> If you're too poor to afford a phone, just open your window and yell. >.. > Keep your hand out of my pocket.
It's the US govt. who (lawfully) puts their hand in your pocket for things like this. The very definition of a country means that some people end up "footing the bill" for others less fortunate than them.
Get used to it. If you don't want to keep your end of this bargain, renounce your citizenship.
This Slashdot story: "Hacking the RoboSapien" shows how to control the Robosapien - a $100 humanoid-ish toy robot - with the infrared port of a strapped-on PDA.
Two options for the PDA controller:
1. You can use a PocketPC and a free Visual C++ API You may get a cheap PocketPC on Ebay.
OR
2. You can use a PalmOS PDA, along with a program called SAPBench that works out to $25. You could either use a cheapo palm Zire, or get a Treo 300 PDA + phone which I saw on sale for as cheap as $85 on Froogle.google.com. The Treo 300's internet connectivity could give you pretty interesting 2-level control of this "robot".
Adding to my earlier reply... this new article should kill the remainder of your arrogance. It has photos of the race of pgymy people on those islands, and shows the Flores skeleton was a member of that race who was born with a small brain.
[Link] The article reports Dr. Teuku Jacob, a paleoanthropology professor from Gadjah Mada University, as saying:
"The skeleton is not a new species as claimed by these scientists, but simply a fossil of a modern human, Homo sapiens, that lived about 1,300 to 1,800 years ago."
While acknowledging the small brain size (380 cc, less than that of a chimp) and obvious differences with typical modern humans, he apparently stated that the remains were those of a member of the "Australomelanesid race, which had dwelled across almost all of the Indonesian islands."... An article in Britain's Observer quotes Dr. Jacob as suggesting the abnormality known as microcephaly (in which a human is born with a lower brain size) was responsible for Flores man's small brain/skull size.... Interestingly, the JP news report also highlighted the same fact we did, namely that the specimen was not really fossilized (mineralized). This of course is more consistent with a much younger age for the skeleton than in the Nature announcement. Dr. Soejono was quoted as saying, "...we were able to find soft tissue so that we could carry out a DNA test. We couldn't do that if it was already a fossil." Interestingly, a media release posted by Australia's Southern Cross University, on 8 November 2004, suggests that the Flores (or Liang Bua, as the site is also known) people may have inhabited the island up to about "500 years ago."
There is also a different genetic study (see article) that concurs with the Biblical assertion that Jews and Arabs have a common ancestor. And other genetic studies back a similar assertion for a Jewish "Cohen priestly gene" (also mentioned in the article).
> You're wrong, the bible must defer to the Torah. The Bible includes the Torah.
> Jesus was a false prophet and all his followers are subject to the laws of Yahweh. Of course, we are subject to the commands of Yahweh. And Jesus is both the son, and is one with Yahweh. (See the address at the temple where he tells the Jews, "before Abraham was, I AM".
So Yahweh's commands to us are love your enemies, forgive them their sins, and obey Jesus.
As for Jesus being a false prophet, take a look at Daniel and the 70 week prophecy made about Jesus.
> Both are stated positions are now arbitrary. I had a good look at many choices. Jesus was the only one both valid and alive.
> The more you think you're right, the more I'll take it as a sign that I am right. I can't solve that problem my friend.
> This is the only way I can express to you my faith > - that religion is a personal choice which > should not be pushed on others. The bible should neither > supercede nor defer to any religion, nor should any religion do so. You have faith in this position, yes? What about when things are definitely wrong. Do you get to cherry pick your own personal Frankenstien-ish faith? Is such a faith valid? Is it even real?
> BTW, I was raised nominally within western > religious circles. Ditto. for me, s/western/eastern/
> I'm reading the Gita right now. Where you've left, I am headed. Head over to Chapter 9, Verse 32, will you? Where Krishna is preaching to Arjun... 32: "For, taking refuge in me, they also, who, O Partha, may be of a sinful birth - women, Vaisyas, as well as Sudras - even they attain the supreme God" 33: "How much more (easily) then the holy brahmins, and the devoted Royal saints (attain the goal). Having reached (obtained) this impermanent and joyless world, do worship me devoutly
Note, the Gita is remarkably tolerant compared to some other scriptures, say - Manusmriti, some Vedas). But it still can't help paying tribute to the concept of Aryan supremacy that riddles so many Hindu texts (for instance consider what the world Varna means).
