Skip to comments.
We Dodged Extinction
ABCNews ^
| Lee Dye
Posted on 01/29/2002 7:23:19 PM PST by Sabertooth
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-173 next last
To: Sabertooth
The evidence would suggest that we came within a cigarette papers thickness of becoming extinct, Wood says. Damn tobacco companies.
21
posted on
01/29/2002 7:38:48 PM PST
by
monkey
To: John H K
Most likely candidate I've seen for the cause of the almost-extinction was the eruption of the Supervolcano Toba in Indonesia 70,000 years ago... That would have between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis, and the rise of the Sons of Aryas - an age undreamed of...
To: John H K
Even if there was a flood, there were eight humans and two chimps on that boat. What would explain the greater genetic diversity from the smaller gene pool evolving over the same time period?
To: Sabertooth
Of course the evolutionary biologists didn't say it,but it looks like their finding of the lack of genetic diversity in human beings is best explained by some catastrophic event. Darn, Moses must have thought of that and gave us the myth of Noah and the flood to explain it. You would have thought Darwin would have factored that in, but guess he didn't understand it as well as Moses.
24
posted on
01/29/2002 7:43:35 PM PST
by
Rushian
To: realpatriot71
7 of the 8 humans didn't have any children?
25
posted on
01/29/2002 7:43:36 PM PST
by
Gladwin
To: Sabertooth
Ah, but Noah took not only his genetic makeup but his wife's, his son's and THEIR wives' genetic makeup as well. The chimpanzees on board would have numbered only two...
Ergo, this explanation does not work because there would be MORE human variability than chimp... about four to one.
To: Rushian
Or, humans are a recent species.
27
posted on
01/29/2002 7:44:39 PM PST
by
Gladwin
To: realpatriot71
Even if there was a flood, there were eight humans and two chimps on that boat. What would explain the greater genetic diversity from the smaller gene pool evolving over the same time period?
The humans were all from the same family, except perhaps, the wives (although incest prohibitions didn't come until later). If the chimps weren't, that would explain it.
To: Sabertooth
Is there not another possibility, that the human "line" was sudden and somewhat unique?
The passing close by our atmosphere of a particularly radiation-active body, could have introduced the variant; as well as solar moments.
It is a mistake to think of evolution as only gradual, when the evidence has already presented over the last decades, that radiation, for example, can cause sudden and dramatic change.
To: realpatriot71
Because of the decreased life expectancy of the chimp, there have numerous more generations, and each generation offers the chance for diversity. They were only twice as diverse, so would have only needed twice the number of generations.
30
posted on
01/29/2002 7:46:28 PM PST
by
Rushian
To: Sabertooth
The amount of genetic variation that has accumulated in humans is just nowhere near compatible with the age of the species, Wood says. That means youve got to come up with a hypothesis for an event that wiped out the vast majority of that variation. I wonder how often this happens. The evidence contradicts our theories. So rather than reexamining the theory, we speculate new hypotheses to make the evidence fit our theories. I suspect it happens far more than anyone knows.
To: Swordmaker
Ergo, this explanation does not work because there would be MORE human variability than chimp... about four to one.
Great minds think alike?
(I said it first! Neeener, neeeener! :-p)
To: Doctor Doom
We will protect you sub-norms.
Thank you very much for your kind offer but we already have the lovely and gracious hillary to take care of us and protect us.
33
posted on
01/29/2002 7:46:52 PM PST
by
Valin
To: Gladwin
This agrees with the Toba event. Looks like that eruption wiped out most of the human race.
To: Sabertooth
Thanks for the heads up!
To: Sabertooth
So what you're saying is because the 8 humans were related, even though they numbered more, their gene pool was still less diverse in the first place. Interesting. Throw a bit of a monkey-wrench into my thoughts. I'll have to think some more about this one. Hmmmmmmm . . .
To: Sabertooth
Well, I have problems with the general theory of evolution, too. A good deal of it doesn't make much sense, scientifically. There is minor evolutionary development within species, certainly but after a century and a half of looking, they still haven't found any proof of evolution from one species to another.
In this case, they find an embarassing discrepancy with the way things should be among humans, according to their theory. So, they posit an "extinction" event to explain this embarrassing discrepancy, although there is no scientific evidence for it whatever. That's not science. It's what used to be called "saving the appearances." That is to say, desperately thinking up new theories to explain why your old theories don't fit the evidence.
As I understand it, DNA evidence suggests that all the human races probably go back to something that looks suspiciously like a single female ancestor--a woman whom some scientists jokingly refer to as "Eve."
37
posted on
01/29/2002 7:49:34 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: Cicero
they still haven't found any proof of evolution from one species to another. Creationist Myth #244 "There's no proof of speciation."
To: Rushian
Frequent generations don't really help that much. For instance if you only originally had two possible outcomes for a particular trait in the first place. It does not matter how many come later, there will only be two options. There is always the chance for muation and genetic recombination. However, these changes normally end up with deletrious results. If the flood happened between 10,000 and 4000 years ago, there is no where near enough time for this much non-deletrious mutation and recombination to occur in order to see the differences that we do. Sorry.
To: realpatriot71
Keep in mind, I'm not offering a definitive argument one way, or the other. I kind of enjoy the areas where Genesis and science seem like they might overlap.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-173 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson