Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Geez, that's a lot of convergent evolution needed for one species to get started.

What is important that populations evolve, as in the whole - combined genepool evolves, not individuals. You need roughly 10000 ancestors to account for the genetic diversity as we see in the human race, today.

Nevermind how we get such diverse information in the first place...

What are you quoting? That's simply not true that you need a population of 10,000.

I've never seen this estimate. Several hundred, perhaps several thousand. But such mathematical estimates are far from accurate.

Consider this: Unexpected Heterozygosity in an Island Mouflon Population Founded by a Single Pair of Individuals

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Geez, that's a lot of convergent evolution needed for one species to get started.

What is important that populations evolve, as in the whole - combined genepool evolves, not individuals. You need roughly 10000 ancestors to account for the genetic diversity as we see in the human race, today.

Nevermind how we get such diverse information in the first place...

What are you quoting? That's simply not true that you need a population of 10,000.

I've never seen this estimate. Several hundred, perhaps several thousand. But such mathematical estimates are far from accurate.

Consider this: Unexpected Heterozygosity in an Island Mouflon Population Founded by a Single Pair of Individuals

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10231.html this paper in nature which comes down to a very good study but its not free.

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Y_p ... ty&f=false

Actually this is a rough figure, for different populations it varies, with time from 2k to 20k as the op said. But nowhere does it ever come down to 2 people. I dont have much time to wrote this right now, but even if this estimate is false. Lets say its 4000 or 3000 or 300, that still negates the adam eve story.

Diversity evolves, its not inherent in DNA. I think you are thinking that diversity is somewhat in the dna so that different races just pop out. That is the wrong view. There is no information of diversity, geography, climate, genepool, natural pressure, all play a part in the diversity. Your DNA, does not have information of breeding an asian embryo, but an asian couple would. The DNA of a whole population changes overtime, that is how you get a different race or people.

The genetic and physiological diversity in humans today demand a population of more than two individuals, that much is true even if you don't accept this estimates range. I do find it more plausible.

Nevermind how we get such diverse information in the first place...

Which information exactly are you referring to?

So you are saying that all human races and their genetic and physiological differences came from only 2 people?
Well its certainly against all research. No study has shown 2 people as the original couple of the homo sapiens, not to mention hominids. Infact MRCA confirm that adam and eve being first couple is not true. The MRCA were atleast 100,000 years apart. That is a major timeline difference, one which does not fits into the biblical timeline.

I know you won't accept this and I understand why, calling adam/eve story as false is very problematic for theology and foundational christian doctrines like death and original sin. I understand most are not convinced and some don't want to be convinced to the contrary (not meaning specifically you, just people in general). However I am convinced of the evidence.

Thanks Neo-X.

The figures matter because they show a large margin of error depending on what method one uses to estimate populations.

Did you check that peer reviewed article I linked to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766376/? The genetic diversity was far higher than expected from one pair.

If natural selection can account for greater diversity in the island mouflon (a conclusion drawn in that paper), then such may lead to unusually high population estimates in humans. That is, natural selection is driving the increase in genetic diversity, because an increase in genetic variability increases the likelihood of the survivability of the population.

To chop a bit more at your position: are sequences of humans traced back to an ancestral population of 4000, 3000 or even 300 ancestors, or a single ancestral sequences? Does this not support one single pair of ancestors?

Re: information, I'm talking about how all the "genetics" and information got there in the first place. There are many theories, but it is certainly far from settled. This is not simply a small gap or here in understanding, but more like the similar "major conceptual lacuna" Paul Davies describes in regards to solving the origins of life. However, while relevant to this discussion, it is a tangent. The thread to discuss this tangent can be found here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=38806.

Re: your why I won't accept this, my motivations even if present are irrelevant. Do not so hastily commit the genetic fallacy to disregard my position. That for one, kind of insults my intelligence and beliefs. And secondly, well it is informally fallacious. This should not really come into the debate at all. One should not logically dismiss a position based on the beliefs of people who hold it, but rather on the merits or lack thereof.

So I won't pull the "high population estimates are entrenched in Philosophical Naturalism" card -- if you won't pull the "Single pair of ancestors are entrenched in Christianity" card. You may be convinced of the evidence for your position, just as I am mine. I do not believe your position is in any way scientifically superior when it comes down to the facts of the matter than a position that supports a single pair like a "Biblical Adam and Eve".

I did not mean any disrespect.

To chop a bit more at your position: are sequences of humans traced back to an ancestral population of 4000, 3000 or even 300 ancestors, or a single ancestral sequences? Does this not support one single pair of ancestors?

