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?

[Neandertal Ned]

What evidence do you have to substantiate your claim of my making a false claim about you?

You mean other than a moderator warning you to stop doing it?

Of course. No moderator ever said that I was making a false claim. Where is your evidence of my making a false claim about you?

What evidence do you have to prove your claim that I ever ceded the point about being an ape?

Ffrom post #1061 in the why is evolution right thread;

I tried to warn you against insulting Jews, Muslims and Arabs by calling them apes but since I cannot scientifically prove that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are not apes, you don't have to retract your stated claim that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are apes.

How is that evidence of my conceding that I was ever an ape? I am not Jewish, Muslim or Arab. You sure can read imaginative ideas into what other people write.

I don't even concede to your claim of being an ape, much less to your claim of my being an ape.

And thus you are reduced to having to refute yourself from a few weeks ago.

Nice try, but your vain attempt to "reduce" me does not seem to have increased your stature as an honest debater.

[Wyvern]

What evidence do you have to substantiate your claim of my making a false claim about you?

You mean other than a moderator warning you to stop doing it?

Of course. No moderator ever said that I was making a false claim. Where is your evidence of my making a false claim about you?

Really? Just over a page ago a mod gave you a warning about doing that very thing.

Neandertal Ned wrote:

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who lists himslef as an agnostic Hominidae and scientific naturalist is an atheistic Darwinist, especially someone with an extremely pronounced aversion to any reference to God and the Bible. No need to retract it since that is what I believe you are.

Moderator Comment

If someone does not claim to be an atheistic Darwinist, you cannot then claim he is one, even if you believe that he is.

You said you are in AARP so I have to ask are you starting to have memory problems? This was only a day or two ago so its not like it was a long time ago.

What evidence do you have to prove your claim that I ever ceded the point about being an ape?

Ffrom post #1061 in the why is evolution right thread;

I tried to warn you against insulting Jews, Muslims and Arabs by calling them apes but since I cannot scientifically prove that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are not apes, you don't have to retract your stated claim that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are apes.

How is that evidence of my conceding that I was ever an ape? I am not Jewish, Muslim or Arab. You sure can read imaginative ideas into what other people write.

Stop being ridiculous, the only way this is not conceding you and every other human is an ape is if you declare here and now that muslims arabs and jews are not human. Face it Ned you ceded the point, not our fault that you don't know what that means.

I don't even concede to your claim of being an ape, much less to your claim of my being an ape.

And thus you are reduced to having to refute yourself from a few weeks ago.

Nice try, but your vain attempt to "reduce" me does not seem to have increased your stature as an honest debater.

You mean like your threat to bring forth all this evidence you have about false claims I have made against you?

[Neandertal Ned]

No moderator ever said that I was making a false claim. Where is your evidence of my making a false claim about you?

Really? Just over a page ago a mod gave you a warning about doing that very thing.

Neandertal Ned wrote:

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who lists himslef as an agnostic Hominidae and scientific naturalist is an atheistic Darwinist, especially someone with an extremely pronounced aversion to any reference to God and the Bible. No need to retract it since that is what I believe you are.

Moderator Comment

If someone does not claim to be an atheistic Darwinist, you cannot then claim he is one, even if you believe that he is.

No evidence of making a false claim there - just the rule that you cannot claim something about someone who does not make that claim themself. You have such a hard time interpreting the rules for yourself that you certainly cannot interpret them for others!

You said you are in AARP so I have to ask are you starting to have memory problems? This was only a day or two ago so its not like it was a long time ago.

I hope you can quote me saying that I am in AARP. Otherwise my memory may be fading.

What evidence do you have to prove your claim that I ever ceded the point about being an ape?

Ffrom post #1061 in the why is evolution right thread;

I tried to warn you against insulting Jews, Muslims and Arabs by calling them apes but since I cannot scientifically prove that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are not apes, you don't have to retract your stated claim that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are apes.

How is that evidence of my conceding that I was ever an ape? I am not Jewish, Muslim or Arab. You sure can read imaginative ideas into what other people write.

Stop being ridiculous, the only way this is not conceding you and every other human is an ape is if you declare here and now that muslims arabs and jews are not human. Face it Ned you ceded the point, not our fault that you don't know what that means.

Careful now. If someone does not claim to have ceded the point, you cannot then claim that they have, even if you believe that they have.

I don't even concede to your claim of being an ape, much less to your claim of my being an ape.

And thus you are reduced to having to refute yourself from a few weeks ago.

Nice try, but your vain attempt to "reduce" me does not seem to have increased your stature as an honest debater.

You mean like your threat to bring forth all this evidence you have about false claims I have made against you?

What threat? Are you implying that I am threatening you on the forum? I would report all such threats if I were you.

[McCulloch]

What evidence do you have to prove your claim that I ever ceded the point about being an ape?

