Why evolution doesnt matter.

[grannymh]

Exactly the same way as one would examine any hypothesis - look to see if it gels with the evidence.

All your information is appreciated. You did answer some of the questions in the back of my mind which I was not ready to ask. I am assuming that one would have to validate the method used

There is no reason why there should necessarily have been a bottleneck at the origin of Homo sapiens. Since the method can detect an extreme bottleneck whenever it occurred, and no such bottleneck is detected, it doesn’t make sense to ask when the non-existent extreme bottleneck occurred.

Right now this bottleneck thing is like a brick wall to me. So I am moving away from it and looking for the point of origin of the fully complete human being. This does not mean I have abandoned the brick wall. My curiosity as to how this wall was built is as intense as ever.

Ayala’s particular method which compares the allelic lineages of loci in the Major Histocompatibility Complex between human and chimp, and which precludes a bottleneck of two, does not depend on reproduction rates.

Probably by now, assumed reproduction data are automatically figured in the computer-simulated populations.

I have one of Francisco Ayala’s earlier papers, “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” 1995. He was very careful to detail his methods. In the section titled Census Populations, he writes “The parameter N that I have used for estimating the size of human populations is a theoretical construct that corresponds approximately to the number of synchronously reproducing individuals…In humans and in other primates, a number of individuals, possibly one-third do not reproduce at all. Of the females who reproduce, only about one-third are actively reproducing at any given time; the others are juveniles or are beyond reproductive age. With the use of these rough approximations, we can conclude that N is about two-ninths of the census population.”

I agree with you that comparing genetic information side by side in a laboratory can be done without looking at reproduction data. However, it appears that estimating the size of human populations and census populations includes estimating how many pregnant ladies there are.

Suppose two hominids wandered off. Suppose their lineage included a reproduction span longer than normal with juveniles reproducing at a younger age and menopause occurring at a later age. Plus, environmental conditions were favorable so the survival rate of children was higher. This bit of imagination which might influence the length of a generation was not in Ayala’s paper; however, according to him, the number of bottleneck generations could influence the consequences of a population bottleneck.

The closing sentence of the Census Populations is: "If human ancestral populations consisted of several synchronous but relatively isolated populations, fewer individuals than were estimated above would be required to account for the DRB1 polymorphisms, although the order of magnitude would not change (18). The footnote (18) is N. Takahata, Mol. Biol. Evol. 10,2 (1993) Ayala does give a possible lower estimate but it would be unfair to take this out of context.

It’s in those twenty papers that I cited for you.

The very first research paper on your list is "The Myth of Eve… which is the one I have cited above.

All this business about wandering off is irrelevant -

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I admit it. I’m right-brained.

 

[grannymh]

What exactly is the evidence that precludes a founder effect of two people?

In other words, do the computer-simulated populations used for exploring the minimum bottleneck size based on valid genetic evidence also keep track of the individual movements of 10,000 Homo sapiens who may or may not be fully complete humans? How does the computer determine that everyone of the 10,000 is incapable of wandering off?
…

Unless there is actual evidence showing that no one could wander off at anytime from all the various populations of hominids, then the possibility of two sole parents of the human species does exist.

.

It’s [evidence] in those twenty papers that I cited for you.

All this business about wandering off is irrelevant - the research looks at the diversity in the genome of extant humans and its conclusions are relevant to human ancestors - not to extinct sideshoots (which have all gone through a bottleneck of zero!). In the ancestry of modern humans a bottleneck of two is precluded and two sole parents are not possible.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I have looked through the first paper on your list. “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” and I did not find anything that addresses my basic question: What exactly is the evidence that precludes a founder effect of two people? Or of any very small group? In Post 299, I presented the citation referencing the make-up of the population. There was no mention of anything which would preclude an elopement.

I am very interested in reading your citations which answer my question.

Regarding the comment about extinct sideshoots. Those are known as hominids except for the only extant species, Homo sapiens. Having asked a question about hominids and hominoids on another thread – I am aware that there may be some fuzzy distinctions. Nonetheless, either way, extinct sideshoots did occur. This supports the idea that a lot was going on in human pre-history besides the coalescence process.

Blessings,
granny

All of creation is a joy to behold.

