Genetic bottleneck and Noah's ark

[surada]

In the story, Hashem caused a confusion of languages to punish those involved for their hubris.

Come, let us descend and confuse their language, so that one will not understand the language of his companion."		זהָ֚בָה נֵֽרְדָ֔ה וְנָֽבְלָ֥ה שָׁ֖ם שְׂפָתָ֑ם אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפַ֥ת רֵעֵֽהוּ:
And the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of the entire earth, and they ceased building the city.		חוַיָּ֨פֶץ יְהֹוָ֥ה אֹתָ֛ם מִשָּׁ֖ם עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כָל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיַּחְדְּל֖וּ לִבְנֹ֥ת הָעִֽיר:
Therefore, He named it Babel, for there the Lord confused the language of the entire earth, and from there the Lord scattered them upon the face of the entire earth.		טעַל־כֵּ֞ן קָרָ֤א שְׁמָהּ֙ בָּבֶ֔ל כִּי־שָׁ֛ם בָּלַ֥ל יְהֹוָ֖ה שְׂפַ֣ת כָּל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וּמִשָּׁם֙ הֱפִיצָ֣ם יְהֹוָ֔ה עַל־פְּנֵ֖י כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ:

I've read the real story is about the collapse of the civilization and the utter collapse of literacy.

 

[fncceo]

Right. Darwin, fearing that the religious regime of, well, the entire civilized world would cause his ideas to be rejected "sight unseen", pretty much avoided that topic in "On the Origin of Species".

However, he was incorrect in that his work is nearly universally accepted as scientific fact in the entire "civilized" world.

It turns out that the "civilized" world represents more than 10,000 religious regimes, most of which without a central ecumenical authority.

Had he been published in the 14th Century ... his work may not have been so well received.

 

[fncceo]

I've read the real story is about the collapse of the civilization and the utter collapse of literacy.

If literacy did collapse, how did you read it?

In fact, the world today contains the highest percentage of literate persons in all of Human history ... a good time to be alive.

 

[fncceo]

Oh, no doubt. They were simply retrofitting the morality and ethics of the genetic accident of the place and time of their birth to iron age mythology.

All cultures, including those to whom History is quite favorable, contains myths and legends. Myths and legends are a vital part of our collective human experience. Because humans are unable to inherit specific genetic memories, myths and legends allow us to pass on, imperfectly, lessons and morals from previous generations.

Even when those morals and lessons are no longer applicable to our society, they are still interesting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

However, he was incorrect in that his work is nearly universally accepted as scientific fact in the entire "civilized" world.

In 2021, sure. Should we dig him up and tell him?

But, during his lifetime, he was wildly ridiculed, as was his theory. The subject of countless political editorial cartoons and worldwide ridicule, even from many scientists.

 

[surada]

If literacy did collapse, how did you read it?

In fact, the world today contains the highest percentage of literate persons in all of Human history ... a good time to be alive.

The Tower of Babel - Emerging Truths
www.emergingtruths.com/tower_of_babel/tower_of_babel.html
The Tower of Babel The story of the tower of Babel takes place about 130 years after the flood. It is a brief story but one which raises some interesting questions.

 

[fncceo]

But, during his lifetime, he was wildly ridiculed, as was his theory.

Widely, yes ... widely, not really. The publication actually started, for the first time, serious scientific debated into the mechanics of evolution... coining the term "Darwinism" that became synonymous with evolution.

By the time of his death in 1882, his work was universally accepted in the scientific community and widely among the general public who both read and understood it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Widely, yes ... widely, not really.

Are you just kind of making stuff up, now?

Yes, there was serious debate in scientific circles. His comment wasn't referring to honest, serious scientists. It was referring to the 90% of the western population steeped in childish, magical belief.

 

[fncceo]

Are you just kind of making stuff up, now?

Yes, there was serious debate in scientific circles. His comment wasn't referring to honest, serious scientists. It was referring to the 90% of the western population steeped in childish, magical belief.

