Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

All humans are descended from just two people...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    This is put in quotes:

    Senior Research Associate Mark Stoeckle and Thaler surveyed the DNA of five million animals, including humans, "and deduced that we sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race," per the report.


    I don't know if it is accurate or not.
    It's not. Here's the whole paper

    Why should mitochondria define species?

    That sentence and the word catastrophic never appear in the paper. Your source screwed up the reporting big time.

    Here's the only passage from the paper even close to that claim

    Modern humans

    More approaches have been brought to bear on the emergence and outgrowth of Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., modern humans) than any other species including full genome sequence analysis of thousands of individuals and tens of thousands of mitochondria, paleontology, anthropology, history and linguistics [61, 142-144]. The congruence of these fields supports the view that modern human mitochondria and Y chromosome originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago [145-147]. 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 [116]. As Kuhn points out unresolvable arguments tend toward rhetoric
    The bolded assessment came from an old 1984 paper has been demonstrated wrong by more recent work. The data for humans shows mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam did not live contemporaneously.
    Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 11-25-2018, 10:08 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      I read the researchers papers. None of them talk about humanity descending from a single pair of ancestors, neither does the phys.org paper, which seer seems to have linked to without reading.

      I think The Daily Mail got the science on this wrong, which is not uncommon for regular news papers reporting on science.
      science-news-cycle.jpg science_reporting.jpg

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        I don't know what it means except to say that all living humans descended from one set of parents. You agree?
        No. You are misreading it. I can tell by your use of "parents." There is no reason to believe that Midocondrial Eve and Midocondiral Adam existed in the same time or place. Indeed, I believe recent study has shown they did not. All that has been shown is that there exists a male person who all currently living humans can trace their lineage to. There is a similar female person. This does not mean they were the "first" people or that they co-existed. It merely means that all existing humans share a single common ancestor in their family tree on both the matrilineal and patrilineal sides.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Well what would explain this besides a mass extinction on the order of something we have not seen since the dinosaurs?
        Population growth could do it, especially coming out a 200K year significantly glacial period, which is what happened between 100K and 200K. We tend to see growth in interglacial periods. Note that I am NOT saying this is what happened. What I AM saying is "mass extinction" is not the only possibility.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        And what about this?
        What about it? What do you think this says?
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-26-2018, 05:58 AM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          This is put in quotes:

          I don't know if it is accurate or not.
          It's an accurate quote ------- of the Daily Mail.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            No. You are misreading it. I can tell by your use of "parents." There is no reason to believe that Midocondrial Eve and Midocondiral Adam existed in the same time or place. Indeed, I believe recent study has shown they did not. All that has been shown is that there exists a male person who all currently living humans can trace their lineage to. There is a similar female person. This does not mean they were the "first" people or that they co-existed. It merely means that all existing humans share a single common ancestor in their family tree on both the matrilineal and patrilineal sides.
            Well I was going by the article which did say it was a single pair.


            What about it? What do you think this says?
            It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

            But is that true?

            "The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

            For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

            And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

            "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

            The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
            1. There is not the diversity that the theory of evolution would suggest. Species did not become more genetically diverse over time.

            2. There are genetic boundaries, and the absence of "in-between" species. Meaning the species are rather stable. Ants are still ants, sparrows are still sparrows over this period of time.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Well I was going by the article which did say it was a single pair.
              Articles don't always get it right, Seer. Look at the source paper, and read up on Mitocondrial Eve and Adam.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              1. There is not the diversity that the theory of evolution would suggest. Species did not become more genetically diverse over time.

              2. There are genetic boundaries, and the absence of "in-between" species. Meaning the species are rather stable. Ants are still ants, sparrows are still sparrows over this period of time.
              And from this you conclude...?
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                And from this you conclude...?
                So where is the genetic diversity over time that the theory of evolution requires or predicts? Why has everything remained pretty much the same over the last 100,000-200,000 years? Why were neutral mutations basically irrelevant as drivers of evolution? And where are the transition species - the "in betweens."
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Population growth could do it, especially coming out a 200K year significantly glacial period, which is what happened between 100K and 200K.
                  I doubt population growth is necessary. I'm not sure any explanation is necessary beyond the mathematics of inheritance.

                  Mitochondrial lineages are lost when a female produces only male offspring. Y-chromosome lineages are lost when a male produces only female offspring.

                  Over time, lineages are created whenever an individual produces offspring of the same gender, and pruned every time an individual only produces offspring of the other gender (or no offspring), so eventually there will only be one individual male/female from every generation who is the ancestor of all extant males/females. As more generations occur, more lineages are pruned, so the last common male/female ancestor passes down from father->son and mother->daughter as all the male/female lineages of their brothers/sisters get pruned, so the time since the last LUCA won't change much unless there are substantial differences in population size.

                  Given completely random mating within a species, only about 50 generations is necessary to generate a male/female LUCA in a species with a population of 1 million; but rarely interbreeding subpopulations increase this number of generations considerably.

                  The surprise from this research isn't that these LUCAs existed, but that their time periods are mostly of the same order of magnitude.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                  seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    This is put in quotes:

                    Senior Research Associate Mark Stoeckle and Thaler surveyed the DNA of five million animals, including humans, "and deduced that we sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race," per the report.

                    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sc.../25/id/891865/
                    I don't know if it is accurate or not.
                    I'm afraid its not seer. None of the reports of the two scientists say anything like that. And the quote from NewsMax, isn't from any of their reports, but its the NewsMax website quoting the Daily Mail.

