Biology has done what? And why does ‘no change in genetics mean?’ Here is the measured mutation rate per base pair per year in modern humans:
Nothing in that statement is correct.
3 Likes
Steve, so you deny the results that show the convergence of genetics 100,000 to 200,000 years ago? Or does genetic research show that at some point in the past 200,000 years that human could live to be 930 years old? Certainly man has evolved somewhat over that time, but there have been no fundamental changes like there was at the bottleneck.
Thanks Matthew, I clarified my post to say “no fundamental change” in genetics since the bottleneck. Fundamental meaning to include aspects like lifespan.
Yes, I completely deny those results. Or rather, I deny the conclusion that the authors reach, because their conclusion does not follow from their data. It’s a really bad paper. A good sketch of the problems in the paper can be found here. I can explain in more detail if you like.
There is no trace of a hint anywhere in biology that humans could ever live to 930.
There is no evidence for a tight bottleneck anywhere in human history. (The global history of humans, that is. There’s abundant evidence for bottlenecks in particular populations.) In particular, a tight bottleneck within the last 200,000 years would have left clear traces in patterns of modern genetic diversity, and we don’t see those patterns.
2 Likes
Not sure if this has changed or follow studies have been done yet:
Thanks for pointing this out. It really can’t be said enough. What is more interesting and probably more relevant to these discussions are apples to apples comparisons of a number of species so that we can better understand what 97 or 95 or 88% means. YECs keep talking about 88% or even 75% similarity and I keep saying show us how similar you and I are, how similar a neanderthal and I are or a chimp and bonobo are using the exact same methodology so we have some perspective on what those similarity values means. I am always met with either silence or some sort of excuses about how we don’t have good enough genomes data to do these comparisons yet. To the latter I say, that is not really true but they could take a subset of a genome and do the same apples to apples to comparisons if they wanted to.
3 Likes
You are correct. Christians believe that we are ensouled creatures, but the LDS believe in a spiritual pre-existence, acquiring a body on earth afterwards. And they believe that blacks were given their color because they were less valiant in the pre-existence.
I have seen the studies on longevity but these are in percents and not multiples, like 10x.
Absolutely incorrect to the point where this is a humongous porky of the most blatant kind. The Bible says everything about time continually giving genealogies with extensive details on the time involved. The only question is how seriously you take them and particularly how you choose to understand the long lifespans given in them.
Definitely! In particularly Biologos is about taking the scientific findings with regards to evolution seriously and seeking some understanding of how the findings of science mesh with Christian teachings. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with your ill-founded attempts to do so, let alone grant you any authority what so ever to dictate your imagined answers as the being the indisputable truth.
That assumes that the stories of Adam&Eve and the flood have absolutely anything whatsoever to do with any such convergence – an assumption which I reject completely. Science does not support a worldwide flood and the Bible does not agree with the idea of Adam and Eve ever being the sole members of the homo-sapiens species on the planet. I have already explained these things above. But apparently you have no more interest in my thinking than I have in your dictation.
Despite some disagreement by others, I do think there was a population bottleneck 100,00 to 200,000 years ago in southern Africa and I think this is the origin of modern homo-sapiens species. But I don’t agree with equating human beings with a biological species, and therefore I see no reason whatsoever to connect this bottleneck with Adam&Eve or the beginning of humanity.
I have already made it clear that I am open to alternative interpretations of the numbers in the Bible (which you just declared not to exist above), but I am not particularly interested in seeing how you force the numbers to fit your particular interpretation.
I find it is Evolutionists, perhaps the less knowledgeable ones, who continue to say how the high similarity “proves” that we had a common ancestor. But can anyone clearly state a falsification criteria for that hypothesis?
This depends on what you mean by a “tight bottleneck.” I certainly agree there is nothing to support a reduction of the total homo genus population down to less that 10 people and more evidence to say it is inconsistent with the evidence that such a thing happened anytime in the last 500,000 years. But there is evidence of a bottleneck that is not so “tight.” And to be perfectly honest, there is nothing to exclude the possibility that the Cro-Magnon population could have been that small at sometime within the last 250,000 years among a larger homo-sapiens species population dominated by Neanderthals. After all, a new subspecies has to start somewhere.
But let me clarify that although I acknowledge such a possibility, I personally refuse the idea that Adam should be identified with some first Cro-Magnon as if our humanity is nothing more than a biological subspecies.
Perhaps your sort of Christians do, but none of that is in the Nicea 325AD creed and I reject it utterly, seeing it as coming from the Gnostics and other religions with which I do not agree. I do not believe in this idea of created souls being stuck into bodies in order to give various political ideologies the justification for dictating when such becomes a human being. I believe I have already explained that I believe in the spirit of Paul’s explanation of 1 Corinthians 15 growing from the choices we make (the last phrase here being my understanding, rather than Paul’s). I supposed you might be justified in attributing this to my being an existentialist Christian.
Genesis 5:5 says: “So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.” This has nothing to do with dates and cannot be added up to come to time. There is no genetic support that anyone has ever lived for 930 years. So, these entries, must have a different meaning.
In more recent history, these biblical numbers have been tested. In his journal entry, “Wann hat Abraham gelebt.” Museion 2000, 3/1991, Walther Hinz presents the following timeline from Abraham to Joseph, spanning 400 years longer than the ages would give in the Bible. Here is his timeline for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I don’t remember anyone around here saying that. It is usually something more along the lines of this.
Things like the ERV’s in identical locations in human and chimp genomes, broken vitamin C gene, etc. etc.
2 Likes
Orthodox Christians believe that we are creatures (created beings) and acquire souls through some process. The definition of the soul, and how or when we acquire it is a mystery to me. But it happens.
I think your use of “Orthodox Christians” has even more problems than your previous use of “Christians.” Every reference I look at defines “Orthodox Christians” as the " form of Christianity maintained by the Eastern Orthodox Church." And the fact is that I probably have more agreement with their teachings than you do.
Let me rephrase that.
Christians who are orthodox (and that includes the Orthodox) believe that we are creatures (created beings) and acquire souls through some process. The definition of the soul, and how or when we acquire it is a mystery to me. But it happens.
What are these problems with my previous use of the word Christians? I’d like to know
Yes, I’m sure that you omit the “Filioque” clause when reciting the creed. Seriously though, is there anything on earth you don’t get angry about? Even John the Baptist doesn’t get a break.
The correct word is “passionate.” And yes there are a lot of things for which I have no feelings whatsoever.
Yep. Now that one does anger me. The Roman patriarch basically blew off all the other patriarchs and decided only his opinion mattered. I frankly couldn’t care all that much one way or the other about actual issue they disagreed on – though I am likely to side with the EO just because of how the Roman patriarch handled this, which was despicable.
Fact is, I prefer the original agreement of Nicea 325 AD when the creeds were more about preventing those like Marcion who tried to chop Chrisitanity down to something smaller.
But we really need to move this to another thread… we are way off topic here.
So I will start a new topic.
What evidence did you have in mind?
Who has suggested that Adam be found among the Cro-Magnons? Cro-Magnons were simply the first modern humans in Europe.
2 Likes