Reactions to On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Reactions to On the Origin of Species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Am I supposed to search for your point? Darwin was reviled, in religious circles. Clear into the 20th century.

 

[Colin norris]

I didn't want to derail political chic's thread on Darwinian evolution so this is a spin-off from that thread. In view of being on the Science section I will start on the/a genetic bottleneck (narrowing of the gene pool) in tracing the common origin (Acts 17:26) of all human races from the mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. I am not concerned with the molecular clock dating method - that could be still another thread. My primary interest in dates on this thread is whether a date palm was on Noah's ark.

But I also welcome any input on the scientifically tenable belief that all current species of animals came from a relatively few kinds on Noah's ark - and especially zeroing in on how Noah's ark held perhaps 1,000 animals and the food for them without over-crowding. And I will introduce my own theory about organic gardening on Noah's ark later as well. [window boxes] That part can also include some humor btw.

I intend to go into considerable depth in research, as well as imagination. The following source posits 2 genetic bottlenecks:

Evidence that two main bottleneck events shaped modern human genetic diversity | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

There is a strong consensus that modern humans originated in Africa and moved out to colonize the world approximately 50 000 years ago. During the process of expansion, variability was lost, creating a linear gradient of decreasing diversity with ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

However, the source is relatively humble despite the extensive research being reported on. In discussing the narrowing of the human gene pool, the source states:

"However, the exact way in which this loss occurred remains somewhat unclear: did it involve one, a few or a continuous series of population bottlenecks? We addressed this by analysing a large published dataset of 783 microsatellite loci genotyped in 53 worldwide populations,"

Of course, the flood would only be one genetic bottleneck - however, the Bible does not record pre-flood history in detail. We do know that the human gene pool on the ark was less than that of animals such that inbreeding is much more dangerous in humans than in cats, for one example. Not to mention the greater variety of cats than that of humans - some even claim there is more than one cat genus and some 40 cat species surviving.

Favoring the out of Africa genetic model, the source notes:

"This decline reflects loss of diversity in population bottleneck(s) as we expanded out of Africa to colonize the world, but the timing, number and location of these events remain obscure."

That is a humble admission - somewhat rare and commendable. But my main point is that the narrowing of the gene pool in at least one genetic bottleneck is proven by genetic research. The authors are correct that genes do not determine geographical location of origins and that dates from molecular clock models are ambiguous.

After great detail in genetic studies involving various factors (such as epigenetic coding including tandem repeats and slippage) the source again humbly admits:

"The above analyses all assume that the different parts of the world that are equidistant from our origin are equivalent and that is clearly not the case. For example, populations in the Middle East are nearer to the origin than some of the within-Africa populations."

It should be noted that the Bible favors an origin in the Middle East.

Well there is much more, but I will stop there and await responses concerning genetic bottleneck(s).

In my next post I will explore models of Noah's Ark: (pun intended)

Comrade, there was no flood and any idiot believes there was is a complete fool. As for the boat full of animals etc, don't insult people's intelligence.

Chic is suffering from reality deficit. Examine the crap she blurts on here.
It's basically verbal diahorrea.

 

[Vastator]

I didn't want to derail political chic's thread on Darwinian evolution so this is a spin-off from that thread. In view of being on the Science section I will start on the/a genetic bottleneck (narrowing of the gene pool) in tracing the common origin (Acts 17:26) of all human races from the mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. I am not concerned with the molecular clock dating method - that could be still another thread. My primary interest in dates on this thread is whether a date palm was on Noah's ark.

But I also welcome any input on the scientifically tenable belief that all current species of animals came from a relatively few kinds on Noah's ark - and especially zeroing in on how Noah's ark held perhaps 1,000 animals and the food for them without over-crowding. And I will introduce my own theory about organic gardening on Noah's ark later as well. [window boxes] That part can also include some humor btw.