                    But I find this more relevant:
                    That would be more relevant I agree. Its just not what your OP was about. There's no hope of discovering genetic evidence of us descending from a single pair. The smallest breeding population of Homo Sapiens numbered in at around one hundred thousand, give or take one or two orders of magnitude.

                    I still think this can be harmonised with the doctrine that we descended from Adam and Eve alone, if they were the sole pair of that tribe to gain the Imago Dei, which they transmitted to their descendants. That would explain how their children were able to find mates. But its only one out of many possibilitites.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      I still think this can be harmonised with the doctrine that we descended from Adam and Eve alone, if they were the sole pair of that tribe to gain the Imago Dei, which they transmitted to their descendants. That would explain how their children were able to find mates. But its only one out of many possibilitites.
                      OK
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So where is the genetic diversity over time that the theory of evolution requires or predicts? Why has everything remained pretty much the same over the last 100,000-200,000 years? Why were neutral mutations basically irrelevant as drivers of evolution? And where are the transition species - the "in betweens."
                        Genetic diversity is present in species. The authors of this paper drew their conclusion from a single data point, mitochondrial DNA. When you look across the entire genomes of extant animals you see a much greater spread of genetic diversity, like this

                        Nearby chimpanzee populations show much greater genetic diversity than distant human populations

                        Chimpanzee populations living in relatively close proximity are substantially more different genetically than humans living on different continents, according to a study recently published in PLoS Genetics. The study suggests that genomics can provide a valuable new tool for use in chimpanzee conservation, with the potential to identify the population of origin of an individual chimpanzee or the provenance of a sample of bushmeat

                        The authors also contrasted the levels of genetic differentiation between the chimpanzees from the different groups with those based on similar data from humans from different populations. Surprisingly, even though all the chimpanzee populations lived in relatively close proximity (with the habitats of two groups separated only by a river), chimpanzees from different populations were substantially more different genetically than humans living on different continents.

                        Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford and a senior author on the study, said: "Relatively small numbers of humans left Africa 50 000-100 000 years ago. All non-African populations descended from them and are reasonably similar genetically.

                        "That chimpanzees from habitats in the same country, separated only by a river, are more distinct than humans from different continents is really interesting. It speaks to the great genetic similarities between human populations, and to much more stability, and less interbreeding, over hundreds of thousands of years, in the chimpanzee groups
                        The OP study is rather poorly written and researched. It appeared in an Italian published science vanity journal Human Evolution that is not scientifically peer reviewed. I doubt it would have passed muster in an actual professional science journal.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So where is the genetic diversity over time that the theory of evolution requires or predicts? Why has everything remained pretty much the same over the last 100,000-200,000 years? Why were neutral mutations basically irrelevant as drivers of evolution? And where are the transition species - the "in betweens."
                          As far as I can tell - it is readily available to be explored. Seer, you appear to b placing an enormous amount of emphasis on one paper from one pair of scientists that I cannot find any peer reviews about, nor does it completely align with the article itself. Other posters in this thread have given you some alternate sources. You might want to avoid swallowing whole a single paper simply because it (apparently) aligns with your pre-existing views.

                          Genetic diversity within species is pretty well documented, but then again it depends on what you mean by "diversity." All life shares an enormous amount of genetic material in common. Some estimates suggest that humans and plants share as much as 60% of their genetic material in common (though there is a LOT of variation in that number and a lot of ways of measuring this). That there is significant overlap is understandable. For example, the mechanism for oxidising sugars (i.e., respiration) is almost universal. Little surprise that the genes that code for that mechanism would be likewise almost universal. So it comes as little surprise that all humans share about 99.5% of the same genetic coding. The differences between us are in that 0.5%. Similar numbers hold for multiple other species. The human genome can be represented by a four-letter code and has over 3 billion letters in the complete code. 0.5% of that is 15 million code elements that generally vary from person to person.

                          As for the rest, if you are looking for transition fossils temporally, try reviewing this list. If you are looking for in-between species contemporaneously, I'm not sure what you are looking for - a species that is part human and part ant? Evolution doesn't work that way. As divergence occurs within a species, usually driven by some form of forced separation (IIRC), each population will evolve within the confines of its own niche. If the separation is for long enough and the two groups lose the ability to successfully mate, then each will continue down its evolutionary path. To expect an "in-between" is an odd expectation, IMO.

                          But I am a novice at most of this. I'm sure someone here can provide more current information.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Interesting...
                            The headline is silly. All animals from a single pair does not mean all humans from a single couple (man and woman).
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                              The headline is silly. All animals from a single pair does not mean all humans from a single couple (man and woman).
                              it was probably their conclusion based on this part of the paper:

                              The congruence of these fields supports the view that modern human mitochondria and Y chromosome
                              originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago [145-147].

                              https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-...al-reduced.pdf


                              Also the Dailymail article has quotes from Thaler that are not in the paper so he might have said something to that effect too in an interview.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                it was probably their conclusion based on this part of the paper:

                                The congruence of these fields supports the view that modern human mitochondria and Y chromosome
                                originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago [145-147].

                                https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-...al-reduced.pdf


                                Also the Dailymail article has quotes from Thaler that are not in the paper so he might have said something to that effect too in an interview.
                                If he did, he's contradicting his own paper, which continues:
                                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


                                It's more likely that the Daily Mail writer didn't read the paper, and made up something sensational instead.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X