Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:57 pm
gone
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Based on genetic analysis there are more similarities among these populations than differences.Jbuza wrote:Jbuza Wrote
There are many genetic pools of human populations that have remained pretty isolated, as isolated as one would expect genetic pools capable of interbreeding could be.
Bgood wrote
Genetic analysis does not show this.
I think you are mistakes here. There are particular genetic traits that cause particular genetic pools to have different characteristics. The Eskimos have a certain look, blacks, Japanese, Chinese, western European. There has in fact been a certain amount of genetic isolation.
Why would being older equate to more mutations if accumulation is not based upon time?Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
Even though there are 2 fewer generations in modern times both situations have 80 years to accumulate genetic mutations. If it appears that mutations occur randomly and at a somewhat constant rate then lifespan does not effect the rate of mutation.
You are continuing to assume that genetic mutations are linear and accumulate based upon time, and that isn't the case. The older a parent is the more likely a mutation is.
Why would there be a lesser chance of mutations occuring?Jbuza wrote:With a life expectancy of 30 years in the past, when most people were having children from the age of 13-30 there was a lesser chance of a mutation occurring.
Again why would being older lead to more mutations if mutations don't accumulate over time?Jbuza wrote:Today with longer life expectancy and lesser need for children the average parent is older, and mutations are more likely to occur.
Again the idea of speciation is not just extrapolation into the past, it is based on observations of living organisms.Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
However using population numbers alone the population rates of the past are indeterminable.
It appears that extrapolations based upon evidence of population ability to grow are weaker science, to you, than claims about speciation with no evidence at all.
Please refer to this thread to see that these conclusions are not based only on extrapolation into the past.Jbuza wrote:Observations about mutation and natural selection alone are not indicative of the past either, then. Evolution is as weak as extrapolations of any process to the past.
I am not extrapolating mortality rates in the past, they are infered or directly known. We know that modern techniques reduce mortality rates for mother and child.Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
Higher mortality rates for women and children during and shortly after childbirth suggest otherwise.
Anything that supports your position can be extrapolated to the past, but things that support mine cannot be. This is silly.
What evidence is there not to assume that childbirth was as difficult throughout human history as it has been in the recent past? Even in the bible it says that God cursed the daughters of Eve with difficult childbirth.Jbuza wrote:How can you say that population statistics over the past 2000 years cannot indicate past growth rates, but you can claim that infant and pregnant woman survival rates are indicative of all past so the discount the possibility of higher growth rates than “observed” during the past 2000 years.
These are isolated cases and most of these studies are done on plants. In any case then how do you account for "Eskimos have a certain look, blacks, Japanese, Chinese, western European." if "the morphology of further generations may revert back to previous generations."Jbuza wrote:Jbuza Wrote
Mutations accumulate. Many mutations are harmful. Birth rate and infant survival together with life expectency could have been a better situation in the past
Bgood wrote
Is this just your opinion?
Microevolution, adaptation, and natural selection are based upon the accumulation of mutations, I think there is evidence to suggest that DNA can correct for mutations and inherited traits. Genetics show that even if a generation has particular traits the morphology of further generations may revert back to previous generations.
Many of the premature births are from younger mothers.Jbuza wrote: Bgood wrote
Now we have 1 in 50 mothers over 40 giving birth to children with birth defects. Many of whom live long lives due to modern technology. Children who in the past would not have survived are now contributing to the growth of the world's population.
Premature births in the past would have been more fatal. Many of these children survive, this leads to higher growth rates in the present.
Than it is good that we are seeing increasing numbers of premature Birth now than in the past, since we are better able to deal with the problem today. The point is that mutations impact low birth weight and premature birthm and these things are at an all time high.
The evidence seem to indicate that people gave birth at much younger ages in the past. Also what tells you that there was more relative peace and less natural disasters in the past?Jbuza wrote:Older parents, and environmental hazards are causing this. There is no reason to assume in periods of relative peace, lack of disasters, when parents were consistently younger, and at a time when less mutations had accumulated that there were less premature birth and low birth weight babies, that population number could have grown faster than .163%.
This may be the case but the numbers also indicate that population growth rates fluctuate. In fact the fluctuation prevents extrapolation of the data without a high degree of error.Jbuza wrote:In fact population numbers require that at periods in the past growth was higher than .163%.