 

[grannymh]

Post 249

Well since method in and of itself doesn’t make any truth claims, I don’t think that “falsification” of method is the correct term. We can, of course, inspect methods for appropriateness, consistency, thoroughness, statistical integrity and so on. It is true that a flawed method can undermine or completely invalidate a conclusion. No one could reasonably disagree with that. .
Alec
evolutionpages.com

The molecular clock is an example of one part of evolutionary research which is examined for consistency. In 1999, Francisco Ayala addressed some of the issues. “Molecular Clock Mirages,” BioEssays 1999;21:71–75.

From the abstract/summary

“The neutral theory of molecular evolution predicts that the clock will be a Poisson process, with equal mean and variance. Experimental data have shown that the variance is typically larger than the mean. Hypotheses have been advanced to account for the hypervariance of molecular evolution.”

Ayala asks:
“Can we predict the pattern of the deviations and thus salvage the clock? Several biological variables have been invoked:”

Ayala lists five areas of biological variables. Note: the pro and con regarding these areas are omitted.

1. Generation time: Shorter generation time will accelerate the clock because it shortens the time to fix new mutations.
2. Population size: A larger population size will slow the clock, because it increases the time required to fix new mutations.
3. Species-characteristic differences in polymerases or other biological properties that affect the fidelity of DNA replication, and hence the incidence of mutations, neutral or not:
4. Changes in the function of a protein as evolutionary time proceeds: This might particularly be expected in the case of gene duplication, when one or both duplicates evolve new functions and hence an accelerated rate of evolution might be expected.
5. Natural selection: Organisms are continually adapting to the physical and biotic environments, which change endlessly in patterns that are unpredictable and differently significant to different species. This hypothesis amounts to a denial of predictable rates of molecular evolution. All that would remain of the molecular clock is that evolution is a time-dependent process; and thus the longer the time elapsed, the larger the number of changes. Accumulation of data over lineages and genes might yield an approximate molecular clock, as a consequence of the ‘‘law of
   large numbers.’’

In the last ten years, these areas have been addressed by a variety of hypotheses. One of the key tools that scientists worldwide use to conduct biomedical and biologic research is GenBank the database of nucleic acid sequences. Since its origin in 1982, it has grown at an exponential rate, doubling in size every 18 months. The availability of GenBank and technology give modern researches an unique advantage in revising old hypotheses.

The one thing all the forthcoming bottleneck hypotheses have in common is that the researcher is dealing with an existing population which can vary within its history depending on the influence of any one of the five above areas. Regardless of how the molecular clock and the hypervariances are solved, defined, or used, evolution is a time-dependent process.

A simple scan of the five above areas indicates that a population is affected by external circumstances as well as internal genomic DNA over the course of time. This is appropriate to any bottleneck theory.

We can, of course, inspect methods for appropriateness…

In my humble opinion all of the above is appropriate for research regarding bottlenecks. This is because the above applies to an existing species and not to the point of origin of the human species. The point of origin of the fully complete human being is not interchangeable with an existing population evolving through bottlenecks.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from its beginning.

 

[antunesaa]

Which of these two statements can we hold with more confidence?:

• Dark matter consists of 1000GeV neutralinos
• Chromosomes 2a and 2b in the common ancestor of the great apes fused to form chromosome 2 in the human lineage after the divergence of chimp and human lineages.

(…)

Then I am not in the slightest interested in her personal opinion on it which is worthless.

You are calling me ignorant in this whole post, after a series of unkind answers to my arguments. It’s not that I am not ignorant in many things, including genetics. But you are an incredibly arrogant person who is now going to say that I was defeated by your brilliant arguments. But if you want my opinion, your almost stratospheric arrogance is a clear sign that you’re at most a well-read person. You lack the characteristic humility of true experts. You try to pass as a knowledgeable person in both physics and genetics, but you betray yourself by making these stupid quizzes that anyone with a vague knowledge of these fields can formulate after searching the internet.

A final illustration of your arrogance: you say that you are not interested in my friend’s opinion because she isn’t interested in our discussion. Now, this is being the center of the world!!!

 

[hecd2]

Probably by now, assumed reproduction data are automatically figured in the computer-simulated populations.