I don't even concede to your claim of being an ape, much less to your claim of my being an ape.

If all humans are apes then both you and I are apes. If biology is true, then it does not matter that you don't believe it. If biology is false, then it does not matter that I don't believe Genesis.

According to biology, humans are animals. We are multicellular living entities that are not plants or fungi. That is what animals are. We are mammals. We are animals with warm blood, a brain and backbone, fur or hair that don't lay eggs and can breast feed our young. That is what mammals are.

Regardless of anyone's religious belief, all humans are animals; all humans are mammals and all humans are apes. Because we fit the definition of what it means to be an animal, a mammal and an ape.

Now to address the question in the OP. The science of genetics does claim that there is evidence of a genetic bottleneck. The Toba catastrophe hypothesis suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals. The world-wide flood myth from Genesis suggests that less than 10,000 years ago, the total human population was reduced to eight, at least five of them closely genetically related. This model has no supporting scientific evidence at all.

[Neandertal Ned]

What evidence do you have to prove your claim that I ever ceded the point about being an ape?

I don't even concede to your claim of being an ape, much less to your claim of my being an ape.

If all humans are apes then both you and I are apes.

That is a big "if." The premise that "all humans are apes," is not falsifiable, so it is just an a priori assumption and does not qualify as being scientific.

If biology is true, then it does not matter that you don't believe it.

If Darwinism is not true then all biology is not true, and it does matter what you believe.

If biology is false, then it does not matter that I don't believe Genesis.

What does matter is the part of biology that is true and the part that is false. It is the job of biologists to demonstrate the truths of biology and to expose the false claims of biologists.

According to biology, humans are animals. We are multicellular living entities that are not plants or fungi. That is what animals are. We are mammals. We are animals with warm blood, a brain and backbone, fur or hair that don't lay eggs and can breast feed our young. That is what mammals are.

Regardless of anyone's religious belief, all humans are animals; all humans are mammals and all humans are apes. Because we fit the definition of what it means to be an animal, a mammal and an ape.

Biological categories, classifications and taxons are only valid for biologists and those who choose to accept them. They do not have to be believed in, subscribed or adhered to, by anyone other than biologists and their followers any more than biologists can be forced to believe in, subscribe or adhere to, a set of religious beliefs. The priniciple and premise of free will and choice is more important and applicable to humanity than any biological principle or premise that necessitates a Darwinist perspective and taxonomy.

Now to address the question in the OP. The science of genetics does claim that there is evidence of a genetic bottleneck. The Toba catastrophe hypothesis suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 15,000 individuals. The world-wide flood myth from Genesis suggests that less than 10,000 years ago, the total human population was reduced to eight, at least five of them closely genetically related. This model has no supporting scientific evidence at all.

Is anyone or any group of people other than scientists forced to believe in or to subscribe to the scientific model?

[Boots]

Is anyone or any group of people other than scientists forced to believe in or to subscribe to the scientific model?

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]

Is anyone or any group of people other than scientists forced to believe in or to subscribe to the scientific model?

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.

If you think that your scientific woo is superior to superstitious woo then enjoy wallowing in your scientific woo.

[Wyvern]

Is anyone or any group of people other than scientists forced to believe in or to subscribe to the scientific model?

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.

If you think that your scientific woo is superior to superstitious woo then enjoy wallowing in your scientific woo.

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.

[Wyvern]

No evidence of making a false claim there - just the rule that you cannot claim something about someone who does not make that claim themself. You have such a hard time interpreting the rules for yourself that you certainly cannot interpret them for others!

Nope other than you making an unfounded and false claim there is absolutely no evidence of you making a false claim.

What evidence do you have to prove your claim that I ever ceded the point about being an ape?

Ffrom post #1061 in the why is evolution right thread;

I tried to warn you against insulting Jews, Muslims and Arabs by calling them apes but since I cannot scientifically prove that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are not apes, you don't have to retract your stated claim that Jews, Muslims and Arabs are apes.

How is that evidence of my conceding that I was ever an ape? I am not Jewish, Muslim or Arab. You sure can read imaginative ideas into what other people write.

Stop being ridiculous, the only way this is not conceding you and every other human is an ape is if you declare here and now that muslims arabs and jews are not human. Face it Ned you ceded the point, not our fault that you don't know what that means.

Careful now. If someone does not claim to have ceded the point, you cannot then claim that they have, even if you believe that they have.

Thankfully the bolded section clearly shows you ceding the point but by all means if you do not think you are please bring in a mod to officially retract the claim as I did with you, it's only fair after all.

[Neandertal Ned]

Is anyone or any group of people other than scientists forced to believe in or to subscribe to the scientific model?

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.

If you think that your scientific woo is superior to superstitious woo then enjoy wallowing in your scientific woo.

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.

Boots introduced the concept of "superstitious woo" so since Darwinism is not science I classified it as superstitious scientific woo.