Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Brightmoon]

Justatruthseeker, post: 72864732, member: 332164"]

We both know that if you had a beneficial mutation right now, it would never become fixed in the population of 7+ billion and rising no matter how many trillions of years I give you. Not unless almost the entire population is wiped out and your descendants become the population. ( snip)

This is called a genetic bottleneck and it’s happened several times in our ancestry and is the reason that biologists don’t consider Homo sapiens to have races even though other species do



And if you trace the rest of the population back through time, you eventually come to two. There’s no escaping it.

This is a religious myth based on Bronze Age ignorance of the facts

 

[Brightmoon]

Fair enough, the dark color wasn't known to exist until 1811. My bad.

. Nah, you’re good !

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker, post: 72864732, member: 332164"]

We both know that if you had a beneficial mutation right now, it would never become fixed in the population of 7+ billion and rising no matter how many trillions of years I give you. Not unless almost the entire population is wiped out and your descendants become the population. ( snip)

This is called a genetic bottleneck and it’s happened several times in our ancestry and is the reason that biologists don’t consider Homo sapiens to have races even though other species do

I think you mean subspecies don’t you?

And the real reason they don’t call the different races subspecies instead, is because someone might get offended or claim one is less advanced than the other.

Although evolutionary speaking, that is entirely possible in the theory.

I notice it doesn’t stop them from calling other species subspecies or separate species when they underwent the same bottlenecks. So you’ll forgive me if I think it’s just a bunch of double-talk.

Besides which, their is no clear evidence that any such occurred, it’s just theorized in an attempt to explain the existence of modern Homo sapiens.

But we do agree that one occurred about 4,000 years ago. And such is why our population only rapidly recovered afterwards.

This is a religious myth based on Bronze Age ignorance of the facts

Nope, simple genetic fact.

It’s the way family trees work. No matter how many families you start with, if they share ancestory, they all converge back to two in the beginning. It’s inescapable, regardless of how much you might want to avoid it.

Only in fantasy land do you start with more.

 

[pitabread]

You don’t believe that any more than I do.

I don't have to "believe it". It's simply a consequence of the way population genetics works.

You can read more about it here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1212239/pdf/763.pdf

We both know that if you had a beneficial mutation right now, it would never become fixed in the population of 7+ billion and rising no matter how many trillions of years I give you.

Even neutral mutations can become fixed in populations over time, even with billions of members. Granted it would take billions of years for it to happen, but there is nothing impossible about it.

Like I said, the issue here seems to be understanding and conceptualizing population genetics more than anything else.

And if you trace the rest of the population back through time, you eventually come to two. There’s no escaping it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "come to two". If we're talking about a mutation that occurred in a single individual, then tracing that mutation you'll eventually come back to just one: that particular individual.

But it doesn't mean the entire population was only that one individual (or two individuals).

 

[Brightmoon]

I think you mean subspecies don’t you?

And the real reason they don’t call the different races subspecies instead, is because someone might get offended or claim one is less advanced than the other.

Although evolutionary speaking, that is entirely possible in the theory.

I notice it doesn’t stop them from calling other species subspecies or separate species when they underwent the same bottlenecks. So you’ll forgive me if I think it’s just a bunch of double-talk.

Besides which, their is no clear evidence that any such occurred, it’s just theorized in an attempt to explain the existence of modern Homo sapiens.

But we do agree that one occurred about 4,000 years ago. And such is why our population only rapidly recovered afterwards.

View attachment 232099


Nope, simple genetic fact.

It’s the way family trees work. No matter how many families you start with, if they share ancestory, they all converge back to two in the beginning. It’s inescapable, regardless of how much you might want to avoid it.

Only in fantasy land do you start with more.

as I’ve stated before HUMANS DONT HAVE RACES!!!! We’re too genetically identical to have races aka subspecies for some organisms . Modern biologists treat humans like any other species. In the19 century, they didn’t . The only thing inescapable is the continual denial and subsequent disinformation and misinformation given out be creationist sources

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't have to "believe it". It's simply a consequence of the way population genetics works.

You can read more about it here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1212239/pdf/763.pdf



Even neutral mutations can become fixed in populations over time, even with billions of members. Granted it would take billions of years for it to happen, but there is nothing impossible about it.

Like I said, the issue here seems to be understanding and conceptualizing population genetics more than anything else.



I'm not sure what you mean by "come to two". If we're talking about a mutation that occurred in a single individual, then tracing that mutation you'll eventually come back to just one: that particular individual.

But it doesn't mean the entire population was only that one individual (or two individuals).

First let’s understands the paper discuses a “finite” population which would then take a “finite” amount of time, excluding chances to loose it.

So in a population that is not finite, but increasing, the time to fixation would never be reached.

Sadly some don’t understand the term finite, but think it applies to increasing populations.

So we agree that in a finite population that has limits or bounds upon its size, one might over time become fixed. But in a non-finite population that is dramatically increasing over time, no such event can occur and the calculations are moot.

 

[pitabread]

But in a non-finite population that is dramatically increasing over time, no such event can occur and the calculations are moot.

No population is ever going to be infinite. The carrying capacity of the environment places a limit on the population's eventual size.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

as I’ve stated before HUMANS DONT HAVE RACES!!!! We’re too genetically identical to have races aka subspecies for some organisms . Modern biologists treat humans like any other species. In the19 century, they didn’t . The only thing inescapable is the continual denial and subsequent disinformation and misinformation given out be creationist sources

That’s being debated as we speak.