Perhaps so, but simulated populations are not fundamental to showing that the population has never been through a bottleneck of two. I kmnow that Ayala uses simulated population growth, but that is part of his argument in support of the minimum of several hundred to several thousand based on the number of DRB1 alleles passed. The bottleneck of two is precluded on the basis of the number of allele families we share with chimps.

I have one of Francisco Ayala’s earlier papers, “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” 1995. He was very careful to detail his methods. In the section titled Census Populations, he writes “The parameter N that I have used for estimating the size of human populations is a theoretical construct that corresponds approximately to the number of synchronously reproducing individuals…In humans and in other primates, a number of individuals, possibly one-third do not reproduce at all. Of the females who reproduce, only about one-third are actively reproducing at any given time; the others are juveniles or are beyond reproductive age. With the use of these rough approximations, we can conclude that N is about two-ninths of the census population.”

The census population doesn’t matter for the purposes of this discussion. It’s the effective breeding population that matters.

Suppose two hominids wandered off. Suppose their lineage included a reproduction span longer than normal with juveniles reproducing at a younger age and menopause occurring at a later age. Plus, environmental conditions were favorable so the survival rate of children was higher. This bit of imagination which might influence the length of a generation was not in Ayala’s paper; however, according to him, the number of bottleneck generations could influence the consequences of a population bottleneck.

Well two hominids wandering off and forming the ancestry of the current human population would represent a botleneck of two in extant human ancestry followed by rapid population growth that would leave those markers that I mentioned a while back - reduced diversity, excess of rare polymorphisms and so on that we don’t see. But two sole parents can pass on at most four alleles at a locus, whereas we see more than four allele s shared with chimps at some loci. That on its own precludes two sole parents.

The closing sentence of the Census Populations is: "If human ancestral populations consisted of several synchronous but relatively isolated populations, fewer individuals than were estimated above would be required to account for the DRB1 polymorphisms, although the order of magnitude would not change (18). The footnote (18) is N. Takahata, Mol. Biol. Evol. 10,2 (1993) Ayala does give a possible lower estimate but it would be unfair to take this out of context.

Census populations have curiosity value but no more than that for the purposes of this discussion.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I have looked through the first paper on your list. “The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins” and I did not find anything that addresses my basic question: What exactly is the evidence that precludes a founder effect of two people? Or of any very small group? In Post 299, I presented the citation referencing the make-up of the population. There was no mention of anything which would preclude an elopement.

I think Ayala makes it very clear and I’m not sure I can make it clearer than he did. The current human diversity precludes the possibility of two sole ancestors whether that bottleneck occurred by population crash or by founder effect. If it happened, the methods would see it.

Here’s another Ayala paper that goes into this: Ayala et al, Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins, *PNAS *91, 6787 - 6794. I think you can get it on-line. There are a couple of other papers that look at DRB1 which I’ll dig out when I have access to my notes, but in truth the Ayala ones cover the reason that a bottleneck of two is precluded.

Regarding the comment about extinct sideshoots. Those are known as hominids except for the only extant species, Homo sapiens. Having asked a question about hominids and hominoids on another thread – I am aware that there may be some fuzzy distinctions. Nonetheless, either way, extinct sideshoots did occur. This supports the idea that a lot was going on in human pre-history besides the coalescence process.

I think you might misunderstand coalescence - coalescence is a mathematicaly certain consequence of common descent. As for the side shoots - they are irrelevant because we are talking about the ancestry of living humans and the side shoots, by definition are not ancestors of living humans so they don’t come into the picture.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The molecular clock is an example of one part of evolutionary research which is examined for consistency. In 1999, Francisco Ayala addressed some of the issues. “Molecular Clock Mirages,” BioEssays 1999;21:71–75. …

A simple scan of the five above areas indicates that a population is affected by external circumstances as well as internal genomic DNA over the course of time. This is appropriate to any bottleneck theory.

In my humble opinion all of the above is appropriate for research regarding bottlenecks.

I agree.

This is because the above applies to an existing species and not to the point of origin of the human species.

No it doesn’t apply just to a species but to a species and its lineal antecedents. So the origin of modern humans lies within the methods used to determine coalescence.

The point of origin of the fully complete human being is not interchangeable with an existing population evolving through bottlenecks.

