- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ July 13 2011,04:32) By the way, how is that retraction of your accusation of lying going? Stuart
stuHomo sapiens spreading worldwide
Of the four species of the genus Homo that made it through the Toba bottleneck, only one is left today: Homo sapiens.
It was not the number of individuals that brought “victory” (if victory is what it is). It was an obsessive interest in technology.
What Homo sapiens is now doing is that he
(1) continues his fascination with technology,
(2) has begun to multiply to vast numbers, and
(3) tries to continue his expansion into space and to the planets
5-1. A Most Peculiar Mammal: Homo sapiens
5-2. Genetic Bottleneck
5-3. Before the Bottleneck
5-3.1 Homo idaltu in Ethiopia, 160,000 years ago
5-3.2 Homo erectus (?) in Malaysia, 75,000 years ago5-3.3 Homo neanderthalensis in the Middle East, 75,000 years ago
5-4. After the Bottleneck
5-4.1 Homo neanderthalensis in the Middle East, until 30,000 years ago
5-4.2 Homo erectus (Ngandong 6) on Java, Indonesia, until 25,000? years ago5-4.3 Homo floresiensis on Flores island, Indonesia, until 12,000 years agom (now moved to Chapter 49 Indonesia)
5-5. Winner Takes All
Homo sapiens spreading worldwide
1. A most peculiar mammal: Homo sapiens
Human beings in civilizations that think about such things, pride themselves on their (occasionally) towering intelligence, their scientific, technological, philosophical, economic and artistic accomplishments. Scientific nomenclature knows humans as Homo sapiens (“wise man”) which nicely reflects the high self-esteem characteristic of the species.
Leaving the towering but hard-to-measure intelligence aside, there are other, much more easily measured if rather less well-publicised aspects of Homo sapiens that set off the species quite spectacularly from other life forms on earth:
Of all living things on earth weighing more than a few grams or ounces,
(a) Homo sapiens is today the only truly world-wide species, living in flat and rugged, in hot and cold, in dry and wet , in high and in low places, and practically everywhere in between. The species has recently even managed to gain a foothold in Antarctica and gone for a walk on the moon. In large cities the species has also created its own environment, something no other large animal has done.
(b) Homo sapiens has by far the largest numbers of individuals (estimated 6,300,000,000 in 2003) of any large species
 Local variations (known as “races”) also show extraordinarily low levels of within-and between-population genetic variation in comparison to the nearest relatives, the apes. This odd fact supports an extremely recent origin for Homo sapiens (ref. Ferris et al., 1981; Ruvolo et al., 1993). Only around 10% of the limited human genetic variation is accounted for by differences between populations (ref. Lewontin, 1972; Relethford, 1995).
(d) Homo sapiens has very little genetic diversity despite its huge numbers.
The last point is the oddest – and the least widely known. It is also one of the arguments in favour of a relatively recent bottleneck (e.g. Toba) rather than one much longer ago (e.g. one proposed for 2 million years ago by the “regional continuity” supporters, ref. Hawks, et al, 2000). The low genetic diversity implies that the present teeming multitude of human beings trace back to a numerically tiny and relatively recent founding population.
A geneticist had this to say on Homo sapiens:
… we have sequenced 10 kb of non-coding DNA in a region of low recombination at Xq13.3 from 70 humans representing all major language groups of the world. In addition, the same sequence has been determined from 30 chimpanzees, representing all major subspecies, as well as bonobos. Comparison to humans reveals an almost four-fold higher diversity and a three-fold greater age of the most recent common ancestor of the chimpanzee sequences. Phylogenetic analyses show the sequences from the different chimpanzee subspecies to be intermixed … These data, as well as preliminary work in the other great apes, indicate that the human genome is unique in carrying extremely little nucleotide diversity. (ref. Kaessman H. et al, 2000)
While human overall genetic diversity is low, what diversity exists, is highest in Africa. This fact is one of the major arguments in favour of the “Out of Africa” theory of human origins:… the gene pool in Africa contains more variation than elsewhere, and the genetic variation found outside of Africa represents only a subset of that found within the African continent. From a genetic perspective, all humans are therefore Africans, either residing in Africa or in recent exile. (ref. Pääbo S., 2001)
2. Genetic bottleneck
What brought about this remarkable state of affairs?