It does not trace back to a single pair of ancestors.

Re: your why I won't accept this, my motivations even if present are irrelevant. Do not so hastily commit the genetic fallacy to disregard my position. That for one, kind of insults my intelligence and beliefs. And secondly, well it is informally fallacious. This should not really come into the debate at all. One should not logically dismiss a position based on the beliefs of people who hold it, but rather on the merits or lack thereof.

As I said, I frankly remarked on why I think you won't accept it, I did not mean to say you were being ignorant or that it dismisses your position, nor do I think it should.

I do not believe your position is in any way scientifically superior when it comes down to the facts of the matter than a position that supports a single pair like a "Biblical Adam and Eve".

That is the problem, there is no such scientific position that supports a single pair, if there would I won't mind accepting it. I certainly do not enjoy saying that the adam and eve story is a false one, I do not. Because it creates a plethora of other problems (I agree with Jac btw, the genesis story makes the best sense when its read in a YEC framework). However so far, all positions with research and evidence point to more than a couple.

FWIW I tried my best to fit evolution with all it entails into the genesis story and its internal theology, and make a consistent understanding of it but I could not and my opinion is, one can't without either disrupting theology or scientific findings.

Re: information, I'm talking about how all the "genetics" and information got there in the first place. There are many theories, but it is certainly far from settled. This is not simply a small gap or here in understanding, but more like the similar "major conceptual lacuna" Paul Davies describes in regards to solving the origins of life. However, while relevant to this discussion, it is a tangent. The thread to discuss this tangent can be found here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=38806.

I think we should save it for another day.

Did you check that peer reviewed article I linked to: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766376/? The genetic diversity was far higher than expected from one pair.

If natural selection can account for greater diversity in the island mouflon (a conclusion drawn in that paper), then such may lead to unusually high population estimates in humans. That is, natural selection is driving the increase in genetic diversity, because an increase in genetic variability increases the likelihood of the survivability of the population.

I think its quite complex and I do not understand all of it fully, I would have to read it again. But given at face value even if we can say that it happened for Mouflon Population, that it happened for homo sapiens too? That is the first question and second which kind of makes the first point irrelevant is that we have genetic markers and their tracing which traces back to more than one couple. So we do know, dna being unique, that there is more than one couple involved. That kind of settles it right there. Even if it turns out to be 300 or 50 (and its certainly higher than that), we would still not be able to patch it with the genesis story.

Bottom line we have to prove that genesis single couple story is infact compatible with scientific findings and research. Proving that there is a some margin of error in the research model does not make genesis story any more true. That is what matters to me. If we can find that the current human population came from one pair then nothing would make me more glad...but we have found the contrary.

neo-x wrote:I did not mean any disrespect.

To chop a bit more at your position: are sequences of humans traced back to an ancestral population of 4000, 3000 or even 300 ancestors, or a single ancestral sequences? Does this not support one single pair of ancestors?

It does not trace back to a single pair of ancestors.

I should be sleeping, but... science does trace human sequences back to a single pair -- "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam".

What happened to all the other lineages...? Now using Occam's razor for the simplest solution I know what I believe.

If anyone is interested:When Did Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosomal Adam Live?

And this:Update: When Did the Genetic Adam and Eve Live?

From the link:

Many scientists (operating from within the evolutionary paradigm) are quick to point out that the first ancestors of humanity weren’t Adam and Eve, because they were merely two among thousands of individuals who lived at that time. Yet, when viewed from a creation model perspective, a reasonable case can be made that these results harmonize quite well with the biblical account of humanity’s beginnings.

If results harmonize with a biblical account of humanity's beginnings, why toss that out in favor of a belief that forces you to reject parts of scripture?

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:I did not mean any disrespect.

To chop a bit more at your position: are sequences of humans traced back to an ancestral population of 4000, 3000 or even 300 ancestors, or a single ancestral sequences? Does this not support one single pair of ancestors?

It does not trace back to a single pair of ancestors.

I should be sleeping, but... science does trace human sequences back to a single pair -- "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam".

What happened to all the other lineages...? Now using Occam's razor for the simplest solution I know what I believe.

No, not at all. You are either misinformed or misled. Mito Adam and Eve are thousand of years apart. They were not even contemporaries and Mito eve was not the first homosapien either, she is the most recent common ancestor of humans, not the first, the same goes for Mito Adam.

Which is easiest to believe?