The point of origin of the fully complete human being occurs in an existing population evolving with or without bottlenecks.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

You are calling me ignorant in this whole post, after a series of unkind answers to my arguments. It’s not that I am not ignorant in many things, including genetics. But you are an incredibly arrogant person who is now going to say that I was defeated by your brilliant arguments. But if you want my opinion, your almost stratospheric arrogance is a clear sign that you’re at most a well-read person. You lack the characteristic humility of true experts. You try to pass as a knowledgeable person in both physics and genetics, but you betray yourself by making these stupid quizzes that anyone with a vague knowledge of these fields can formulate after searching the internet.

I am sorry if I upset you or appear to be arrogant to you, but I am not going to apologise for vigorously defending my position both with evidence and with illustrations of how your claims are flawed about what scientific conclusions we can hold with confidence and the basis on which we can hold them. You ridiculed the idea that our conclusions that human ancestry has not passed through a bottleneck of two and the distance to SN1987A can be held with comparable confidence, but you did so on the basis that one is a physics question and the other is a molecular biology question. But as I said before, and I say again, if you do not know the evidence and arguments that are used to arrive the respective conclusions, you cannot possibly judge their respective merits. The “quiz” was rhetorical - I deliberately chose a physics statement that is highly dubious and a molecular biology claim that is robust to illustrate that you cannot dismiss any claim in science as being speculative purely on the basis of the discipline to which it belongs. You have to engage in the actual content, something in which you have shown no interest at all in any of our discussion.

I suppose if I had simply agreed with you or if I was unable to muster a strong factually backed argument, you wouldn’t have found me arrogant. But, if it is arrogant to know what you are talking about, to defend your opinion and to use facts rather than prejudices to construct an argument then I am guilty as charged. I suppose I’ll manage to live with that.

A final illustration of your arrogance: you say that you are not interested in my friend’s opinion because she isn’t interested in our discussion. Now, this is being the center of the world!!!

You introduced your friend into the discussion. If she was prepared to explain her opinion and to show why it differs from the published opinion of those people actually working in the field then I would have been fascinated by what she had to say. But how am I supposed to be interested in the bald unsupported opinion of a faceless person who has no interest in the subject?

I don’t suppose we’ll be discussing this subject any further, so I’ll leave you with a quote from the abstract of a paper of one of the most distinguished scientists in the field:

“The coalescence theory of populations genetics leads to the conclusion that the DRB1 polymorphism requires that the population ancestral to modern humans has maintained a mean effective size of 100,000 individuals over the 30-million-year persistence of this polymorphism. We explore the possibility of occasional population bottlenecks and conclude that the ancestral population could not have at any time consisted of fewer than several thousand individuals. The MHC polymorphisms exclude the theory claiming, on the basis of mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms, that a constriction down to one or few women occurred in Africa, at the transition from archaic to anatomically modern humans, some 200,000 years ago.”

Ayala et al, Molecular genetics of speciation and human origins, PNAS 91, 6787 – 6794 (1994)

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

So the origin of modern humans lies within the methods used to determine coalescence.
The point of origin of the fully complete human being occurs in an existing population evolving with or without bottlenecks.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Thank you, Alec. The kind of discussion topics in posts 303, 304 & 305 are very worthwhile from my point of view since I am in the midst of learning about evolution and loving every minute of it. I was able to download Ayala’s “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins”. I will be traveling to be with family at Thanksgiving and then going on to Chicago with kids and grandkids, so I will be able to read it along with Harry Potter, year five.

In the meantime, I have a question regarding “transition from archaic to anatomically modern humans.”

When did anatomically modern humans begin to function with their higher degrees of intellect, reasoning ability, analytical skills and so on?

According to the abstract in the above mentioned research paper, “The polymorphism at the DRB 1 locus, represented by 58 known alleles in humans, has existed for at least 30 million years and is shared by humans, apes, and other primates.” I am assuming from the paper’s divisions of “Speciation by Founder Effect”, “Evolutionary History of the DRB 1Gene Locus”, “Population Bottlenecks and the Origin of Modern Humans”, “Molecular Evidence and the Multiregional Model”, etc., we will be dealing with a time frame less than 30 million years. There is a reference of 200,000 years ago regarding a restriction down to one or few women in Africa. I remember reading something about “Eve” on your website. I will recheck that when I get back.

