My Genesis 1 Bottleneck Event Challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Please tell, how would it be different?

The human genome would have almost no variation. Just like the cheetah, whose numbers went down to an effective population of 7 or 8 roughly 10,000 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

The human genome would have almost no variation. Just like the cheetah, whose numbers went down to an effective population of 7 or 8 roughly 10,000 years ago.

Translation: We would all be extremely inbred?

Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) are extremely inbred.

SOURCE

 

[sfs]

Please tell, how would it be different?

See post #22, and the more detailed discussion I link to there.

 

[sfs]

Could that be the situation of the world before Noah?

If you had sampled human genetic variation at the time of (putative) Noah, then you would have seen mostly whatever genetic variation (putative) Adam and Eve carried, plus a small amount of variation that would indeed look like it belonged in a rapidly expanding population.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Translation: We would all be extremely inbred?


SOURCE

Essentially. Though since cheetahs had a slow population growth they may be a bit more inbred, but yes, your version (and there you) claims that there would be very little genetic variation in humans.

If you make a claim your claim can be used to make predictions. If the predictions are wrong then so is your claim.

 

[Aman777]

If you had sampled human genetic variation at the time of (putative) Noah, then you would have seen mostly whatever genetic variation (putative) Adam and Eve carried, plus a small amount of variation that would indeed look like it belonged in a rapidly expanding population.

The combination of Noah's grandsons (Humans) and the sons of God (prehistoric people) produced the 7.4 Billion hybrid Humans (descendants of Adam) alive today, in just 11k years after the Ark arrived. That is WHY today's Humans have inherited Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's Gen 3:22 AND WHY we also have the DNA of the last universal common ancestor within our genetics. Amen?

 

[juvenissun]

Such as finding some number of genetic variants at high frequency (whatever variants were carried by Adam and Eve), a small number of variants at very low frequency (the result of new mutations), and almost nothing in between. Instead, we see lots and lots of variants with a frequency distribution that falls off almost exactly as 1/f. That happens to be the frequency distribution that expect to find for a population that's been at the same size for a very long time. (In the case of humans, for ~50,000 generations or more.)

You can find more detailed explanations and the results of simulations here, where I was contrasting observed data with what's see from a bottleneck 2000 generations ago. (I post there as glipsnort.)

Fine. Good understanding.

Just one thought. I know the current earth is nowhere near the conditions in the (putative) Garden. And people described in the Genesis had extreme logivity. So the current human genetics should not work the same as that in the time of Genesis. To apply how does the earth work today to the ancient earth is wrong. May be the understanding of genetics today is not good enough to describe that of people in the Genesis.

May be this would be a worthwhile question for you: How should the genetics change so that it would shorten (or lengthen) the longevity of human? It is a critical modern question. It is also a critical question to think about the putative longevity of people in Genesis.

 

[Aman777]

May be this would be a worthwhile question for you: How should the genetics change so that it would shorten (or lengthen) the longevity of human?

Adam's Earth was immersed in the midst of water Gen 1:6-7 and had NO cosmic rays since it had no Sun, Moon, nor Stars. In a world like that, it's not surprising that people should have a longer lifespan. Notice the decreased lifespans of some 90% from Noah to the Humans on the present Earth.

 

[sfs]

Just one thought. I know the current earth is nowhere near the conditions in the (putative) Garden. And people described in the Genesis had extreme logivity. So the current human genetics should not work the same as that in the time of Genesis. To apply how does the earth work today to the ancient earth is wrong. May be the understanding of genetics today is not good enough to describe that of people in the Genesis.

Different how? How would different genetic behavior then produce the results we see now.

May be this would be a worthwhile question for you: How should the genetics change so that it would shorten (or lengthen) the longevity of human? It is a critical modern question.

There are lots of ways to change DNA to shorten lifespans. Other than eliminating all the mildly deleterious variants, no known way of lengthening them.

 

[tevans9129]

Noah was married and so were his children. This means that there were NO Humans (descendants of Adam) for Noah's grandsons to marry. Like Cain, on Adam's Earth, they married and produced children with the sons of God (prehistoric people) Gen 6:4 who had been on Earth for MILLIONS of years before the Ark arrived. There were some One Million sons of God (prehistoric people) waiting to marry and produce children with Noah's Human grandsons. Amen?

I have never heard that from a Christian before, is it in the Judeo-Chrisitan Scriptures?

 

[tevans9129]

Well i should have inserted a qualifier and stated the ""vast majority"" or ""most"" .. I have been involved in online religious forums for about 17 years and i can only talk from my many personal experiences.. And it is my experience that if a person does not want to believe God they will not be swayed by any argument..