There must have been a “genetic bottleneck” – a fairly recent one (as such things go) and a very severe one. Other ideas besides a bottleneck have been floated but none has been convincing or stood the test of time and closer scrutiny. It does indeed seem that the human race at one time suffered a spectacular reverse in its fortunes. Before the disaster, our ancestors must have had the same wide genetic variety that our nearest living relatives, the apes, still have today.
What is a “genetic bottleneck”? It is simply the genetic signature of a serious reduction in number of living members of a species at some time in the past. There are many possible causes: a deadly new disease rampaging through a population, predation when one animal for some reason suddenly becomes such a successful hunter that prey species are seriously reduced in numbers (maybe leaving the over-successful hunters to face a bottleneck of their own through starvation), or it can be the result of dramatic climatic change, etc. The ultimate bottleneck (not so much a “bottleneck” as a “closed bottle”, really) is extinction. The branching off of a new species from a pre-existing older population can also be defined as a bottleneck and leaves a similar genetic traces in a population.
Species normally develop over long periods and in that time they accumulate genetic variations in their population. If a substantial part of a population is killed, there is an inevitable loss of genetic diversity among the survivors. The smaller the surviving population that comes through a bottleneck, the smaller the diversity is among the survivors. That is why it is thought that Homo sapiens has gone through a rather severe bottleneck: the species has not yet had the time to restore its badly depleted diversity.
While a bottleneck can be identified in the genome of a population, it is difficult to determine its intensity and duration: a severe bottleneck leaves a similar imprint from a longer, less severe event (ref. Relethford et al., 1994). Still more difficult is it to identify the date when a bottleneck has taken place. Dating a perceived bottleneck is largely a question of searching through time for a possible cause and then trying to determine whether the available evidence fits the suspected cause. This is largely what has been done with the Toba YTT event which actually fits surprisingly well and so has a relatively high probability of actually being true. There is no other possible cause in sight but of course, there cannot ever be absolute certainty – there never is in studies of the past.
Fig. 5-1. Schematic progress of the post-Toba bottleneck. We do not really know precisely what happened, where and when during the Toba bottleneck. The previous chapters have shown the volcanological and climatological
sequence of events. What the effect these events had on the then living population of Homo sapiens is difficult even to guess. For example, we do not know with any degree of certainty how big the pre-existing human population was, to what extent it was affected, what the death rate was and where, when the climax of the bottleneck was reached and when and with what speed or where he eventual recovery started. Still less do we know how the other survivors of the genus Homo (see chapter 5-4 ) or the apes managed to get through this would have been something along these lines:1. Rapidly shrinking population: famine, cold, disease, etc. with neighbouring groups converging and merging in sheltered spots, or perhaps fighting over shrinking resources; necessity forces adaptive cooperative skills within and between groups, new technical capabilities (new hunting-gathering skills, clothing, etc). This must have been balanced by a remarkable degree of adaptability and resourcefulness.
2. Climax of bottleneck: only small numbers left, aftershock may still kill isolated some groups but recently developed cooperative and new technical skills now allow groups to survive (if no more) in sheltered locations. Groups unwilling or unable to cooperate and adjust fast enough ware gone at this stage.
3. The surviving human population adapts and begins to recover: the number of people increases again, skills and newly refined tools developed under the stress of survive-or-die recent past are further developed and refined (a process that is still going on and has never stopped among humans – it is known as “technology”).
OIS5: Oxygen Isotope Stage 5: hot and humid (from 130,000 to 73,000 years ago)
OIS4: Oxygen Isotope Stage 4: cold and dry (from 73,000 to 63,000 years ago), in fact the coldest OIS for the past 110,000 years
OIS3: Oxygen Isotope Stage 3: warm but not quite as warm or humid as OIS5 (63,000 to 45,000 years ago)¬Ý
I can see that the scientist have a very good approach to evolution,
if it does not work they make it work years in the 10 of thousands is not important so is 100 of thousands years,
if the structures do not mach we invent a other species to fit the missing part then make it disappear in time ,
so no need to prove anything ,just rhetorics
and call it progress,it is all most like politician.deceit
for now
Pierre
Quote (Stu @ July 13 2011,04:30) Quote (terraricca @ July 12 2011,21:11) stu Darwin formulated his idea of natural selection in 1838 and was still developing his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a similar theory and both were presented to the Linnean Society of London in separate papers.[23] At the end of 1859, Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and presented evidence leading to increasingly wide acceptance of
it is a theory not a science ,they still working ad it ,
Pierre
If only you had looked at the Wikipedia page on the word theory, you might not have made that mistake:“A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.”
