, and modern biology is all but based on it. That being said, a creationist doctor could perform the same tests an evolutionist doctor could- but he couldn’t believe they’d be effective.

 

[grannymh]

Did you read the fifteen or twenty I gave you six months ago ?

Alec

And did you read my reply after having my head put on a platter ?

Seriously, I now have access to at least one of the journals you cited and maybe some others. If you would be so kind as to re-post that list, when I get home I will check as to which I can obtain. I have read some miscellaneous stuff by following links. It is going to be like putting puzzle pieces together. I am totally convinced that there is more than genetics involved. Thank you for being patient. Hopefully, it will not be another six months…

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[itinerant1]

Are you familiar with the evolutionary theories of Motoo Kimura?

I just know about Kimura and some of his research. I haven’t read anything by him yet, though I definitely plan to do so, but after I study up more on genetics generally.

 

[StAnastasia]

I am in the midst of tracking down research papers. What are your favorites which support the above? Being a direct descendant of the doubting apostle, I like to see for myself. In my view, similar genetic heritage is a given considering the unity of creation. Thus, I look for other kinds of general evidence.

Grannymh, you seem like an inquiring person who likes to read and learn new ideas in the sciences. And yet you exhibit a dogged insistence on proving the truth of a literal reading of two ancient Mesopotamian cosmogonic myths: Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood. I’m curious: if you really like to delve into the truth, what is the nature of your quest to prove that one nomadic tribe “got it right” about human origins while all the other ancient tribes from China to the Amazon basin – who also have their cosmogonic myths – got it wrong? Why is this important to you?

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, you seem like an inquiring person who likes to read and learn new ideas in the sciences. And yet you exhibit a dogged insistence on proving the truth of a literal reading of two ancient Mesopotamian cosmogonic myths: Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood. I’m curious: if you really like to delve into the truth, what is the nature of your quest to prove that one nomadic tribe “got it right” about human origins while all the other ancient tribes from China to the Amazon basin – who also have their cosmogonic myths – got it wrong? Why is this important to you?

StAnastasia

First of all, I am not out to prove anything about Noah’s flood.
2nd, I am not out to prove a literal reading of anything.
3rd, I am not out to prove anything about a nomadic tribe.
4th, I am not out to prove anything about ancient tribes from China to the Amazon
basin.
5th, I do like myths, especially those belonging to the Tlingit nation. I am not home so I may have misspelled their name.
6th, I am both an inquiring person and a very curious one. One of the things I am most curious about is the nature of the human person.
7th, I am out to prove that the possibility of two sole parents of the human race exists.
8th, When I complete my research, the why it is important will most likely be the concluding paragraph.
9th, As for exhibiting a dogged insistence – you haven’t seen anything yet as to how stubborn I am.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.