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

[rossum]

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

To quote from the abstract:

We show that a single-couple origin of humanity as recent as 500kya is consistent with [the] data.

There goes a 6,000 year timescale. There go Adam and Eve being Homo sapiens, 500,000 years ago there weren’t yet any members of our species around; we hadn’t evolved yet.

So now Adam and Eve are some sort of Homo erectus or similar. Well, it is certainly a novel interpretation of the Bible.

A single couple origin has always been possible. The problem was with a recent single couple origin. A single couple has a maximum of four alleles at any one locus. Given that some loci have hundreds of alleles, time is needed for those extra alleles to evolve and to spread through the population.

 

[buffalo]

A single couple origin has always been possible.

Good. Progress. Her claim was a single couple was not possible according to science.

 

[rossum]

Good. Progress. Her claim was a single couple was not possible according to science.

A single couple, but not Homo sapiens. A single couple of some earlier species of Homo, well before the 6,000 YEC limit.

A single couple is ruled out within the timescale of our species.

 

[buffalo]

A single couple is ruled out

What empirical proof rules it out?

 

[Allyson]

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.

As @Dovekin noted, I said I would read it, which I have done with the other academic articles suggested on this thread. I am not dismissing out of hand by questioning the level of peer review. Science DOES use peer review as part of the process, so the author not listing the article on his CV as peer reviewed is significant. Anything that has not been peer reviewed should be given an extra critical eye. That does not mean that it is wrong. It just means that something important may have been missed.

As it happens, the presence or lack of peer review was noted in the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which brings me to…

She actually used Dover in her argument as a foundation.

Well, as a lawyer, I have been trained to cite case law. :crazy_face:

The courts are not there to make decisions about science, but as it happens, the testimony and opinion in the case are an excellent demonstration of what is and is not good science. And, and as I noted, I was deep in ID-land when the case took place, so it is relevant to my intellectual path.

 

[buffalo]

The courts are not there to make decisions about science, but as it happens, the testimony and opinion in the case are an excellent demonstration of what is and is not good science. And, and as I noted, I was deep in ID-land when the case took place, so it is relevant to my intellectual path.

Science definitely does not depend on a judge to decide what is true or not. Nor does it depend on consensus.
In any case, we know so much more now since Dover which supports design.

 

[Allyson]

Huh? Nothing is out of step?

No, not really out of step. I am not sure that you even know what you are trying to say about the barcode study.

 

[buffalo]

No, not really out of step. I am not sure that you even know what you are trying to say about the barcode study.

Perhaps you could cite what the findings show that back your claims.

 

[rossum]

What empirical proof rules it out?

You misquoted me by omitting part of what I said, without indicating by use of an ellipsis. That is a failure on your part.

My post said:

A single couple is ruled out within the timescale of our species.

You ask for “proof”. You will not get that in science. Stick to mathematics if you want proof. All scientific theories are provisional, just ask Isaac Newton.

My evidence is:

1. observed frequencies of different alleles in modern human populations;
2. measured mutation rates to form new alleles;
3. measured spreading rates to spread those new alleles through the population.

 

[buffalo]

You ask for “proof”. You will not get that in science. Stick to mathematics if you want proof. All scientific theories are provisional, just ask Isaac Newton.

My evidence is:

1. observed frequencies of different alleles in modern human populations;
2. measured mutation rates to form new alleles;
3. measured spreading rates to spread those new alleles through the population.

Right, there is no proof.

1,2 and 3 all are based on assumptions.

 

[Allyson]

In any case, we know so much more now since Dover which supports design.

With regard to ID as a scientific theory: no, there is nothing new to support “design” in the sense that Behe and Co. mean it.

I want to take a moment here to make a distinction between “Intelligent Design” as a hypothesis and other forms of theistic evolution. ID is very much a creationist enterprise, but there are other modes of thought that attribute the natural evolutionary process to God’s plan and are content with the findings of science.

Perhaps you could cite what the findings show that back your claims.

I do not really need to cite any specific finding. I just need to point out how biology works.

Extinction Event due to any cause --YIELDS–> Bottlenecks for surviving species with reduced genetic diversity + newly opened biological niches to be refilled --YIELDS–> Modern species with approximately equal variations in genetic diversity within the species as compared with other species because their ancestor were subject to the same environmental events that caused the initial bottleneck.

I am not sure why that is difficult to see or how this is out of step with biology basics.

You ask for “proof”. You will not get that in science. Stick to mathematics if you want proof. All scientific theories are provisional, just ask Isaac Newton.

My evidence is:

1. observed frequencies of different alleles in modern human populations;
2. measured mutation rates to form new alleles;
3. measured spreading rates to spread those new alleles through the population.

Observations and measurement are NOT assumptions.

Do you even know what science is?

 

[rossum]

Right, there is no proof.

So why did you ask for it? Science does evidence, not proof.

Evolution is supported by the evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Observations and measurement are NOT assumptions.

Do you even know what science is?

please do not start that now…

These current observations are assumed to be true going back in time. Are they? and how do you know?

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is supported by the evidence.

Micro-evolution (aka adaptation) is supported by the evidence. There is not one whit of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[Allyson]

please do not start that now…

These current observations are assumed to be true going back in time. Are they? and how do you know?

I had to ask, because you are very clearly being obstinate in how you approach the science. For example:

Micro-evolution (aka adaptation) is supported by the evidence. There is not one whit of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution, which properly understood, makes no distinction between macro and micro. That distinction is a creationist shibboleth that was made to prop up an anti-intellectual stance by making ID sound scientific by sort of kind of accepting evolution.

 

[rossum]

Micro-evolution (aka adaptation) is supported by the evidence. There is not one whit of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

Why do you continue to make this untrue statement when I have shown you at least two examples of macroevolution: Chrysopa and the Marbled Crayfish.

Macro-evolution happens, despite your fervent wish that it did not.

You appear not to have learned the lesson the Church learned from the Galileo fracas. In matters of material facts, science always wins. Macroevolution is a matter of material fact.

 

[buffalo]

There more than sufficient evidence for evolution, which properly understood, make no distinction between macro and micro. That distinction is a creationist shibboleth that was made to prop up an anti-intellectual stance by making ID sound scientific by sort of kind of accepting evolution.

Actually the distinction was made by an evolutionist.

 

[buffalo]

Why do you continue to make this untrue statement when I have shown you at least two examples of macroevolution: Chrysopa and the Marbled Crayfish.

We have had several go arounds with your examples.

First off - that is all you got? This is the entire basis for macro-evolution. Just on that basis it is weak.

Second - we have gone over speciation and loss of function once had so many times.

 

[Allyson]

There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution, which properly understood, makes no distinction between macro and micro. That distinction is a creationist shibboleth that was made to prop up an anti-intellectual stance by making ID sound scientific by sort of kind of accepting evolution.

The distinction you make…

Micro-evolution (aka adaptation) is supported by the evidence. There is not one whit of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

…does not come from an evolutionist.

 

[buffalo]

The evolutionist made the distinction between micro and macro.

In any case the most recent evidence is stronger for design everyday.

The evo’s are trying to save the modern synthesis with EES, that is self organization. The recent meeting at the Royal Society revealed the challenges within the community to keep it going.

I have detailed these in other threads.