I intend to go into considerable depth in research, as well as imagination. The following source posits 2 genetic bottlenecks:

Evidence that two main bottleneck events shaped modern human genetic diversity | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

There is a strong consensus that modern humans originated in Africa and moved out to colonize the world approximately 50 000 years ago. During the process of expansion, variability was lost, creating a linear gradient of decreasing diversity with ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

However, the source is relatively humble despite the extensive research being reported on. In discussing the narrowing of the human gene pool, the source states:

"However, the exact way in which this loss occurred remains somewhat unclear: did it involve one, a few or a continuous series of population bottlenecks? We addressed this by analysing a large published dataset of 783 microsatellite loci genotyped in 53 worldwide populations,"

Of course, the flood would only be one genetic bottleneck - however, the Bible does not record pre-flood history in detail. We do know that the human gene pool on the ark was less than that of animals such that inbreeding is much more dangerous in humans than in cats, for one example. Not to mention the greater variety of cats than that of humans - some even claim there is more than one cat genus and some 40 cat species surviving.

Favoring the out of Africa genetic model, the source notes:

"This decline reflects loss of diversity in population bottleneck(s) as we expanded out of Africa to colonize the world, but the timing, number and location of these events remain obscure."

That is a humble admission - somewhat rare and commendable. But my main point is that the narrowing of the gene pool in at least one genetic bottleneck is proven by genetic research. The authors are correct that genes do not determine geographical location of origins and that dates from molecular clock models are ambiguous.

After great detail in genetic studies involving various factors (such as epigenetic coding including tandem repeats and slippage) the source again humbly admits:

"The above analyses all assume that the different parts of the world that are equidistant from our origin are equivalent and that is clearly not the case. For example, populations in the Middle East are nearer to the origin than some of the within-Africa populations."

It should be noted that the Bible favors an origin in the Middle East.

Well there is much more, but I will stop there and await responses concerning genetic bottleneck(s).

In my next post I will explore models of Noah's Ark: (pun intended)

Forget the food required for the animals proposed by this myth.. The water. The drinkable fresh water, and the varying ways animals naturally intake enough of it; is just one of countless ways this story is easily debunked.

 

[fncceo]

Am I supposed to search for your point? Darwin was reviled, in religious circles. Clear into the 20th century.

But, as I said before ... in 1890, as in 2021, "religious" circles. don't make up the bulk of the civilized world. Even if the bulk of the "civilized" world didn't embrace thousands of vastly different faiths. most people, even then, were aware of the vast amount of scientific knowledge being accumulated and were able to peaceably reconcile that knowledge with a non-literal interpretation of scripture.

I have no doubt that even in 2525 CE, if man is still alive, if woman can survive, there will still be a minority of religiously-based fanatics who still see a non-literal interpretation of scripture to be a threat. But, they won't make up the bulk of the civilized world.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

in 1890, as in 2021, "religious" circles. don't make up the bulk of the civilized world.

Is that so? Should we check? Define "the bulk". 51%? 70%?

Let's check.

 

[Stryder50]

I didn't want to derail political chic's thread on Darwinian evolution so this is a spin-off from that thread. In view of being on the Science section I will start on the/a genetic bottleneck (narrowing of the gene pool) in tracing the common origin (Acts 17:26) of all human races from the mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. I am not concerned with the molecular clock dating method - that could be still another thread. My primary interest in dates on this thread is whether a date palm was on Noah's ark.

But I also welcome any input on the scientifically tenable belief that all current species of animals came from a relatively few kinds on Noah's ark - and especially zeroing in on how Noah's ark held perhaps 1,000 animals and the food for them without over-crowding. And I will introduce my own theory about organic gardening on Noah's ark later as well. [window boxes] That part can also include some humor btw.

