Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-03-2006, 02:18 PM   #16
RenaissanceMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Okay... I calmed down enough to type coherently.

It's total BS because it omits the single biggest factor in the human timeline, geography. The 'statistics' in that piece imply that all humans live on a big plain where they can freely travel to all other humans and make babies. That isn't how it works, communities of humans split off and go away... you end up with 'nodes' of genetic connection rather than a continuous string of genetic mix.

It's a big tree starting with the first human population and then branching out as geography separated populations of humans. Of course, that trend is collapsing back as the world is being bridged by technology and the 'mixing pot' is reconnecting genetic adaptations.

If the world's population really DID originate 2 to 5 thousand years ago from a single genetic pair, you would expect to see a MUCH more homogenous population of humans.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 02:23 PM   #17
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Geez, I wish I had my reference materials with me. What about sibling-fucking and other forms of incest? What about mitochondrial eve and Y-Chromosome Adam? What about the population bottleneck circa 100k years ago? I think the number is closer to 60,000 based on real science.

And another thing... you can't go back more than eleven generations without seeing the same names repeating in your family tree.

If this thread survives, I shall elaborate and post some good stuff when I get home to my reference library.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 02:40 PM   #18
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't just blame Fox. Someone planted this story, and it was picked up by many.

Olson's book is 4 years old. Why is it being regurgitated now????

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/...rt&fr2=tab-img
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 02:44 PM   #19
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Here is another forum I came across on a search discussing it.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7508&st=0
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 02:50 PM   #20
RenaissanceMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
baconeatingatheistjew wrote
Don't just blame Fox. Someone planted this story, and it was picked up by many.

Olson's book is 4 years old. Why is it being regurgitated now????

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/...rt&fr2=tab-img
You gotta go with the recent 'discovery' of Noah's Ark. What better 'proof' of the flood that finding an Ark and linking the entire population of the earth to one person '2000 to 5000' years ago?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 02:50 PM   #21
Metman07
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yeah it certainly contradicts the evidence we have on hand at the moment. How could all of humanity be descended from one person approximately 5k years ago, when we know beyond a reasonable doubt that there were several civilizations in existance around that time? Did all the other humans around back then stop breeding? Was there some catastrophic event that wiped out everyone save for that human?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 03:45 PM   #22
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Here are the book reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/061...lance&n=283155

All I can say that there was a heck of a lot of isolation going on 6,000 years ago.

If I were to go back 10,000 years even, I'm not going to find I'm a direct descendant of any Aboriginal living in Australia at the time, nor would I find that I'm a direct descendant of any North American alive at that time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 03:50 PM   #23
antix
Obsessed Member
 
antix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: inside a hill
Posts: 2,910
Next I suppose they'll claim they found a fossilized piece of shit that is in fact the very shit that Eve took which contained the digested remains of the magic apple. That would certainly be one intelliegent piece of shit.
antix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 03:55 PM   #24
Rat Bastard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think it is another example of "Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure". I am not a statistician, but the bottom line in this is that the "computer simulation says" about 500 years. Too many variables, as mentioned earlier can skew this, and there is no way for the programmer to locate local extinctions. There are other extinctions that have taken out large sections of populations, and have genetic impact. Take the relative resistance to HIV in some of the population, as an example I read in the research, somewhere like Scientific American. There are populations in places like Scandinavia that have resistance to AIDS-like diseases. I may not have the area and disease right, I am too lazy to go look it up. But the bottom line is, as stated, there have been extinctions of groups that lacked certain capabilities. Natural Selection rears its ugly head yet again, in a particularly nasty way for Homo Sap. That is one example that I know about, and this is sure afar from my field of expertise. I daresay there are many more.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 04:09 PM   #25
thenormalyears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ok so I read it better and have a different conclusion.

1. Its wrong

BUT

2. Its possible that the decendants of one could overtake the entire population, because it did happen just not as soon as they will have you believe.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 05:04 PM   #26
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Okay, now that I'm home, and I've had a chance to read the whole thing, here's my opinion (FWIW):

1. The article is one of the poorest jobs ever for interpreting what a scientist does to layspeak.
2. The book kicks ass. I've read it a couple of times, and I might give it another go.
3. The article completely misrepresents the author's intent.

Quote:
Shallow Pool Article wrote
Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther -- about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago -- everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors.
Olson's work is thoroughly grounded in evolutionary theory. Within statistical populational studies it is completely logical that anyone alive today has "the same set of ancestors" as anyone else alive today.

The article's explanatory ability is sorely lacking. It's antithetical to theme of the book. The book firmly puts an end to any hint of races, explaining how well-connected we all are. Olson is strongly behind the Mitochondrial Eve theory. The article's author is simply twisting what can be a confusing statistical example to fit his obviously religious motive, and ignoring the book's strong ties to evolution and genetics.

Here's another reason I think the article is pure weapons-grade bullshit:

WordCounts:

Evolution: 0
Genetics: 0
Christ: 1

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 05:06 PM   #27
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
I agree, I think the timing of this article hitting the wires is way to convenient. Why the sudden interest in a four year old book?

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 06:24 PM   #28
RenaissanceMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
I agree, I think the timing of this article hitting the wires is way to convenient. Why the sudden interest in a four year old book?
Dude! Recent 'discovery' of Noah's Ark? Hack job article on a 4 year old book claiming the human race had a single proginator 2000 to 5000 years ago? OMG! That proginator is NOAH!!! Biblical inerrancy for teh win!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 06:25 PM   #29
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I can understand that a high percentage of us living today share a common ancestor 7000 years ago, however, tribal African, South Americans, and Australian Aboriginals, and Eskimos sharing a common ancestor from say Persia is highly unlikely.

You would need European or Middle Eastern lines in every Aborginal, Eskimo, African tribesman etc. I find it to be impossible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 07:17 PM   #30
thenormalyears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
baconeatingatheistjew wrote
Don't just blame Fox. Someone planted this story, and it was picked up by many.

Olson's book is 4 years old. Why is it being regurgitated now????

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/...rt&fr2=tab-img
I can still blame fox because I know that it takes not much common sense to realize what stories have been planted and what stories are the real thing.

This was a clear case of letting your POV get in the way.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational