http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_sc/close_call
I found this VERY interesting because up until recently, I had assumed that pure evolution was plausible. That many thousands of humans had evolved and expanded over the course of a the last million or so years allowing our population to be so huge today.
But this article suggests two things I find interesting.
1) We were down to a few thousand people just 70,000 years ago. This of course severely limits the numbers of people which could have evolved over the course of a couple million years.
2) There is reason to believe that the entire human race may have come from a "mitocrongrial Eve".
What does the forum think? Is this trouble for traditional evolution? Will the theory need to be re-worked? And last, is this the beginning of scientific evidence supporting a literal reading of Genesis?
Humanity came from around 2000 persons?
Moderator: Moderators
- achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Humanity came from around 2000 persons?
Post #1It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 10260
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 1452 times
- Been thanked: 1757 times
Re: Humanity came from around 2000 persons?
Post #351Once again, an attempt to make the playing field level is put forth. Sorry Ned, they are not in the same ball park.Neandertal Ned wrote:Boots introduced the concept of "superstitious woo" so since Darwinism is not science I classified it as superstitious scientific woo.Wyvern wrote:I don't know what this woo is that you are referring to or how you can possibly wallow in it regardless of its type but what I do know is that science can demonstrate that it is correct which is something neither superstition nor religion can do.Neandertal Ned wrote:If you think that your scientific woo is superior to superstitious woo then enjoy wallowing in your scientific woo.Boots wrote:No. But, the fact that the scientific model has come about through the scientific method, which has proven to be extremely effective at explaining phenomena, makes it far more reasonable to sbuscribe to it than to superstitious woo.Neandertal Ned wrote: Is anyone or any group of people other than scientists forced to believe in or to subscribe to the scientific model?
You see, one side has this thing called evidence while the other side has a mythical book. Oooooooooooooooohhhhhhh, it is Halloween soon I suppose, so at least you are in season.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