I am beginning to think that the most important thing at the moment is knowing the point of origin of a fully complete human being who is functioning according to his higher degrees of intellect, reasoning ability, analytical skills and so on. To narrow down the time frame, I may have to temporarily compromise a bit.

Blessings to all for a happy Thanksgiving. There is a lot we can be thankful for.
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[vjtorley]

Dear Grannymh, StAnastasia and Edwest2,

I’d just like to make a few quick comments on Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood.

Yesterday, I posted some links on human uniqueness and what separates us from chimps. I also discussed the question of whether Adam and Eve could have been real people. For anyone who wants to have a look, the link is here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6000624&postcount=1004

StAnastasia, you wrote on that thread:

“If there were indeed only two human parents, this would have to be reflected in a very constricted number of alleles in the human genome. This restriction of variation does not exist; therefore we cannot have had only two ancestral parents.”

Not necessarily. If the genetic bottleneck occurred far enough back in time, then it could be very small. In my opinion, 200,000 years ago is far too recent. However, a case can be made for a genetic bottleneck around 2 million years ago (the time when Homo erectus emerged), according to this article by Hawks et al., entitled “Populations Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution” in Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000), available online at mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/2 .The article by Hawks is much more nuanced in its conclusions than the original 1994 article by Francisco Ayala which I referred to.

Hawks writes: “We have no way of directly estimating with any certainty the size of the human species immediately after the bottleneck at its origin.”

Ayala’s article was written in 1994. That’s 15 years ago.

I should also like to point out that a new book will be on the market soon, entitled, “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?” (IVP, 2009) See this Website: shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/

The editor, Norman Nevin, is Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service. He has held the positions of secretary, vice-president and president of the UK Clinical Genetics Society as well as serving on various national and international committees notably the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. He is a member of the European Concerted Action for congenital abnormalities. Professor Nevin was a founder member of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee. His research interests have resulted in over 300 peer reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities.

If this guy believes in Adam and Eve, then I for one am going to sit up and listen to what he has to say.

And as I pointed out yesterday, he is not alone. Dr. Jonathan Wells is also of the opinion that the biological evidence does not rule out monogenism.

Edwest2 (if you’re reading this):

You made some very interesting points about the Flood in your previous post. I have written about the flood previously, at Uncommon Descent. You might like to have a look at my post here:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-end-of-christianity/#comment-319741

Best wishes,

Vincent Torley

 

[grannymh]

Not necessarily. If the genetic bottleneck occurred far enough back in time, then it could be very small. In my opinion, 200,000 years ago is far too recent. However, a case can be made for a genetic bottleneck around 2 million years ago (the time when Homo erectus emerged), according to this article by Hawks et al., entitled “Populations Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution” in Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000), available online at mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/2 .The article by Hawks is much more nuanced in its conclusions than the original 1994 article by Francisco Ayala which I referred to.

Hawks writes: “We have no way of directly estimating with any certainty the size of the human species immediately after the bottleneck at its origin.”

Thank you Vincent,

Your comment about John Hawks’ paper being “more nuanced in its conclusions” is an understatement. This was the first paper which gave me needed encouragement to persist in my belief in two sole parents of the human race. Currently, Hawks is on leave from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, “working on several projects”. Contributor Sang-Hee Lee is now at the University of California at Riverside. Her research area also encouraged me.

In my humble opinion, the bottleneck theory is quoted as a mantra without ever examining what actually contributes to it. The nuances in “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution” was full of small insights regarding bottlenecks – there is more than genetics.

I am wondering if I am off base. It seems to me that scientists who basically accept the materialistic views of the evolutionary theory are actually looking for the same evidence that I am. It seems to me that all of us are interested in how the human species came to be what it is today. What I see happening is that eventually there is a fork in the road. The materialistic viewpoint takes some people one way and Catholicism takes the way which can answer the serious questions about human life.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Detales]

Yes, but human life is essentially not different from eternal life, and neither is any other aspect of Creatlion. The mechanistic, creationist, and i.d. explanations are all inadaquate to the actuality of the situation, which so far very few have considered. That is said along with the caveat that as humans we can and do organize our stories, including the few and inadequate facts we might have, despite scientific papers, according to our fundamental belief system. On these fora that manifests mainly as christainist god vs no christianist god, and variations thereof. I submit that limited range of consideration is inadequate to the theme to the extent that it is made invalid. It is primarlily so in that it is homocentric and geocentric.

