Humanity came from around 2000 persons?

[achilles12604]

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?

[Cathar1950]

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?

How does this support a literal reading of Genesis?
I have read about this bottle neck a few years back and unlike Bible Believers evolution adapts to new information. I don't see how it could be trouble for the theory of evolution. It is always being re-worked, it is the nature of science to do so.

[achilles12604]

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?

How does this support a literal reading of Genesis?
I have read about this bottle neck a few years back and unlike Bible Believers evolution adapts to new information. I don't see how it could be trouble for the theory of evolution. It is always being re-worked, it is the nature of science to do so.

Please do note that I included the word "traditional" before evolution. I was addressing one particular brand of evolution, namely the inflexable counterpart to creationism.

I even suggested it needed to be re-worked.

And lastly, I asked if it was the beginning of scientific evidence, not the conclusive end all proof.

Now with all that aside, A creationist could put forth the point that if all the genetics could be traced back to the most recent common ancestor, why not to 2 common ancestors? This is how it could be tacked on to a literal reading of Genesis.

[Goat]

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?

How does this support a literal reading of Genesis?
I have read about this bottle neck a few years back and unlike Bible Believers evolution adapts to new information. I don't see how it could be trouble for the theory of evolution. It is always being re-worked, it is the nature of science to do so.

Please do note that I included the word "traditional" before evolution. I was addressing one particular brand of evolution, namely the inflexable counterpart to creationism.

I even suggested it needed to be re-worked.

And lastly, I asked if it was the beginning of scientific evidence, not the conclusive end all proof.

Now with all that aside, A creationist could put forth the point that if all the genetics could be traced back to the most recent common ancestor, why not to 2 common ancestors? This is how it could be tacked on to a literal reading of Genesis.

Actuallyy, it isn't new evidnce at all. There have been other studies that refute that analysis done, which show the diversity in humanity does not show a bottleneck from that time period. There is evidence of the 'founder effect' on the eurpoean populations

[achilles12604]

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?

How does this support a literal reading of Genesis?
I have read about this bottle neck a few years back and unlike Bible Believers evolution adapts to new information. I don't see how it could be trouble for the theory of evolution. It is always being re-worked, it is the nature of science to do so.

Please do note that I included the word "traditional" before evolution. I was addressing one particular brand of evolution, namely the inflexable counterpart to creationism.

I even suggested it needed to be re-worked.

And lastly, I asked if it was the beginning of scientific evidence, not the conclusive end all proof.

Now with all that aside, A creationist could put forth the point that if all the genetics could be traced back to the most recent common ancestor, why not to 2 common ancestors? This is how it could be tacked on to a literal reading of Genesis.

Actuallyy, it isn't new evidnce at all. There have been other studies that refute that analysis done, which show the diversity in humanity does not show a bottleneck from that time period. There is evidence of the 'founder effect' on the eurpoean populations

So the studies done by Stanford are all bogus?

[Goat]

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?

How does this support a literal reading of Genesis?
I have read about this bottle neck a few years back and unlike Bible Believers evolution adapts to new information. I don't see how it could be trouble for the theory of evolution. It is always being re-worked, it is the nature of science to do so.

Please do note that I included the word "traditional" before evolution. I was addressing one particular brand of evolution, namely the inflexable counterpart to creationism.

I even suggested it needed to be re-worked.

And lastly, I asked if it was the beginning of scientific evidence, not the conclusive end all proof.

Now with all that aside, A creationist could put forth the point that if all the genetics could be traced back to the most recent common ancestugor, why not to 2 common ancestors? This is how it could be tacked on to a literal reading of Genesis.

Actuallyy, it isn't new evidnce at all. There have been other studies that refute that analysis done, which show the diversity in humanity does not show a bottleneck from that time period. There is evidence of the 'founder effect' on the eurpoean populations

So the studies done by Stanford are all bogus?

No,but the idea is not new, and there are other studies that suggest otherwise.

The interesting part is to figure out which method of analysis of data is more accurate. I am sure there will be other studies , and analsys of how that conclusion was drawn in the future.

[micatala]

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?

I guess I need more clarification on what you mean by "traditional" evolution.

I don't see that this is a problem for human evolution. From a metaphorical standpoint, it could be interpreted as support for a the idea of Eve or possibly Adam and Eve. However, I don't see that a bottleneck as the same as an initial creation in a literal sense.

In my view, it is more appropriate to think of Adam and Eve as types or metaphors for the first humans to acquire a moral sense or a capacity to relate to God, not as the first biological humans.

[achilles12604]

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?

I guess I need more clarification on what you mean by "traditional" evolution.

I don't see that this is a problem for human evolution. From a metaphorical standpoint, it could be interpreted as support for a the idea of Eve or possibly Adam and Eve. However, I don't see that a bottleneck as the same as an initial creation in a literal sense.

In my view, it is more appropriate to think of Adam and Eve as types or metaphors for the first humans to acquire a moral sense or a capacity to relate to God, not as the first biological humans.

Oh I agree. I am having trouble with this thread because I do not accept a literal Genesis. However, I brought it up because I know some people out there do.

Perhaps we should wait for their imput.

[Cathar1950]

I agree with both Micatala and Goat and if your not claiming Genesis is literally, I guess I agree with Achilles. I have read both sides of the issue about the bottleneck and I am open. Humans have been here a long time even living at the same time as other humanoids or animal realtives.
Ether way the bottleneck ideas goes, I don't see how it could have any effect on the science of evolution. It is strong enough to incorporate the results. A literal view or reading of Genesis is not strong enough to incorporate any new information. A bottleneck would just be one more piece of data that stacks against a literal reading. I think the OP is asking the wrong people as evolution would not have a problem.

[McCulloch]

2) There is reason to believe that the entire human race may have come from a "mitocrongrial Eve".

Mitochondrial Eve is an unfortunate misnomer. There is a vast difference between the Biblical literalists view of Eve, the first human woman and the statistical scientists idea of a mitochondrial eve (ME). ME is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. Her mother was a human and was also an ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today. She probably had siblings and cousins who had descendants. While she is a statistical necessity, she was probably not particularly special for her time. Furthermore, it is possible that the designation could change to some other human ancestor.