Population Bottleneck

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
But isn’t that inconsistent with evolution?
Click to expand...
No, it is consistent.
My understanding is that mutations happen to one organism that transmits it to their offspring.
So by definition, wouldn’t the earliest populations of humans have to be <10,000?
Click to expand...
A beneficial mutation will spread through the population. Children will inherit it; grandchildren will inherit it; great-grandchildren will inherit it. Gradually the beneficial mutation will spread through the population. For example, lactase persistence mutations, which allow adults to digest milk have arisen in different places and have now spread to about one third of the human population. If you are of European descent then you probably have that mutation.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Their equivalents of mitochondrial eve lived at that time. The species itself was older, but the other mitochondrial lineages have died out. Mitochondrial Eve and her equivalents were not the first of their species, though they will mostly have been early in the species’ history.

rossum
 
rom said:
There is NO scientific proof that man evolved from a lower form of animals.
Click to expand...
Science does not work on “proof”, that is for mathematics. Science works on evidence, and there is plenty of evidence that the human body evolved from earlier hominids.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Science does not work on “proof”, that is for mathematics. Science works on evidence, and there is plenty of evidence that the human body evolved from earlier hominids.
Click to expand...
Hello Rossum! Glad to meet you again. In science, as opposed to mathematics, “proof” consists in verification. I maintain that there is no verification that modern man evolved from the early hominids. It is true that paleontologists found fossils of early hominids, but that does not give me a convincing verification of evolution. The transitional fossils are too scarce to be convincing.
 
Hope1960 said:
Then where do you think those fossils came from?
Click to expand...
I think God created them, but not necessarily out of nothing. There are two possibilities. (a) He could have organized inorganic matter into a new organism, in the same way that He made the first living cell. Or, (b) He could have directed the sudden, macro-mutation of pre-existing species to make a new one. If you call case (b) “evolution,” then it is not the neo-Darwinian type of evolution, since it did not happen gradually, as supposed by the Darwinian theory. But let us call it “non-Darwinian evolution” for lack of a better term. Non-Darwinian Evolution (b) is definitely a possibility because nothing prevents God from producing a new species from an inferior species. My point, though, is that unless proven, even non-Darwinian evolution is still also just a possibility, not fact. Of course, the same can be said of case (a). They are all possibilities, and I will not deny that.

However, if I am asked what option God chose, I would say that with respect to lower animals, God could have chosen option (b). This is just my opinion, and I am not asserting it as fact. With respect to man, however, I believe (on faith ) that God chose option (a). Adam and Eve did not evolve, but were especially made by God and initially placed in Paradise. After the fall, Adam and Eve had to start a new life on earth. But they did not mate with non-human hominids or hominins. Humankind grew and spread, not by natural selection, but by God’s providential care.
 
rom said:
I think God created them, but not necessarily out of nothing. There are two possibilities. (a) He could have organized inorganic matter into a new organism, in the same way that He made the first living cell. Or, (b) He could have directed the sudden, macro-mutation of pre-existing species to make a new one. If you call case (b) “evolution,” then it is not the neo-Darwinian type of evolution, since it did not happen gradually, as supposed by the Darwinian theory. But let us call it “non-Darwinian evolution” for lack of a better term. Non-Darwinian Evolution (b) is definitely a possibility because nothing prevents God from producing a new species from an inferior species. My point, though, is that unless proven, even non-Darwinian evolution is still also just a possibility, not fact. Of course, the same can be said of case (a). They are all possibilities, and I will not deny that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’m understanding you.can you please break it down further for me?
 
Hope1960 said:
I don’t think I’m understanding you.can you please break it down further for me?
Click to expand...
OK I will try again. I think that the fossils came from hominids that God made. There are two ways that He could have made these hominids:
  • Directly from the elements of the earth (including the atmosphere), organizing them into individual organisms. If God is powerful enough to make the first living cell in this manner, then He is equally powerful to make hominids out of the elements.
  • From another lower species . You might call this evolution, if you want, but it is the non-Darwinian type. The formation of the new species happened in an accelerated, rather than gradual fashion, because it happens by God-directed mutations and providential selection . Darwinian evolution, on the contrary, happens gradually, by minute random mutations coupled by natural selection.
 
Hope1960 said:
This is an old article but it’s interesting. All species came from one cell. Statistically speaking, it’s impossible to refute.
Click to expand...
Btw, I know Catholics can believe in evolution, but how does one reconcile this article, above, with Catholicism?
 
Richca said:
The findings of the Stoeckle and Thaler study apparently reveal that all human beings alive today can be traced to a first couple much less than the 500,000 year mark of the above study, namely, to 100,000 - 200,000 years ago.
Click to expand...
Actually I am of the opinion that the first humans existed 40,000 years ago, not 100,000 - 200,000. I do not regard some of the early hominids as human (even if they have been taxonomically classified as homo sapiens), unless their discovery is accompanied by evidence of intelligence higher than those exhibited by brute animals. For example, the mere fact that they used tools is not good enough evidence, because many animals also use tools.
Hope1960 said:
This is an old article but it’s interesting. All species came from one cell. Statistically speaking, it’s impossible to refute.
Click to expand...
“All species came from one cell.” That may be true, if evolution occurred . Unfortunately, the author did not prove that evolution occurred.
Hope1960 said:
Btw, I know Catholics can believe in evolution, but how does one reconcile this article, above, with Catholicism?
Click to expand...
It’s easy. Just put the article aside and wait until the author or someone else proves that evolution actually happened. Meanwhile, continue going to church.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Do you advocate for polygenism?
Click to expand...
I am Buddhist, not Christian – see my avatar picture. Buddhism does not have a first couple and science indicates that the human population was never that small. Hence I agree with polygenism.

Science does not say how many of that population of biological humans had souls.

rossum
 
Last edited:
God did not directly create living things. There is no “Let there be armadillos” in Genesis, the same way there is “Let there be light.” Instead God used an indirect method: “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…”

All science is doing is to describe in great detail the process by which the waters and the earth brought forth the array of living species we see today.

$0.02

rossum
 
KevinK said:
What to you mean by proof? It is a widely accepted scientific theory with plenty of evidence.
Click to expand...
Evolution is not empirical science, that is, observable, repeatable and predictable. It will not let the “divine foot in the door”. The modern synthesis is broken.

Evolutionism is a better description. It is philosophy.

“So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next?”

 
Last edited:
KevinK said:
What to you mean by proof? It is a widely accepted scientific theory with plenty of evidence.
Click to expand...
It is widely accepted, yes. But plenty of evidence? I don’t think so. In science, “proof” consists in verification. And that is what is lacking. The theory of evolution has not really been verified. There are a lot of claims that it was verified, but none exists that can stand closer scrutiny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top