 

[reggieM]

In my humble opinion, the bottleneck theory is quoted as a mantra without ever examining what actually contributes to it.

I fully agree.

Many thanks to Dr. Torley for some superb research on this topic (posted here and on Uncommon Descent).

 

[itinerant1]

Some thoughts on Adam and Eve and genetics:

The idea there never existed an actual first pair of humans, from which all humans are of common descent, is supported by the fact that primal parents would indicate, genetically, a constricted number of alleles, a reduction in variation, which is what scientists do not see to be the case.

Now that says the analysis of human DNA and the interpretation of the data is a strong counter-indication to the existence of literal primal pair of humans.

My first question is, What is the degree of certitude that attaches to the conclusion described above? And if a specific degree certitude is ventured, what criteria are being used to proffer that conclusion?

Next, does a constricted number of alleles always indicate a fairly recent bottleneck? That is, are there enough comparative studies of various species that the conclusions of which allow scientists to say that this is always the case? How many studies have been done? Are there any exceptions?

Genetically, are the various systems considered given their proper significance? Or, could something conceivably change in the way the data is interpreted? For instance, using mtDNA, I understand that Drosophila has a significantly low mtDNA diversity, yet there is no evidence to indicate a population bottleneck for a least quite some time.

So, these are just some of my questions in an area that I don’t know much about.

 

[edwest2]

Dear Grannymh, StAnastasia and Edwest2,

I’d just like to make a few quick comments on Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood.

Yesterday, I posted some links on human uniqueness and what separates us from chimps. I also discussed the question of whether Adam and Eve could have been real people. For anyone who wants to have a look, the link is here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6000624&postcount=1004

StAnastasia, you wrote on that thread:

“If there were indeed only two human parents, this would have to be reflected in a very constricted number of alleles in the human genome. This restriction of variation does not exist; therefore we cannot have had only two ancestral parents.”

Not necessarily. If the genetic bottleneck occurred far enough back in time, then it could be very small. In my opinion, 200,000 years ago is far too recent. However, a case can be made for a genetic bottleneck around 2 million years ago (the time when Homo erectus emerged), according to this article by Hawks et al., entitled “Populations Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution” in Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000), available online at mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/2 .The article by Hawks is much more nuanced in its conclusions than the original 1994 article by Francisco Ayala which I referred to.

Hawks writes: “We have no way of directly estimating with any certainty the size of the human species immediately after the bottleneck at its origin.”

Ayala’s article was written in 1994. That’s 15 years ago.

I should also like to point out that a new book will be on the market soon, entitled, “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?” (IVP, 2009) See this Website: shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/

The editor, Norman Nevin, is Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service. He has held the positions of secretary, vice-president and president of the UK Clinical Genetics Society as well as serving on various national and international committees notably the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. He is a member of the European Concerted Action for congenital abnormalities. Professor Nevin was a founder member of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee. His research interests have resulted in over 300 peer reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities.

If this guy believes in Adam and Eve, then I for one am going to sit up and listen to what he has to say.

And as I pointed out yesterday, he is not alone. Dr. Jonathan Wells is also of the opinion that the biological evidence does not rule out monogenism.

Edwest2 (if you’re reading this):

You made some very interesting points about the Flood in your previous post. I have written about the flood previously, at Uncommon Descent. You might like to have a look at my post here:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-end-of-christianity/#comment-319741

Best wishes,

Vincent Torley

Hello Vincent,

Your statements at Uncommon Descent represent current revisionist Bible thinking. The Church holds the Deposit of Faith, that is, things revealed by God to us human beings.

I would like you to consider two phenomena that are going on here and elsewhere. One I call the “Bible Explanation Industry.” A recent example was the television program that claimed the discovery of an osuary that contained the bones of Jesus. Prior to that, a television special about the plagues brought against Egypt by God. They were all ‘explained’ as somehow, by way of great coincidence, occurring naturally.

Next up, is teasing out what God did and, especially, did not actually do in real time as related in the Bible. Jesus said this or that but He was vague, or only meant here but not everywhere.

In another part of the Bible we read that by one man sin entered the world. If you look at the Hebrew calendar, we’re at or around the year 5770. Now, why is that?

Living in the 21st Century means nothing. We have bad scholarship going on right now and I’m sure there’s more to come.

If you read the encyclical Humani Generis (1950), you get a good idea of the reality of Adam and Eve.

Finally, there are a few people here who believe science has discovered something. They present what they call evidence over and over and over again. And maintain eternal vigilance lest anyone mention the dreaded creationism or the more dreaded Intelligent Design too often.

Peace,
Ed

 

[twinc]

i suppose that you are refering to my well known distaste for anthropomorphism. of course we are taxonomically animals. i dont have a problem with that.

we are animals according to who,not according to God… see 1Cor.15:39 - twinc

 

[itinerant1]

i suppose that you are refering to my well known distaste for anthropomorphism. of course we are taxonomically animals. i dont have a problem with that.

A distaste for anthropomorphisms? I use them frequently whenever I refer to the minds of anthropoid apes and highers animals as differing in degree only from the mind of man.

To assert that man is taxinomically an animal needs further distinction. That is, what kind of animal is man? Is he brute animal according to Darwin, or is he a rational animal according to the traditional definition of man? If he is the latter, of which I have no doubt that he is, then a proper taxonomic category for man, one that correctly recognizes that the mind of man differs radically in kind from the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals, requires that man be classified so as to be in his own kingdom.

On the other hand, to assert that the mind of anthropoid apes and higher animals differs in degree only from the mind of man, borders on an anthropomorphic projection of human mental characteristics onto non-human animals.

Of course, I know that you would never be guilty of that fallacy because you have a well known distaste for anthropomorphism.

 

[hecd2]

StAnastasia, you wrote on that thread:

“If there were indeed only two human parents, this would have to be reflected in a very constricted number of alleles in the human genome. This restriction of variation does not exist; therefore we cannot have had only two ancestral parents.”

Not necessarily. If the genetic bottleneck occurred far enough back in time, then it could be very small. In my opinion, 200,000 years ago is far too recent. However, a case can be made for a genetic bottleneck around 2 million years ago (the time when Homo erectus emerged), according to this article by Hawks et al., entitled “Populations Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution” in Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:2-22 (2000), available online at mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/2 .The article by Hawks is much more nuanced in its conclusions than the original 1994 article by Francisco Ayala which I referred to.

Hawks writes: “We have no way of directly estimating with any certainty the size of the human species immediately after the bottleneck at its origin.”

Ayala’s article was written in 1994. That’s 15 years ago.

If you are going to accept Hawks et al as an authority, then you have to give up the idea that there is a minimal bottleneck at any time in human ancestry after 2 million years BP (and there is no direct evidence for a minimal bottleneck then - merely that the evidence, in their view, doesn’t preclude one).

You then have a number of problems to deal with if you are going to associate this bottleneck with a literal Adam and Eve:

1. The emergence of individuals that you must regard as fully human are able to do nothing more advanced than use their predecessors’ Oldowan lithic technology for half a million years.
2. You then condemn them to a further million years of barely changing Acheulean lithic culture
3. You pre-date the emergence of anatomically modern humans with modern human brains by 1.8 million years
4. You pre-date the emergence of modern human behaviour (and, by implication, human cognition) by 1.95 million years.

It seems to me to be a distortion of what it means to be fully human to associate the emergence of Homo erectus with the Adam and Eve myth.

From a scientific point of view, you also selectively quote Hawks et al, because although their position is that a minimal bottleneck is not ruled out at 2 million years BP, they certainly rule out a bottleneck of two. They say: “As it turns out, retention of a large number of ancestral HLA alleles precludes effective population sizes of much less than 1,000 at any particular point in time during human prehistory (Ayala 1995; Ayala and Escalante 1996 ; Takahata and Satta 1998 ). This minimum bottleneck number, 1,000, also seems to be the minimum effective population size compatible with the maintenance of species viability and adaptability (Lande 1995 ). The HLA data, then, do not preclude a speciation bottleneck of minimal population size.”. In other words a minimal bottleneck, such as might have occurred 2 million years ago, would represent an Ne of not less than 1000 - that is what they mean by a minimal bottleneck.