> Where I've left, you're headed. Sort of parallels my opinion. > We both disagree with each other. The difference is that you > think I should change to be like you and I think you should > stop thinking I should change to be like you. No, no , not "be like me", its "be like Jesus".
> We both think the other should change; > you think we should both be christian, > I think you should accept that everyone makes their own choice. But of course.
> But hey, maybe it's all a dream and we're both wrong. True. "But I doubt it"
> Or right for that matter,... unlikely, see above.
> although I can't see how there could be two mutually exclusive ultimate > foundations to a single reality, Aha! you're exactly right.
You're a sad case - the Bible says Noah's sons entered the ark with their wives: I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark--you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
I'd rather believe my maker than believe you. And I know Christ.:)
In all seriousness, what does "the bible" say about Hinduism, Greek polytheism, shinto, confucianism, janism? Should all those (perfectly valid) religions be ignored because they're not referred to in "the bible"?
No, a lot of these are really a blend of culture and religion. Good cultural traditions are worthy of being carried forward, no matter what their origins. But those parts of it that opposes what the Bible teaches, especially fanciful Gods -- that bit must be dumped. I used to be Hindu, I know what I am talking about. Also, it's "Jainism", not Janism.
From the article: NOTE: We are not suggesting that the anatomical features of the Flores woman were simply those of a (miniature) modern type human. They are those of a (miniature) Homo erectus, a variant of the modern type, but within the human kind (see also How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?). Like the evolutionist anthropologist Milford Wolpoff and his allies, who are also aware of the differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens, we are saying that Homo erectus (and thus also the Flores people) should really be classified as H. sapiens. The human kind/species had a greater range of variation than exhibited today.
This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches.
> "For one, mitochondrial DNA is totally irrelevant > to Y-Chromosome Adam; it's only relevant to mitochondrial Eve." That's true. Thanks for the clarification.
> And yes, the genetic evidence does disprove that > Y-Adam was the first man, because mitochondrial > Eve didn't live at the same time. No, the NYTimes article indicates they lived together: "This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches."
The original (150000 year dates) research indicates the bottlenecking for _both_ sexes happened approximately at the same time.
Now that we've seen a paper talking about faster mDNA mutation rate, take a look at this article, which suggests the same for the Y-Chromosome:
What we’ve learned from studying the Y chromosome ... The mutation rate scientists have used in the past was based on circumstantial evidence because there was just too much DNA to sequence. Until now.
For the first time, groups in Indiana and New Hampshire have figured out a mutation rate based on sequencing huge amounts of DNA from lots of the roundworm, C. elegans. How much DNA? An astonishing 4 million base pairs…an impossible number just a few years ago. What the researchers found was that the mutation rate was 10 times higher than previously believed or around 2 mutations/generation for C. elegans. There are possible reasons that given the way the experiment was done, the mutation rate might have been artificially high. But, if the new number is true, it calls into question all sorts of things.
For example, partly based on DNA evidence, scientists believed that chimps and humans separated about 5 million years ago. Was it actually 500,000 years ago? Humans began their migration out of Africa 100,000 years ago. Or was it 10,000? Did “Adam live 50,000 or 5000 years ago?
I said: "It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched."
You said: "Incorrect. Unless there are other people to breed with there, they should have the same DNA as the original tribe."
I say: No!
Once there is no more mixing of 'A' and 'A.1' because 'A.1' has migrated away, their DNA lineages _would_ diverge, even if A.1 bred exclusively among _themselves_. This is because the mutations that A.1 accumulates will have almost no means of being transmitted back to A. And the mutations that A accumulates after A.1 brached off have few ways of being transmitted to A.1.
Your own bias is clouding your thoughts. If you can't accept that 3 braches converge to 1 original, what makes you accept 7 branches converge to one of the 3?