I intend to go into considerable depth in research, as well as imagination. The following source posits 2 genetic bottlenecks:

Evidence that two main bottleneck events shaped modern human genetic diversity | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

There is a strong consensus that modern humans originated in Africa and moved out to colonize the world approximately 50 000 years ago. During the process of expansion, variability was lost, creating a linear gradient of decreasing diversity with ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

However, the source is relatively humble despite the extensive research being reported on. In discussing the narrowing of the human gene pool, the source states:

"However, the exact way in which this loss occurred remains somewhat unclear: did it involve one, a few or a continuous series of population bottlenecks? We addressed this by analysing a large published dataset of 783 microsatellite loci genotyped in 53 worldwide populations,"

Of course, the flood would only be one genetic bottleneck - however, the Bible does not record pre-flood history in detail. We do know that the human gene pool on the ark was less than that of animals such that inbreeding is much more dangerous in humans than in cats, for one example. Not to mention the greater variety of cats than that of humans - some even claim there is more than one cat genus and some 40 cat species surviving.

Favoring the out of Africa genetic model, the source notes:

"This decline reflects loss of diversity in population bottleneck(s) as we expanded out of Africa to colonize the world, but the timing, number and location of these events remain obscure."

That is a humble admission - somewhat rare and commendable. But my main point is that the narrowing of the gene pool in at least one genetic bottleneck is proven by genetic research. The authors are correct that genes do not determine geographical location of origins and that dates from molecular clock models are ambiguous.

After great detail in genetic studies involving various factors (such as epigenetic coding including tandem repeats and slippage) the source again humbly admits:

"The above analyses all assume that the different parts of the world that are equidistant from our origin are equivalent and that is clearly not the case. For example, populations in the Middle East are nearer to the origin than some of the within-Africa populations."

It should be noted that the Bible favors an origin in the Middle East.

Well there is much more, but I will stop there and await responses concerning genetic bottleneck(s).

In my next post I will explore models of Noah's Ark: (pun intended)

I'd suggest the first place to start is explore the consensus on when approximately Noah and his Ark occur.

The Bible/Old Testament~Genesis is less than precise on this benchmark timeline point, and nothing of much value or merit can proceed until we can get some handle on when exactly, or roughly, Noah and his Ark with "world flood" event occurs.

Until then we are all "spitting into the wind" so to speak ...

 

[Stryder50]

Is that so? Should we check? Define "the bulk". 51%? 70%?

Let's check.

Try to go beyond "Christian" in view and then you see that the many other major religions trend to dominate population majority views. Admittedly often at odds with one and another on the details.

 

[Stryder50]

Perhaps the best channel for resolution would be the genetic one of human female mitochondrial DNA ~ mDNA and a good start point is;
...
The Seven Daughters of Eve[1] is a 2001 semi-fictional book by Bryan Sykes that presents the science of human origin in Africa and their dispersion to a general audience.[2] Sykes explains the principles of genetics and human evolution, the particularities of mitochondrial DNA, and analyses of ancient DNA to genetically link modern humans to prehistoric ancestors.

Following the developments of mitochondrial genetics, Sykes traces back human migrations, discusses the "out of Africa theory" and casts serious doubt upon Thor Heyerdahl's theory of the Peruvian origin of the Polynesians, which opposed the theory of their origin in Indonesia. He also describes the use of mitochondrial DNA in identifying the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia, and in assessing the genetic makeup of modern Europe.

The title of the book comes from one of the principal achievements of mitochondrial genetics, which is the classification of all modern Europeans into seven groups, the mitochondrial haplogroups. Each haplogroup is defined by a set of characteristic mutations on the mitochondrial genome, and can be traced along a person's maternal line to a specific prehistoric woman. Sykes refers to these women as "clan mothers", though these women did not all live concurrently. All these women in turn shared a common maternal ancestor, the Mitochondrial Eve.

The last third of the book is spent on a series of fictional narratives, written by Sykes, describing his creative guesses about the lives of each of these seven "clan mothers". This latter half generally met with mixed reviews in comparison with the first part.
...
The seven "clan mothers" mentioned by Sykes each correspond to one (or more) human mitochondrial haplogroups.