The latest greatest human origin theory such as humans emerged after chimpanzee had sex with pig?

Or that one man and one woman God created had a bit of and so here we all are...

Or primordial sludge decided to evolve into tribes of men and women in a world wide in spontaneous combustion all at the same time - millions and billions of years ago...

Fact is, we are here and do exist upon this planet for a reason and purpose and keep screwing life up and living far below the standards of goodness human beings are capable of. We do exist and so does God who sent forth Jesus Christ to fix the human condition by reconciling us back to God. We can keep living in denial and acting so by being so and accept that we are here.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa ... n_pop.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
-
-
-

And this:Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:I did not mean any disrespect.

To chop a bit more at your position: are sequences of humans traced back to an ancestral population of 4000, 3000 or even 300 ancestors, or a single ancestral sequences? Does this not support one single pair of ancestors?

It does not trace back to a single pair of ancestors.

I should be sleeping, but... science does trace human sequences back to a single pair -- "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam".

What happened to all the other lineages...? Now using Occam's razor for the simplest solution I know what I believe.

No, not at all. You are either misinformed or misled. Mito Adam and Eve are thousand of years apart. They were not even contemporaries and Mito eve was not the first homosapien either, she is the most recent common ancestor of humans, not the first, the same goes for Mito Adam.

I'm not sure what I'm misinformed about. I pointed out that human sequences are traced back to one "couple".

Since different tests are used, obviously there will be great differences. Heck, if you read up on mitchondrial Eve, the age was adjusted to have lower and upper limits because the mutation rate estimate was just plucked from thin air. And you're taking them as fixed years?? Perhaps you are misinformed or misled?

When I use the term "pair" it is loosely used, and used because you introduced it with your question. Scientists name them "Adam" and "Eve". Yet, you don't get all fussed over that, make a mountain out of a molehill and tell them they're misinformed or misled to be calling them the Biblical Adam and Eve, no?

Focus on the substance of what I've presented. Where are these other lineages? And on what scientific basis are they considered to have existed?

Let me also now re-quote WannaLearn's original post:

They've proven through animal testing that it takes roughly a population of 2k-20k to sustain a viable species, if there were only two humans as the bible states then not only would it have been incest, but they could not have been able to have the human race last more than MAYBE a generation or two, and they would be mutated beyond belief even if they lasted that long.

Really? 2k to 20k to sustain a viable species? One pair may have survived a generation a two?? Clearly this is wrong. If you really want to learn... then read up in mitochondrial Eve. Clearly more than 1-2 generations of women have existed since all of their shared ancestor existed. Or take a read of that peer-review article I posted earlier on mouflon...

And if you really want to learn WannaLearn (and I don't hide that you should rename yourself what you think you're doing here which is WannaEnlighten or perhaps WannaFool)... then Rick's recent RTB link discusses the issues that I've been presenting here well: http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-th ... am-and-eve

Well, I don't know how you can call them a pair in the most obvious sense. They were not a pair, they never saw each other. And how does mito eve and adam support your case? It doesn't. Reading about mito eve and adam certainly doesn't come close to the biblical story. It flies in the face of it.

You can read books on other lineages, i mentioned a couple in the above posts.

neo-x wrote:Reading about mito eve and adam certainly doesn't come close to the biblical story. It flies in the face of it.

I presume you're referring to 'Adam' and 'Eve' as the biblical understanding of their creation physically, right? From a theistic evolutionary standpoint there is great harmony between the two. Just wanted to clarify this point lest newcomers who read your comments neo and think you're advocating disharmony between theism and science.

RickD wrote:And this:Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve

And this is where science gets tricky because even science is based on interpretation of data.
The issue with all humans coming from Adam and Eve is how we would account for the progression that seems to be shown from the fossil evidence of a primate species evolving into humans.
Now, IF Adam and Eve were simply the first evolved Humans that could mean that, while humanity had many parents, it was Adam and Eve that were the FIRST parents.
Or, Adam may have been the first human to become human and "self-aware" and, after being blessed by God as such ( the first human to find God), he was placed in Eden and given Eve and so forth.
OR it may be that Adam and Eve were indeed the first humans and that there were created and that when they left Eden, simply because the dominate species by virtue of superior intelligence and that there decedents "interbred" with the nearest "human like" species around and thus humankind came to be.
Or it could be aliens, now, I am not saying it was aliens....but it was aliens !

One thing I think we should note is that in certain parts, Genesis does seem to imply that there were other people around when Cain was banished.
The only contention to that is where Eve is named the mother of "all the living".