But please, the genetic differences between those finches that are interbreeding right in front of your nose being less than that of humans, so much so they could find no way to genetically classify them as distinct, doesn’t seem to bother you when they classify them as separate species.

I sense double-talk and double standards.....

So far the only misinformation is calling finches separate species that share the same islands, and are genetically indistinguishable. While at the same time refusing to do so when American Indians were geographically isolated for over 10,000 years from the rest of the population. Now that’s a double standard and misinformation.

 

[Brightmoon]

Double talk and double standards that’s rich coming from a creationist lol

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No population is ever going to be infinite. The carrying capacity of the environment places a limit on the population's eventual size.

That’s what they said when the population was 1 billion too.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Double talk and double standards that rich coming from a creationist lol

And yet you couldn’t refute...... as per standard tactic attack the poster while ignoring the subject of the post....

If that’s the best you all got I’m gonna get bored and have to go to another thread where maybe I’ll get some actual content....

 

[Brightmoon]

American Indians ( and I’m proud to share that ancestry also) aren’t a separate subspecies or race . They are from populations that crossed the Bering strait at least twice. They were semi isolated enough to re- evolve darker skin( around the equator) from a lighter skinned populations coming from Asia. . Note that I said re-evolve not revert to the African version. The melanin gene is slightly different . Humans evolve too

 

[Brightmoon]

Refute what ? You still haven’t come up with evidence that your creationist fantasies are accurate.

 

[pitabread]

That’s what they said when the population was 1 billion too.

Okay. And?

I'm really not sure what your point is.

 

[HitchSlap]

American Indians ( and I’m proud to share that ancestry also) aren’t a separate subspecies or race . They are from populations that crossed the Bering strait at least twice. They were semi isolated enough to re- evolve darker skin( around the equator) from a lighter skinned populations coming from Asia. . Note that I said re-evolve not revert to the African version. The melanin gene is slightly different . Humans evolve too

Actual content.

 

[AV1611VET]

American Indians ( and I’m proud to share that ancestry also) aren’t a separate subspecies or race . They are from populations that crossed the Bering strait at least twice. They were semi isolated enough to re- evolve darker skin( around the equator) from a lighter skinned populations coming from Asia. . Note that I said re-evolve not revert to the African version. The melanin gene is slightly different . Humans evolve too

I'm part Cherokee.

The American Indians came from the line of Shem.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The fossil record testified against the theory of evolution.

Every single fossil for any creature found remains the same from the oldest to youngest fossil found for that type of creature.

There is not a single shred of evidence for change of any kind. It is those common ancestors you claim link the forms that are every single one missing on every single tree. The entire theory rests on not one spec of evidence. It’s entire basis rests on common ancestors linking the different forms that can’t be found for any of them.

Not a single solitary one of them.

The fossils of every single creature never change, never show signs of evolution. They always remain the same throughout their entire span of existence.

You know, I'd bother replying, except @DogmaHunter has not only beat me to it, but put forth a rebuttal that would have easily been better than mine... LOL!

@DogmaHunter , Top Job! Keep up the good work!

 

[Gene2memE]

View attachment 232099

Wow, that chart is BREATHTAKING in its dishonesty.

Only two of those sources - McEvedy and Jones 1978 and Livi-Bacci 2001 - provide population estimates back to 10,000 BC. Both of those give populations in the millions: McEvedy and Jones 4 million and Livi-Bacci 6 million.

The UN 2006 estimate, which that chart tracks back to 10,000 BC, doesn't actually start until 1949!

There there's the X-axis scale, which is an inverted exponential to make it appear that population growth has been near linear for the past 12,000 years. So we get leaps of thousands of years when population growth was very small, and decreasing scale as population growth ramps up.

It rare that I've seen a graph manipulated with such obvious dishonesty to produce a desired outcome. The last time I think it was Fox News.

 

[Jimmy D]

And the real reason they don’t call the different races subspecies instead, is because someone might get offended or claim one is less advanced than the other.

Lie #1

The actual reason is that there is not enough phenotypic variation... as you are aware from previous conversations.

The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations

Although evolutionary speaking, that is entirely possible in the theory.

Lie #2

Where does the Theory of evolution state that one subspecies species is superior to another?

I notice it doesn’t stop them from calling other species subspecies or separate species when they underwent the same bottlenecks. So you’ll forgive me if I think it’s just a bunch of double-talk.

What are you going on about? Is this to do with your erroneous belief that the arbitrary nature of the taxonomic system has any bearing on the accuracy of the TOE?

Besides which, their is no clear evidence that any such occurred, it’s just theorized in an attempt to explain the existence of modern Homo sapiens.

Lie #3

Evidence that two main bottleneck events shaped modern human genetic diversity

Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic

Evidence That Two Main Bottleneck Events Shaped Modern Human Genetic Diversity – Proc R Soc B FirstCite

But we do agree that one occurred about 4,000 years ago. And such is why our population only rapidly recovered afterwards.

Have you got any evidence of this?

It’s the way family trees work. No matter how many families you start with, if they share ancestory, they all converge back to two in the beginning. It’s inescapable, regardless of how much you might want to avoid it.

How far back are you going? Pre-eukaryotic life?

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm part Cherokee.

The American Indians came from the line of Shem.

THATS NONSENSE!!!