But of course “they” are still working on it. That's because it works already.
Stuart
stuI did,
theory to the satisfaction of self indulgence ?
Pierre
princess
Quote i think it fair to add Paul to the list also. disagree Paul never made a religion ,all the convert he made were not directed to him but to his God,and so render all free of religion,
but it is those who were looking at how to profit from it that are the masters of deceit,
Pierre
terraricca
Quote I can see that the scientist have a very good approach to evolution, if it does not work they make it work years in the 10 of thousands is not important so is 100 of thousands years,
How do you think they know these dates? Seriously, do you think they are just making all this up?Quote if the structures do not mach we invent a other species to fit the missing part then make it disappear in time ,
Sorry? What species has been “invented”? All of the species listed there have left distinct fossil remains and some have even contained DNA that can be compared with our own.Quote so no need to prove anything ,just rhetorics
Learn about the “proof” instead of rhetorically claiming it doesn’t exist!Quote and call it progress,it is all most like politician.deceit
Can’t speak for politicians. I don’t think it is part of their job description to know about theories human origins and the “proof” of them.Anyway, must compliment you on posting real science, and thank you for an interesting read. I was aware of most of this material but had not previously considered this combination of it as expressed by the writer.
Stuart
stu
Quote How do you think they know these dates? Seriously, do you think they are just making all this up? Fig. 5-1. Schematic progress of the post-Toba bottleneck. We do not really know precisely what happened, where and when during the Toba bottleneck. The previous chapters have shown the volcanological and climatological sequence of events. What the effect these events had on the then living population of Homo sapiens is difficult even to GUESS For example, we do NOT know with any degree of certainty how big the pre-existing human population was, to what extent it was affected, what the death rate was and where, when the climax of the bottleneck was reached and when and with what speed or where he eventual recovery started. Still less do we know how the other survivors of the genus Homo (see chapter 5-4 ) or the apes managed to get through this would have been something along these lines
READ THIS IS THIS YOUR PROVE ?
stu
Quote I don’t think it is part of their job description to know about theories human origins and the “proof” of them. so to you all those science people also have a license of truthful and total honesty ?
so that any one with a doctor degree is truthful and honest ?
you sure ?
Pierre
Quote (Stu @ July 11 2011,09:39) Quote (942767 @ July 11 2011,02:01) No, I won't make that deal because I know that there is only “One God” who is alive and will answer.
So you ask me to do something that you cannot do.Does your god demand hypocrisy of you?
Stuart
Hi Stu:Why should I call on false gods, when I know that there is “Only One True God”.
It would be a waste of time for me and also for you to call on false gods which cannot hear your call nor respond to you.
But since you do not know that there is “Only One True God”, perhaps when you have tried every thing else, maybe you will call on the God who will hear you and also answer you.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (terraricca @ July 13 2011,08:14) stu Quote How do you think they know these dates? Seriously, do you think they are just making all this up? Fig. 5-1. Schematic progress of the post-Toba bottleneck. We do not really know precisely what happened, where and when during the Toba bottleneck. The previous chapters have shown the volcanological and climatological sequence of events. What the effect these events had on the then living population of Homo sapiens is difficult even to GUESS For example, we do NOT know with any degree of certainty how big the pre-existing human population was, to what extent it was affected, what the death rate was and where, when the climax of the bottleneck was reached and when and with what speed or where he eventual recovery started. Still less do we know how the other survivors of the genus Homo (see chapter 5-4 ) or the apes managed to get through this would have been something along these lines
READ THIS IS THIS YOUR PROVE ?
Proof of what exactly?Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ July 13 2011,08:20) stu Quote I don’t think it is part of their job description to know about theories human origins and the “proof” of them. so to you all those science people also have a license of truthful and total honesty ?
so that any one with a doctor degree is truthful and honest ?
you sure ?