As for the comment about Ayala’s 1994 and 1995 papers being 15 years old - well, so they are, but their conclusion about the impossibility of the human ancestry passing through a bottleneck of two individuals stands. You are surely not suggesting that they are flawed simply because they are 15 years old? The structure of DNA was published 56 years ago. Hawks et al accept the conclusions of Ayala’s work on the MHC.

I should also like to point out that a new book will be on the market soon, entitled, “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?” (IVP, 2009) See this Website: shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/

The editor, Norman Nevin, is Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service. He has held the positions of secretary, vice-president and president of the UK Clinical Genetics Society as well as serving on various national and international committees notably the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. He is a member of the European Concerted Action for congenital abnormalities. Professor Nevin was a founder member of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee. His research interests have resulted in over 300 peer reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities.

If this guy believes in Adam and Eve, then I for one am going to sit up and listen to what he has to say.

Well, that is the fallacy from authority writ large - accept what the guy says for who he is rather than for his reasoning. That is a dangerous argument for you to use, because for every Nevin there are, on this subject, dozens of equally and better qualified people who think that his opinions on this are pure balderdash.

Nevin, by the way, is a distinguished medical geneticist - ie a doctor who treats genetic disorders. He is not a scientist, nor a palaeontologist, nor an expert on genomics and although his resume sounds impressive, not one of those committees is a scientific one - they are all either medical or medical ethics committees. It seems from the chapter summaries of this book that, at least in its “scientific” sections, it is just another tedious attempt to serve up long discredited arguments for the reinforcement of prejudices and the deception of the ignorant.

And as I pointed out yesterday, he is not alone. Dr. Jonathan Wells is also of the opinion that the biological evidence does not rule out monogenism.

You are putting *Wells *forward as an authority on palaeo-demography? That’s hilarious.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Some thoughts on Adam and Eve and genetics:

The idea there never existed an actual first pair of humans, from which all humans are of common descent, is supported by the fact that primal parents would indicate, genetically, a constricted number of alleles, a reduction in variation, which is what scientists do not see to be the case.

Now that says the analysis of human DNA and the interpretation of the data is a strong counter-indication to the existence of literal primal pair of humans.

My first question is, What is the degree of certitude that attaches to the conclusion described above?

Very high.

And if a specific degree certitude is ventured, what criteria are being used to proffer that conclusion?

The genetic data arithmetically preclude a bottleneck of two in human ancestry at any point in the lineage leading to modern humans since the divergence from the chimp lineage. (I can give you more details, but last time we discussed this, you bowed out, saying that you didn’t know enough about the science to carry on the discussion, and you would just stick to your beliefs anyway).

Next, does a constricted number of alleles always indicate a fairly recent bottleneck?

In neutral loci which can be shown to have existed for a long time, yes. However low diversity might also result from strong purifying selection in some loci. But more importantly, a recent severe bottleneck leads to a reduction in allelic diversity across the genome.

That is, are there enough comparative studies of various species that the conclusions of which allow scientists to say that this is always the case?

It is a consequence of population genetic theory which is generally supported by observation.

How many studies have been done? Are there any exceptions?

There are no studies that I am aware of that undermine the conclusions of population genetics.

Genetically, are the various systems considered given their proper significance?

Yes

Or, could something conceivably change in the way the data is interpreted?

Not likely.

For instance, using mtDNA, I understand that Drosophila has a significantly low mtDNA diversity, yet there is no evidence to indicate a population bottleneck for a least quite some time.

Perhaps you could reference that for us, because I am not aware of this finding. (You do know that Drosophila is a genus, not a species?).

But you are getting things back to front. You are questioning evidence for a severe population bottleneck - not evidence against it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Dameedna]

Agreed, the bible certainly doesn’t specify exactly how man was created, what is important though is that

1. all modern humans have one set of common ancestors Adam & Eve
   .

Evolution isn’t a threat to a philosophy or belief in a God.

It is however a threat to the statement above, along with certain beliefs such as God intervening in life along with the “qualities” of God that people claim are true.

Evolution and God are not the issue.

It is the attempt to maintain a religious belief that has since been challenged that is the problem. That is why people have an issue with evolution. Their faith is based on either a church, a book or a philosophy which evolution and modern science challenge if one is to maintain any intergrity in their beliefs. It isn’t really based on God at all.

In terms of the OP, I think for the first time ever, he is some-what correct…lol!!