It's obvious also that the research underlying the article done by scientists who _agree_ with mainstream genetic and evolutionary theory, not with a earth created 5000 years ago as stated in the Bible.
There is a double bottlenecking of both male and female braches, at about the same time.
"The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.... The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters,"
"This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches."
Regarding genetic diversity, the Bible indicates the first humans _had_ excellent DNA - lifespans before the flood were of the order of hundreds of years, and began declining after the flood.
It's interesting how you there is a double bottlenecking.
Unfortunately for your theory, the genetic evidence is not consistent with a small bottleneck -- male or otherwise -- 4200 years ago. For that matter, Y-chromosome Adam lived significantly longer than 4200 years ago.
Evolutionary Genetics tries to estimate how 'old' our current species is by dividing the number of mutations observed in a specific DNA region with the estimated mutation rate. The generally accepted figure is around 150,000 years, but...
A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet. 1998 Feb;18(2):109-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ent rez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9090380&dopt=Abstract ----- The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing....We compared DNA sequences... an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution. -----
> The existence of a Y-Adam does not imply a genetic bottleneck > -- meaning a population reduced to a small number with limited > genetic diversity -- either; it just means that other males' > descendents didn't make it this far. Well, that's your take on the genetic evidence. Tell me, does the same genetic evidence _disprove_ that Y-Adam was the first man?
1. Re: tracking movement and breeding for 20000 years... it's a conjecture used in processing the data. 2. Re: meaning of "Average date."... quoting the article.
The team noted that if one group of people had been completely isolated until today, then, logically, the common ancestor must have lived before they went into isolation.
They then say the hypothesized Tasmanian isolation is not a difficulty due to 'no data' for Tasmanian aborigines (i.e. no data that they consider valid).
Please see my other posts in this thread for more evidence and clarifications.
You said: "This theorized common ancestor, if he exists, is everyone's ancestor, but was one of millions of people on the earth at that time that are also ancestors of people today."
Two questions:
1. Is there genetic evidence that provides proof that "millions of other men" lived contemporary with our common male genetic ancestor? Can it disprove that we descended exclusively from just one man?
2. You also said: The fact that they are able theorize such a recent common ancestor for tasmanians as well in this study is because TODAY all tasmanians have some european ancestry
Is this also true for Amazon Indians, and Red Indians, and Pygmies from the Congo, and every other isolated people group? The study implies these all have genetic data from a common male ancestor who lived merely 3500 years ago.
there was consolation for Bush from what many would see as an unlikely source: the majority of virtual votes submitted from Iraq went to the incumbent.
> Now, since Noah didn't reproduce asexually, how can > we determine what his original line was since we only > have the three lines of his sons? > Instead of the three lines merging to 1, they should be > only the three original lines. > Unless you could dig up Noah to map his genetics.
Well, we're armchair generals here. All the hard work is done by the scientists and this is really their statement. If we accept their statement that there are three lineages, we should also be willing to accept their statements that the 3 lineages converge to one.
I'm simply pointing out similarities between their data and the Biblical record.
> One of Eve's lines hit Asia and branches 6 times. > And 2 of those branches never split again. > In Asia, those original 6 branches are still shown. > They only branch when they change geographic location. > > To me, that indicates other tribes not connected to the original Eve and inter-breeding. It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched.
Prior to the new 3500 years figure, the earlier figure for our common genetic ancestors was about 150,000 years.
Back in 2003, I posted this pointing out how that 150000 figure needs drastic downward revision (to be divided by 20) given:...
"Evolutionary Genetics tries to estimate how 'old' our current species is by dividing the number of mutations observed in a specific DNA region with the estimated mutation rate. The generally accepted figure is around 150,000 years, but..."
A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet. 1998 Feb;18(2):109-10. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ent rez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9090380&dopt=Abstract ----- The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing....We compared DNA sequences... an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and...
