G
grannymh
Guest
Before I do anything, I am curious as to what you think anthropologists and biologists use or do in order to gain knowledge about the size of the earth’s population. For example, a geologist examines rocks.
- Status
F
Faith1960
Guest
From what I’ve been learning, it involves math and genetics. I’ve been wracking my brain over the past week trying to find something to debunk the theory that there never has been a human bottleneck of two people and the more I’m learning, the worse it gets.
I just learned that the amount of genetic diversity we see in the human race simply could not have emerged by the standard mutation rates from two people living six to ten thousand years ago.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you.From what I’ve been learning, it involves math and genetics. I’ve been wracking my brain over the past week trying to find something to debunk the theory that there never has been a human bottleneck of two people and the more I’m learning, the worse it gets.
I just learned that the amount of genetic diversity we see in the human race simply could not have emerged by the standard mutation rates from two people living six to ten thousand years ago.
My apology, but I have some urgent commitments and cannot answer like I want to.
Math and genetics are basic tools being used by scientists in their search for human origin. In a science research paper, these tools are usually explained in the “methods” section. They are also used when the paper is reporting the step by step process which led to the “evidence”. More later when I return.
Molecular biologist, Ann Gauger successfully addresses the issue of genetic diversity in Chapter 5 of the book Science & Human Origins. * I will explain when I return.*
R
rossum
Guest
Every human being has two copies of every gene, one copy from their father and one copy from their mother. Some genes come in slightly different versions, called “alleles”. We all have the genes for eyes. Some of us have the blue-eye allele while others have the brown-eye allele. Blood types O, A, B and AB are another example of human alleles.
Two humans, like Adam and Eve, can have at most four alleles between then, two each. We can examine the DNA of modern humans and count how many alleles there are for various genes. Some genes have hundreds of different alleles.
We have accurate estimates of the mutation rates for many of those genes. Starting from four alleles and allowing for the mutation rate which can make new alleles, it is impossible to get as many alleles as we see today. Taking the number of alleles, and working backwards using the mutation rate we can get minimum population estimates into the past.
Chimpanzees also have alleles. Since many of their genes are the same as ours, we also share some alleles with chimps. The vast majority of these shared alleles will go back to our common ancestor with chimps, around five million years ago. Again, there are too many shared alleles for a population as low as two.
Cheetahs did have a severe genetic bottleneck about 10,000 years ago. They have a very small number of alleles. It is possible that the cheetah bottleneck was as narrow as a single family. You can do a skin graft between unrelated cheetahs and it will take. They are so genetically similar that the transplant is not rejected. If humans had been through a recent genetic bottleneck as narrow as a single breeding pair then we would exhibit the same characteristics.
Science can detect the signs of a genetic bottleneck, as is shown by cheetahs. Humans exhibit none of the signs of such a bottleneck so, in scientific terms, the number of humans never dropped as low as two. Something around 10,000 breeding pairs is a common estimate.
Of course, science cannot tell how many in the population had souls. Two souled humans in a population of genetically identical unsouled upright apes is scientifically feasible. Souls do not fossilise.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
In the spirit of getting my retaliation in first
there are already criticisms of Dr Gauger’s book available: Science and Human Origins - Chapter 5 review.rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for the link. From what I have read on CAF, there are people who have not read chapters 1 & 5, including endnotes. When I return, I will be delighted to check the original source. I am not concerned about chapters 2, 3, 4. Even I spotted a few questionable comments in these. By the way, one of my replies to a CAF poster went something like this – I like a woman with guts.In the spirit of getting my retaliation in first
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Researching events and hominin experiences going millions of years backwards includes the problem of obtaining hard data.
Thus, assumptions and estimates substitute for actual data in research papers. It is reasonable that estimates and assumptions could be on the mark or they could be off the mark. For example, the choice of generation time does affect the overall math formula. Another example is that in real life, there are overlapping generations and I am not sure how these can be factored in since overlapping generations depend on an individual woman living the length of her possible fertility.
One of the more tricky assumptions in human origin research is that the constant background mutation rate, i.e., that millions of years ago in the midst of dramatic environment changes, the mutation rates for both hominins and chimps (and other animals used for comparison) is the same as it is today. Reading research papers, there is also the researcher’s choice of which generation time to use. Of course, random mating could present other problems regarding gene conservation in the population known as a diverging common ancestor.