Pierre
On an individual basis, a scientist has no motive to tell lies. That is not to say they do not make mistakes, and that there are none that lie, but overwhelmingly scientists have nothing to lose by being honest, and everything to lose if they are found to have been dishonest. Read about Fleischmann and Pons and cold fusion, and how the scientific community will turn on those who have made bold claims with no basis. And even then you could stretch what they did in that case to “honest mistake”, although perhaps extremely careless.Since I can't resist the comparison, look at the honesty of creationists. They have everything to lose if it turns out that the facts disprove their claims, and most of them have no qualms about misrepresenting real science. Just look at the quote-mining done by half of them. There is even one who is in prison for lying! (Kent Hovind, the lies were about taxation, but in the manner of Al Capone he was nailed on tax lies and not on the other “crimes” he has committed, for example lying to children about dinosaurs existing at the same time as humans).
Aside from personal motive and informal peer review, there is the system in place that I mentioned to you already: formal peer review that precedes publication. You said earlier that creationists had achieved peer review in recognised publications. You have not cited the papers that were published, so I will guess at what you mean. Firstly there was one published paper a few years back that promoted a creationist interpretation of some study, and from my very shaky memory of it, the journal that published it had it reviewed a second time and subsequently withdrew the paper because the conclusions did not match the evidence.
Secondly, many creationists working in science are not biologists, many are chemical engineers or hydrologists, and creationist interpretations are not relevant to the papers they publish, so it would be dishonest to claim that these were peer-reviewed creationist papers.
So yes, overwhelmingly I think the scientific community is one of the most honest. They check and double check their work with their internal critics who are some of the most nit-picking and scathing of any field: anything that is less than honest is condemned. Not only that, but the enterprise of science is based on not coming to hasty conclusions; it is open to revising that which is wrong.
Stuart
Quote (942767 @ July 13 2011,08:26) Quote (Stu @ July 11 2011,09:39) Quote (942767 @ July 11 2011,02:01) No, I won't make that deal because I know that there is only “One God” who is alive and will answer.
So you ask me to do something that you cannot do.Does your god demand hypocrisy of you?
Stuart
Hi Stu:Why should I call on false gods, when I know that there is “Only One True God”.
It would be a waste of time for me and also for you to call on false gods which cannot hear your call nor respond to you.
But since you do not know that there is “Only One True God”, perhaps when you have tried every thing else, maybe you will call on the God who will hear you and also answer you.
Love in Christ,
Marty
I am still amused that you would ask me to call out to your god without you being willing to call out to the pantheon of Roman or Greek gods. How do you know there is no point if you have never tried?You say all gods are false but one, I say all gods are false.
If you can explain to me why you reject all other gods, then that is also my explanation for why I don't think your god is really there either.
Stuart
'you can not trust the messenger then you can not trust the message '
T,
removed the if from your post, hope you don't mind.
Quote it is those who were looking at how to profit from it that are the masters of deceit who are you referencing.
bookmarked fig5.1, thank you.
Quote On an individual basis, a scientist has no motive to tell lies. That is not to say they do not make mistakes, and that there are none that lie, but overwhelmingly scientists have nothing to lose by being honest, and everything to lose if they are found to have been dishonest. Read about Fleischmann and Pons and cold fusion, and how the scientific community will turn on those who have made bold claims with no basis. And even then you could stretch what they did in that case to “honest mistake”, although perhaps extremely careless. Prince Stuart, you must have PR experience. that is the best kiss kiss hug hug i have ever seen you write.
Quote (princess @ July 13 2011,17:17) 'you can not trust the messenger then you can not trust the message ' T,
removed the if from your post, hope you don't mind.
Quote it is those who were looking at how to profit from it that are the masters of deceit who are you referencing.
bookmarked fig5.1, thank you.
princessany who profit from the teachings of Christ and Gods word,
who are they ?look around you and see ;;Protestant,catholics,Mormons,Islam, Orthodox ,this as to include all there side organizations,and in all country.s
Pierre
princess
regarding Paul judge the man do not include the ones that latter profit of his truth by denying the power of the word of God,
to be truthful,Paul never built anything for him to profit,he worked as a slave of the true God and his son Christ
unless you can prove otherwise this is true
Pierre
Quote (terraricca @ July 13 2011,10:31) Quote (princess @ July 13 2011,17:17) 'you can not trust the messenger then you can not trust the message ' T,
removed the if from your post, hope you don't mind.