The link also contains other evidence including this paper which indicates the Danish population divered from populations in the middle east around 4500 years ago
Using rare mutations to estimate population divergence times: A maximum likelihood approach Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 95, pp. 15452–15457, December 1998 http://www.rannala.org/papers/PNAS98.pdf -- --- In this paper we propose a method to estimate by maximum likelihood the divergence time between two populations,...
When applied to three cystic fibrosis mutations, the estimatorRD could not exclude a very recent time of divergence among three Mediterranean populations. On the other hand, the divergence time between these populations and the Danish population was estimated to be, on the average, 4,500 or 15,000 years, assuming or not a selective advantage for cystic fibrosis carriers, respectively. ------
Oh, and take another look at the Tasmania example at the end of the article.
Which says:
People in Tasmania were one group who may have been completely isolated from mainland Australia from 12,000 years ago until 1803, due to the flooding of Bass Strait. This did not affect the results, because "today there are no remaining native Tasmanians without some European or mainland Australian ancestry".
The article authors are simply trying to resolve a difficulty with another theory which states Tasmanians were isolated for 12000 years. If all humans descended from one man who lived about 3500 years ago, how could Tasmanians - who supposedly were isolated 12000 years - be descended from him too? So they conjecture that interbreeding with Europeans in the last 200 years has modified Tasmanians genetic data to look like the rest of the world's. This lets their conclusions not dispute the 12000 year isolation theory.
You said: "It doesn't mean that all genes originate from the same individual, ".
It does.
See quote below from an article called "The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves" in the NY Times (free subscription required)
The human genome is turning out to be a rich new archive for historians and prehistorians... Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals... But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population. The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.... The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters, This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches.... The tree is rooted in a single Y chromosomal Adam, and has 10 principal branches, Dr. Cavalli-Sforza reports....
Slashdot Mirror
> If you're too poor to afford a phone, just open your window and yell. ..
>
> Keep your hand out of my pocket.
It's the US govt. who (lawfully) puts their hand in your pocket for things like this. The very definition of a country means that some people end up "footing the bill" for others less fortunate than them.
Get used to it. If you don't want to keep your end of this bargain, renounce your citizenship.
This Slashdot story: "Hacking the RoboSapien" shows how to control the Robosapien - a $100 humanoid-ish toy robot - with the infrared port of a strapped-on PDA.
Two options for the PDA controller:
1. You can use a PocketPC and a free Visual C++ API
You may get a cheap PocketPC on Ebay.
OR
2. You can use a PalmOS PDA, along with a program called SAPBench that works out to $25.
You could either use a cheapo palm Zire, or get a Treo 300 PDA + phone which I saw on sale for as cheap as $85 on Froogle.google.com. The Treo 300's internet connectivity could give you pretty interesting 2-level control of this "robot".
Adding to my earlier reply... this new article should kill the remainder of your arrogance. It has photos of the race of pgymy people on those islands, and shows the Flores skeleton was a member of that race who was born with a small brain.
... ...
[Link]
The article reports Dr. Teuku Jacob, a paleoanthropology professor from Gadjah Mada University, as saying:
"The skeleton is not a new species as claimed by these scientists, but simply a fossil of a modern human, Homo sapiens, that lived about 1,300 to 1,800 years ago."
While acknowledging the small brain size (380 cc, less than that of a chimp) and obvious differences with typical modern humans, he apparently stated that the remains were those of a member of the "Australomelanesid race, which had dwelled across almost all of the Indonesian islands."
An article in Britain's Observer quotes Dr. Jacob as suggesting the abnormality known as microcephaly (in which a human is born with a lower brain size) was responsible for Flores man's small brain/skull size.
Interestingly, the JP news report also highlighted the same fact we did, namely that the specimen was not really fossilized (mineralized). This of course is more consistent with a much younger age for the skeleton than in the Nature announcement. Dr. Soejono was quoted as saying, "...we were able to find soft tissue so that we could carry out a DNA test. We couldn't do that if it was already a fossil." Interestingly, a media release posted by Australia's Southern Cross University, on 8 November 2004, suggests that the Flores (or Liang Bua, as the site is also known) people may have inhabited the island up to about "500 years ago."