• Ursula: corresponds to Haplogroup U (specifically U5, and excluding its subgroup K)
• Xenia: corresponds to Haplogroup X
• Helena: corresponds to Haplogroup H
• Velda: corresponds to Haplogroup V
• Tara: corresponds to Haplogroup T
• Katrine: corresponds to Haplogroup K
• Jasmine: corresponds to Haplogroup J

...
Sykes wrote in the book that there were seven major mitochondrial lineages for modern Europeans, though he subsequently wrote that with the additional data from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, Ulrike (see below) could have been promoted to be the eighth clan mother for Europe.[3]

Others have put the number at 10,[4] 12[5] or even 18.[6] These additional "daughters" generally include haplogroups I, M and W.[7] For example, a 2004 paper re-mapped European haplogroups as H, J, K, N1, T, U4, U5, V, X and W.[4] Richards, Macaulay, Torroni and Bandelt include I, W and N1b as well as Sykes' '7 daughters' within their 2002 pan-European survey (but - illustrating how complex the question can be - also separate out pre-V, HV1 and pre-HV1, and separate out U to include U1, U2, U3, U4 and U7 as well as U5).[8]

Likewise, Sykes has invented names for an additional 29 "clan mothers" worldwide (of which four were native American, nine Japanese[9] and 12 were from Africa[10]), each corresponding to a different haplogroup identified by geneticists: "Fufei, Ina, Aiyana/Ai, Yumi, Nene, Naomi, Una, Uta, Ulrike, Uma, Ulla, Ulaana, Lara, Lamia, Lalamika, Latasha, Malaxshmi, Emiko, Gaia, Chochmingwu/Chie, Djigonasee/Sachi, Makeda, Lingaire, Lubaya, Limber, Lila, Lungile, Latifa and Layla."
...

The Seven Daughters of Eve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Female mDNA so far remains the best tracer for human origins and migrations, etc.; so for now this should be the start point.

At least for one major aspect of the search regards when homo sapiens starts from and how such moved across the planet in rather recent times.

 

[abu afak]

After that post, shouldn't it be clear to the mods., that the OP belongs in the Religion and Ethics sub-forum?

NOTHING is "Clear to the Mods."
They themselves are Right Wing Creationists.
100% of several people's posts are 'GodDidit,' many citing Bible passages as 'evidence.'
I tried both reporting and broadcasting:

The Trolling Proselytization of the Sci section by 'GodDidIt' cultists

These clowns just declare 'GodDidIt' and you are immoral atheists/scientists. That's it. They have No science and should not be posting anywhere but the RELIGION section. Young Earth Creationism/YEC is demonstrably wrong/debunked by at least half a dozen real sciences. And if you need a link...

www.usmessageboard.com

Nothing works.
But if you go to Religion section and debunk, you will be sanctioned/they are protected.

This is a LCD/Lowest Common Denominator TROLL board. 90% RW, one-line Trolls.
That's how USMB makes it's living.
Page views of prolific one-line RW trolls, idiots, and mental defectives.
The leftovers/'banees' from other boards.

Insincere Jerks like 'DukeU' and sincere but brainwashed religionists allowed to post in this section citing Bible passages.
`

 

[abu afak]

MisterBeale It should also be noted this thread was DEAD until IDIOTICALLY bumped up by surada resurrected it in post #43 just to put in a weak one-line reply.
Otherwise it had been dead since May 2020 and many pages back.

`

 

[MisterBeale]

Religion section and debunk

You can't "debunk," faith.

Don't be silly. You can only debunk those who take parables of faith literally.



"When one person sees one thing and another sees something else in the same thing, then the one discovers what the other conceals. Insofar as the object viewed belongs to the external world, then how the observer is constituted is probably less important, or, more correctly then what is necessary for the observation is something irrelevant to his deeper nature. But the more the object of observation belongs to the world of the spirit, the more important is the way he himself is constituted in his innermost nature, because everything spiritual is appropriated only in freedom; but what is appropriated in freedom is also brought forth. The difference, then, is not the external but the internal, and everything that makes a person impure and his observation impure comes from within. Søren Kierkegaard, Three Upbuilding Discourses, 1843, Hong p. 59-60"

Fear and Trembling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org