So yes i have tried to use arguments and debating points to make a person come to believe God and be saved.. But i came to learn that the only people those points have any effect on are people who are already on the Path to salvation through the LORD Jesus Christ.. Giving the truth to a person like that is like giving warm milk to a hungry baby.. it's so easy... But with those dedicated anti-christs you can bang your head against their brick wall for months and it will have absolutely no effect..

Matches my experience perfectly. If some people get it in their mind that the sun comes up from the north every third, Jesus Himself could not convince them they are wrong, IMO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never heard that from a Christian before, is it in the Judeo-Chrisitan Scriptures?

Aman has his own interpretation of Genesis. Calling it "unique" is being overly kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matches my experience perfectly. If some people get it in their mind that the sun comes up from the north every third, Jesus Himself could not convince them they are wrong, IMO.

Or perhaps you are merely using poor arguments. I have yet to see a compelling argument for God. Frankly I do not care too much what others personal beliefs are, as long as they do not try to impose their obviously false beliefs upon others. In other words, if you want to believe in God that is of course your right. If you want to try to put creationism in schools then I have to object because trying to treat myths as if they were reality does harm others.

 

[klutedavid]

Essentially. Though since cheetahs had a slow population growth they may be a bit more inbred, but yes, your version (and there you) claims that there would be very little genetic variation in humans.

If you make a claim your claim can be used to make predictions. If the predictions are wrong then so is your claim.

Hello Subduction Zone.

If you present a theory and the predictions follow, does that necessarily imply the theory is true?

 

[klutedavid]

Or perhaps you are merely using poor arguments. I have yet to see a compelling argument for God. Frankly I do not care too much what others personal beliefs are, as long as they do not try to impose their obviously false beliefs upon others. In other words, if you want to believe in God that is of course your right. If you want to try to put creationism in schools then I have to object because trying to treat myths as if they were reality does harm others.

Hello SZ.

The foundation of science itself is a belief in the validity of the observable evidence. If the observable evidence does not in the end, reveal the initial causation of these observable events. Then the foundation of this scientific endeavor is in effect also a mythical enterprise.

We have two sides in this debate, both sides have some evidence, but both sides lack the hard observational evidence that is necessary. One has faith and the other has hypothesis, which are very similar expressions.

Would I teach children creationism?

Would I teach children scientific hypothesis?

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Subduction Zone.

If you present a theory and the predictions follow, does that necessarily imply the theory is true?

Not a scientific theory. True so far--that's the best you get.

 

[Speedwell]

Hello SZ.

The foundation of science itself is a belief in the validity of the observable evidence. If the observable evidence does not in the end, reveal the initial causation of these observable events. Then the foundation of this scientific endeavor is in effect also a mythical enterprise.

We have two sides in this debate, both sides have some evidence, but both sides lack the hard observational evidence that is necessary. One has faith and the other has hypothesis, which are very similar expressions.

Would I teach children creationism?

Would I teach children scientific hypothesis?

What two sides? I think there is some confusion about that. What I see is a cranky Protestant religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theist and atheist alike.

Children will learn the creation story of their faith in their church and at home, as they should. They should also learn about science, learn how the epistemological tools of science work and what can be fairly concluded about our origins by using them.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Speedwell.

Our communication is suffering from distortion.

What two sides?

Two sides, space time from natural causes, space time from divinity.

I think there is some confusion about that.

There is utter confusion imbedded in all man's pursuits.

What I see is a cranky Protestant religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theist and atheist alike.

I see one big cranky group, mankind, desperate to be right in the end, that includes myself of course.

Children will learn the creation story of their faith in their church and at home, as they should. They should also learn about science, learn how the epistemological tools of science work and what can be fairly concluded about our origins by using them.

Mankind is facing the repercussions of science, more and more as time progresses.

Science gave man far too much power to alter the planets destiny. We can extinguish life on this planet now, that is far too much power for the likes of Trump, Putin, e.t.c.

Which ever path mankind chooses, the end of civilization is assured with science in the mix.

I disagree with you, science cannot answer the big questions, probably never will.

 

[tevans9129]

If you want to try to put creationism in schools then I have to object because trying to treat myths as if they were reality does harm others.

How about presenting both sides and allowing everyone the right to choose for themselves which is correct? Or, is indoctrination the preferred system as long as it is the one that you agree with?

 

[Speedwell]

How about presenting both sides and allowing everyone the right to choose for themselves which is correct? Or, is indoctrination the preferred system as long as it is the one that you agree with?

No, the two "sides" are epistemologically too different. The creation "side" contains unfalsifiable faith propositions of a kind appropriate to theology but which are inadmissable in scientific inquiry. In particular, the creation "side" depends on a particular interpretation of an ancient holy book which is not even universal to all who revere it as the Word of God. Why should that even be a "side?"

No, it should be as I said: Children should learn the creation story of their faith in their church and at home. They should also learn about science, learn how the epistemological tools of science work and what can be fairly concluded about our origins by using them.