Genesis Re-Creation Confirmed

[Doveaman]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

 

[SpiritualBeing]

But but but the earth is only 6,000 years old LOL

 

[HTacianas]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

If we didn't all descend from one man and one woman how many men and women did we descend from?

 

[juvenissun]

But but but the earth is only 6,000 years old LOL

You said that?

 

[SpiritualBeing]

You said that?

LOL no, but many creationists firmly believe this.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

This study does nothing to confirm anything

 

[Doveaman]

If we didn't all descend from one man and one woman how many men and women did we descend from?

I think evolution states that many men and women evolved from many apes.

 

[juvenissun]

LOL no, but many creationists firmly believe this.

I would like to put the bishop who proposed that into jail.

 

[Doveaman]

This study does nothing to confirm anything

Are you saying the study was pointless?

 

[SpiritualBeing]

I would like to put the bishop who proposed that into jail.

That would be the Church of Ireland ArchBishop of Armagh, James Ussher.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Are you saying the study was pointless?

I'd say take the study with a grain of salt.

-This study was published back in May.
-DNA barcoding is not a perfect method of identifying species.
-The study's finding that the event occurred between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago is so vague as to be meaningless.
-Stoeckle and Thaler only ever said that their data was "consistent" with the existence of a founding pair. That doesn't mean much, and they immediately conceded that the same pattern could have arisen "within a founding population of thousands that was stable for tens of thousands of years".
-Archaeological record tells a different story.
-Other lines of evidence strongly suggest that past human populations were always much larger than two.

 

[Doveaman]

I'd say take the study with a grain of salt.

Even a grain of salt has flavor.

The study's finding that the event occurred between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago is so vague as to be meaningless.

I don't have much confidence in their dating methods ether.

Stoeckle and Thaler only ever said that their data was "consistent" with the existence of a founding pair. That doesn't mean much, and they immediately conceded that the same pattern could have arisen "within a founding population of thousands that was stable for tens of thousands of years".
-Archaeological record tells a different story.
-Other lines of evidence strongly suggest that past human populations were always much larger than two.

But the study focuses on a new human population that emerged following a recent global catastrophe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

As is often the case, the newspaper misinterpreted and exaggerated the published paper, which was about the use of mitochondrial 'barcodes' to trace species development. They actually said that we can't tell whether a bottleneck reduced the population to the extent that the only descendants to survive to the present were from a single couple, or that there was a population of thousands stable over thousands of years.

The comment they made was:

"Contemporary sequence data cannot tell whether mitochondrial and Y chromosomes clonality occurred at the same time, i.e., consistent with the extreme bottleneck of a founding pair, or via sorting within a founding population of thousands that was stable for tens of thousands of years."
​

They say the mitochondrial diversity bottleneck appears to be between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago and appears in all animal species, and could be due either to a 'special period' (e.g. massive die-off of animals) or just an example of coevolution:

"The simple hypothesis is that the same explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years."

"The characteristics of contemporary mitochondrial variance may represent a rare snapshot of animal life evolving during a special period. Alternatively, the similarity in variance within species could be a sign or a consequence of coevolution."​

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you saying the study was pointless?

The study is grossly misrepresented.

Second comment on that "article":

To the editors,

I work with scientists Mark Stoeckle and David Thaler.

This article grossly misrepresents the scientists' work, published last spring in the journal Human Evolution (“Why should mitochondria define species?” available at
http://www.pontecorboli.com/.../why-should-mitochondria...).

Drs. Stoeckle and Thaler offer this statement:

"Our study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years."

"Our study follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single 'Adam' or 'Eve'. We do not propose any catastrophic events."

Mark Stoeckle, The Rockefeller University, New York
David Thaler, University of Basel

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't have much confidence in their dating methods ether.

No, you only have confidence in whatever you feel like you can marry with your a priori religious beliefs. This is why you happily selectively pull from this misrepresentation of an article only those parts that you can match with your bronze age beliefs, and leave out everything that doesn't.

This is also why it doesn't bother you at all that the article grossly misrepresents the actual study.

It's intellectual dishonesty from beginning to end.
You are quite literally misrepresenting an article that itself is misrepresenting the actual study.

You get combo points for that though.

But the study focuses on a new human population that emerged following a recent global catastrophe.

No, it doesn't. That is, the study doesn't.

 

[VirOptimus]

Misrepresentation? By a creationist, I’m truly shocked. Not.

 

[Dave-W]

I would like to put the bishop who proposed that into jail.

Who said it was a bishop?

My calendar says this is the year 5779 since creation. (orthodox Jewish)

 

[Halbhh]

Re-Creation Theory

Confirmation: "All human beings on Earth descended from just a single couple, scientists claim."

I'd say take the study with a grain of salt.

-This study was published back in May.
-DNA barcoding is not a perfect method of identifying species.
-The study's finding that the event occurred between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago is so vague as to be meaningless.
-Stoeckle and Thaler only ever said that their data was "consistent" with the existence of a founding pair. That doesn't mean much, and they immediately conceded that the same pattern could have arisen "within a founding population of thousands that was stable for tens of thousands of years".
-Archaeological record tells a different story.
-

For anyone interested, a Phys.org article on this with more details:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

Reading we find some useful details to help with some questions being raised.

Regarding 'Other lines of evidence strongly suggest that past human populations were always much larger than two' -- yes, this is basic knowledge, but the (amazing/surprising) point in the article is that there appears (if they are correct) to have been some kind of event causing all the diverse population(s) to be greatly reduced somehow (even down to pairs?). In a more recent time, only on the order of 100k yrs (that's news!). After modern humans existed. A widespread bottleneck reduction of populations, all at once it seems it appears (in this study), after modern humans existed....

... (sound familiar?)

And that is extremely interesting.

I don't take it for granted the study is conclusive, but instead it makes me want to follow this continuing question in the coming years.

 

[juvenissun]

Who said it was a bishop?

My calendar says this is the year 5779 since creation. (orthodox Jewish)

That probably was the calculation of that bishop based on. A tribe can set up their calendar anyway they want. But in terms of scientific meaning, it becomes a different matter. Many questions need to be answered. The genealogy before Abraham can not be taken without modern scientific considerations.

 

[Halbhh]

Just got around to finishing the last piece of the more-informative (and clear and short and even non-technical) article at Phys.org, and it's quite interesting also. So, that's 2 different highly interesting faucets of evolution they found that are new information, and profound in implication if they pan out.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html