Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[Allyson]

It has been discussed several times in the thread, but as I stated in the OP, it shows that at no point was the human population on the planet as small as two. The most recent genetic bottleneck was within the 100K years before modern homo sapiens began to leave Africa. That population was maybe 12K or 12.5K people.

Read through some of the initial discussion to see some other numbers and ideas that were covered.

 

[buffalo]

I know the claim. All of them are based on an assumptive genetic diversity. There is no empirical proof.

 

[Allyson]

How in the heck do you get to that? What does “assumptive genetic diversity” even mean?

You are speaking in nonsense. How can DNA not be empirical evidence?

Please provide a cogent argument rather than terse dismissals.

 

[buffalo]

How in the heck do you get to that? What does “assumptive genetic diversity” even mean?

You are speaking in nonsense. How can DNA not be empirical evidence?

Please provide a cogent argument rather than terse dismissals.

By your answer you do not know. Yes, the entire bottleneck idea is based on assumptions. A starting point assumption that cannot be measured since we do not have Adam and Eve’s DNA.

 

[Pattylt]

Just to let you know where Buffalo stands…
He denies macro evolution, only accepting micro evolution and is a proponent of ID theory. I’ve seen him asked but never answered that I know of about the age of the earth. It’s only fair for you to know his views when having a conversation with him.

@buffalo, have I posted anything in error? I will gladly correct it if I have.

 

[buffalo]

Just to let you know where Buffalo stands…
He denies macro evolution, only accepting micro evolution and is a proponent of ID theory. I’ve seen him asked but never answered that I know of about the age of the earth. It’s only fair for you to know his views when having a conversation with him.

@buffalo, have I posted anything in error? I will gladly correct it if I have.

What is the purpose of this warning? Sounds like a veiled ad hominem.

 

[Allyson]

By your answer you do not know. Yes, the entire bottleneck idea is based on assumptions. A starting point assumption that cannot be measured since we do not have Adam and Eve’s DNA.

On the contrary, you do not need their DNA. All you need to know is the rate of mutation and recombination (where applicable) and work back from there by comparing modern samples.

The Church has no problem with science doing science in studying evolution.

So, can you explain why all the data and methods are flawed, or are you just propping up your world view in spite of scientific knowledge?

 

[Pattylt]

No, not at all. You didn’t state your views and I just wanted her to understand what your views are rather than her having to try and figure it out. It saves you time and it saves her time. She has been having a very interesting discussion with several contributors and knows where they stand…or are working on it.

 

[buffalo]

All you need to know is the rate of mutation and recombination (where applicable) and work back from there by comparing modern samples.

Good. That is the issue. Did the rate of mutation ever vary?

 

[Allyson]

Good. That is the issue. Did the rate of mutation ever vary?

There is variation, so using knowledge of that variation and why it varies, scientists are better able to derive their estimates. Also, the more regular rate of mutation in mtDNA makes it easier to start with, but that is just one snapshot.

No matter how much variation in the rate that there is, the total amount of genetic diversity we see today could not have arisen from just two people.

 

[buffalo]

There is variation, so using knowledge of that variation and why it varies, scientists are better able to derive their estimates. Also, the more regular rate of mutation in mtDNA makes it easier to start with, but that is just one snapshot.

No matter how much variation in the rate that there is, the total amount of genetic diversity we see today could not have arisen from just two people.

Yes, estimates based on assumptions.

Actually it could.

To start with here is a DNA barcode study:

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.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

 

[Allyson]

To start with here is a DNA barcode study:

Nothing in the barcode study is out of step with what we know about human evolution or about what we know happens after an extinction event. We definitely could have today’s genetic diversity from a small population of 10-12K people, as I have already stated. Just not from two.

 

[buffalo]

Thus, we show that using assumptions commonly used by evolutionary geneticists, a single-couple origin is possible, despite claims to the contrary.

https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2019.1/BIO-C.2019.1

 

[Allyson]

Thus, we show that using assumptions commonly used by evolutionary geneticists, a single-couple origin is possible, despite claims to the contrary.

Hössjer

I will read the article, but I will note two things preliminarily. One, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is a creation science/ID publication; and, while I spent considerable time reading up on ID years ago, it was literally ripped apart on the stand during that same time period in the Dover case. At one time I found ID interesting and attractive, but I ultimately rejected it as creationism reworked to get around Supreme Court rulings on the separation of Church and state.

Second, the author of the article does not list it on his CV as having been peer reviewed. He does list other 2019 publications.

.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

Just to let you know where Buffalo stands…
He denies macro evolution, only accepting micro evolution and is a proponent of ID theory. I’ve seen him asked but never answered that I know of about the age of the earth. It’s only fair for you to know his views when having a conversation with him.

@buffalo, have I posted anything in error? I will gladly correct it if I have.

What is the purpose of this warning? Sounds like a veiled ad hominem.

It’s not an ad hominem, Buff. It’s a heads up.

 

[buffalo]

I will read the article, but I will note two things preliminarily. One, it is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is a creation science/ID publication; and, while I spent considerable time reading up on ID years ago, it was literally ripped apart on the stand during that same time period in the Dover case. At one time I found ID interesting and attractive, but I ultimately rejected it as creationism reworked to get around Supreme Court rulings on the separation of Church and state.

Second, the author of the article does not list it on his CV as having been peer reviewed. He does list other 2019 publications.

You dismissed it out of hand. Really? Is that how science is done? First check the source. If you do not like it, reject it.

Please focus on the actual findings and conclusions of the paper, otherwise you are guilty of an a priori bias towards publications you believe in. (See the problem?)

Also, familiarize yourself with the issues with the peer-review process and its own confirmation bias. Her eis one article:

The Crisis Of Peer Review

If peer review were a drug, it would never get on the market.

www.forbes.com

 

[buffalo]

It’s not an ad hominem, Buff. It’s a heads up.

Do not judge buffalo’s posts on their merit, judge them on the fact he is an ID proponent. Nice…

 

[buffalo]

Nothing in the barcode study is out of step with what we know about human evolution or about what we know happens after an extinction event.

Huh? Nothing is out of step?

From the paper:

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.

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.

“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

 

[Dovekin]

You dismissed it out of hand. Really? Is that how science is done? First check the source. If you do not like it, reject it.

Lighten up.

She said she would read it. She has rejected other ID positions after looking at them, there is no reason to think she “dismissed it out of hand.”

There is a serious chance your position will be ignored if you continue with this pugnacious attitude. It is Catholic to be charitable and put the best reading possible on what others say.

 

[buffalo]

She actually used Dover in her argument as a foundation.