Quote it is those who were looking at how to profit from it that are the masters of deceit who are you referencing.
bookmarked fig5.1, thank you.
princessany who profit from the teachings of Christ and Gods word,
who are they ?look around you and see ;;Protestant,catholics,Mormons,Islam, Orthodox ,this as to include all there side organizations,and in all country.s
Pierre
T,i experienced the same thing, at one time. I have an ISR, given freely. profits run deeper then just the books. however T, it continues today. some take it to extreme, my only concern is the ones who give.
i have a hard time understanding this, but some consider their words to be truth.
princess
Quote T, i experienced the same thing, at one time. I have an ISR, given freely. profits run deeper then just the books. however T, it continues today. some take it to extreme, my only concern is the ones who give.
i have a hard time understanding this, but some consider their words to be truth
what is ISR stands for ?
Quote only concern is the ones who give. i have a hard time understanding this, but some consider their words to be truth.
could you elaborate on this it does not seem clear to me ,thank you
Pierre
Quote (Stu @ July 13 2011,09:36) Quote (942767 @ July 13 2011,08:26) Quote (Stu @ July 11 2011,09:39) Quote (942767 @ July 11 2011,02:01) No, I won't make that deal because I know that there is only “One God” who is alive and will answer.
So you ask me to do something that you cannot do.Does your god demand hypocrisy of you?
Stuart
Hi Stu:Why should I call on false gods, when I know that there is “Only One True God”.
It would be a waste of time for me and also for you to call on false gods which cannot hear your call nor respond to you.
But since you do not know that there is “Only One True God”, perhaps when you have tried every thing else, maybe you will call on the God who will hear you and also answer you.
Love in Christ,
Marty
I am still amused that you would ask me to call out to your god without you being willing to call out to the pantheon of Roman or Greek gods. How do you know there is no point if you have never tried?You say all gods are false but one, I say all gods are false.
If you can explain to me why you reject all other gods, then that is also my explanation for why I don't think your god is really there either.
Stuart
Hi Stu:How do you know if I have never called on false gods. I may have at one time, but I have a personal relationship with the Only God who has demonstrated his love for me in the person of Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son and His Christ, and so, I will not call on false gods now that would be foolish.
I know by experience that this is “The Only True God”, and you also will know this by experience, “one way or another”.
Love in Christ,
Martyquote]what is ISR stands for ?[/quote]
T,
Institute for Scripture Research.
Quote could you elaborate the ones that are not giving fair weights and measures are not the ones that concern me, what concerns me is the individual that gives thinking they have just received a truth or some form of blessing.
Quote what is ISR stands for ? *my apologies, i never have gotten around in asking for editing rights, usually proof read before i post.
T,
Institute for Scripture Research.
Quote could you elaborate the ones that are not giving fair weights and measures are not the ones that concern me, what concerns me is the individual that gives thinking they have just received a truth or some form of blessing.
Quote (princess @ July 13 2011,20:05) Quote what is ISR stands for ? *my apologies, i never have gotten around in asking for editing rights, usually proof read before i post.
T,
Institute for Scripture Research.
Quote could you elaborate the ones that are not giving fair weights and measures are not the ones that concern me, .
princessyeah ,i when and see ISR they do not have anything that i did not acquired years ago,but interesting to know,
Quote what concerns me is the individual that gives thinking they have just received a truth or some form of blessing you know it came to my attention in my younger years when i was manager ,and it can to me that many do think as you say ,but we have to pay attention to what it means to receive truth from Gods trough Gods spirit ,
some time ( most of the time ) it is not a revelation but only a normal and logical understanding from what we have learn but did not catch at the moment of first or second reading
but then it can go to the head this will be related to our emotions,feeling and what not ;;;;;;;;;;;
but those who are humble in spirit test all things ,
we never have to forget that it is the relationship with our creator and heavenly father that is the important thing.
it is inside to the outside ,NOT THE OUTSIDE TO THE INSIDEPierre
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