Going by fossil finds, experts can estimate migrations from one place to another; however, it would be difficult to estimate the effects of incidental migrations in and out of a specific hominin population.
At last summer’s London Natural History Museum, one exhibit was comparing characteristics of similar fossils as to which were similar to primates and which shared characteristics with modern humans. Our animal cousins also were developing into anthropologists’ designated “species.” I have just started reading Chris Stringer’s book. He gives a brief history of the ways species designations themselves have shifted depending on what is found and where.
Another example. Ann Gauger, page 23, chapter 1. refers to the work of John Hawks, in regard to the Australopithecine species and a transitional species or a sudden change that reflects a small bottleneck. By the way, I was a senior guest student in a couple of classes of John Hawks’ basic anthropology course. I respect his honesty when it came to comparing genetic sequences.
I often say this – I sincerely respect all the scientists who are engaged in human origin research. It is the interpreters who present problems for me. When I return, I will address the “interpretation problems” when I reply to Faith.
B
buffalo
Guest
Is this your answer to my query?From what I’ve been learning, it involves math and genetics. I’ve been wracking my brain over the past week trying to find something to debunk the theory that there never has been a human bottleneck of two people and the more I’m learning, the worse it gets.
I just learned that the amount of genetic diversity we see in the human race simply could not have emerged by the standard mutation rates from two people living six to ten thousand years ago.
Key - standard mutation rates. Now we know there is no such thing. A few things to consider on genetic diversity - HGT (jumping Genes), epigenetics and how do we know how much diversity was already present in our first parents?
Start here:
Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock
…Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS - A survey of genetic information contained in the Y chromosomes of modern day men suggests that Homo sapiens descended from a single group of male ancestors, and that this occurred more recently than previously believed.
…"However, evidence now is coming in from other parts of the human genome besides the mitochondria pointing to a recent origin for modern humans. In addition, molecular clocks appear to be ticking at various speeds in different genes that together can help us measure human evolution with greater accuracy.
Molecular clock debate: Time dependency of molecular rate estimates for mtDNA: this is not the time for wishful thinking
Adaptation Plays Significant Role In Human Evolution -
"We are on a crest of a wave showing that adaptation is a lot more prevalent than we thought," Petrov said.
B
buffalo
Guest
It should be no surprise in that this is an evo shattering book - there are rebuttals to those criticisms…In the spirit of getting my retaliation in first
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Personally, I do not agree with that broad statement.
My sole purpose
is to use chapters 1 and 5 as a source of information about polygenism. Ann does not claim that the natural science puzzle of monogenism has been solved. In my humble opinion, her review of current scientific literature is meant to demonstrate various interpretations of human origin research.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks, but that isn’t helpful to me, at all. In fact, it seems to further support the idea of polygenism.
On a side note, I’ve been corrosponding with one of my priests aboiut this topi. He acknowedged that there very well could’ve been other beings running around the time of Adam and Eve, but that true humans began after God gave them, Adam and Eve a soul. That would’ve made sense to me yesterday afternoon but not any more because I’ve since learned that the human population’s genetics are too diverse to allow for monogenism.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I ordered that book; it might arrive as early as today. I thought it would be helpful but going by some of the posts I’ve been reading, this book might not be helpful after all.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is the claim but is based on assumptions. See my links above.That would’ve made sense to me yesterday afternoon but not any more because I’ve since learned that the human population’s genetics are too diverse to allow for monogenism.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I don’t think that can allow for monogenism, either due to genetic diversity.
I contacted a UCC minister at a church neaby about these questions. I’m curious as to what she has to say.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I skimmed over your links and haven’t seen anything that adequately corrects what’s been said.
B
buffalo
Guest
Skimming does not cut it…
So far all your responses have been devoid of substance and you have been parroting what you have been told. Let us get into specifics.
Again - what are the top three evidences that say Adam and Eve did not exist? Papers?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Wish I’d have known that before I spent money on that book… Just like the other two books I bought to help me with this, which also didnt help.In the spirit of getting my retaliation in first
rossum
F
Faith1960
Guest
And you know what? That’s ok for me to parrot what I’ve read. I’m certainly no brainiac, I have to depend on those who are and I haven’t seen anything that makes sense of this.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just give me three source papers. It shouldn’t be too much to ask.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Im all confused now about what all I read and when so forget it.
- Status