> I'm sure some of them would also vote for Mikey Mouse, as long as ...
You just confirmed what I was thinking.
Thanks for your response.
Can you add some specifics about the evidence for no bottleneck? Also, what is the later bottleneck you refer to?
Here's the website of the original research: Joe Chang's website
The Joe Chang work I originally is just one thing. There is the NYTimes work we discussed with it's striking parallels in the Bible, there is the evidence to think higher observed mutational rates date mEve earlier, as well as other genetic evidence on recent divergence of populations. There seems to be some evidence for similar acceleration for Y Adam timelines. I recall reading about similar trends for agricultural plant and animal lineages.
There is also a different genetic study (see article) that concurs with the Biblical assertion that Jews and Arabs have a common ancestor. And other genetic studies back a similar assertion for a Jewish "Cohen priestly gene" (also mentioned in the article).
#5. People who you don't understand
Good points. Glad to see a real liberal here (in the true sense of the word).
> Kerry got more votes (55 million) than any other president in history too.
Ahh! Except for one very recent president.
> What is an MCRA?
Me answering myself...
It's "MRCA" - most recent common ancestor.
Here's the website of the original research: link
> You're wrong, the bible must defer to the Torah.
... unlikely, see above.
The Bible includes the Torah.
> Jesus was a false prophet and all his followers are subject to the laws of Yahweh.
Of course, we are subject to the commands of Yahweh. And Jesus is both the son, and is one with Yahweh. (See the address at the temple where he tells the Jews, "before Abraham was, I AM".
So Yahweh's commands to us are love your enemies, forgive them their sins, and obey Jesus.
As for Jesus being a false prophet, take a look at Daniel and the 70 week prophecy made about Jesus.
> Both are stated positions are now arbitrary.
I had a good look at many choices. Jesus was the only one both valid and alive.
> The more you think you're right, the more I'll take it as a sign that I am right.
I can't solve that problem my friend.
> This is the only way I can express to you my faith
> - that religion is a personal choice which
> should not be pushed on others. The bible should neither
> supercede nor defer to any religion, nor should any religion do so.
You have faith in this position, yes? What about when things are definitely wrong. Do you get to cherry pick your own personal Frankenstien-ish faith? Is such a faith valid? Is it even real?
> BTW, I was raised nominally within western
> religious circles.
Ditto. for me, s/western/eastern/
> I'm reading the Gita right now. Where you've left, I am headed.
Head over to Chapter 9, Verse 32, will you? Where Krishna is preaching to Arjun...
32: "For, taking refuge in me, they also, who, O Partha, may be of a sinful birth - women, Vaisyas, as well as Sudras - even they attain the supreme God"
33: "How much more (easily) then the holy brahmins, and the devoted Royal saints (attain the goal). Having reached (obtained) this impermanent and joyless world, do worship me devoutly
Note, the Gita is remarkably tolerant compared to some other scriptures, say - Manusmriti, some Vedas). But it still can't help paying tribute to the concept of Aryan supremacy that riddles so many Hindu texts (for instance consider what the world Varna means).
> Where I've left, you're headed. Sort of parallels my opinion.
> We both disagree with each other. The difference is that you
> think I should change to be like you and I think you should
> stop thinking I should change to be like you.
No, no , not "be like me", its "be like Jesus".
> We both think the other should change;
> you think we should both be christian,
> I think you should accept that everyone makes their own choice.
But of course.
> But hey, maybe it's all a dream and we're both wrong.
True. "But I doubt it"
> Or right for that matter,
> although I can't see how there could be two mutually exclusive ultimate
> foundations to a single reality,
Aha! you're exactly right.
You're a sad case - the Bible says Noah's sons entered the ark with their wives:
I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark--you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
BTW, Adam's sons had their sisters as wives.
I'd rather believe my maker than believe you. :)
And I know Christ.
In all seriousness, what does "the bible" say about Hinduism, Greek polytheism, shinto, confucianism, janism? Should all those (perfectly valid) religions be ignored because they're not referred to in "the bible"?
No, a lot of these are really a blend of culture and religion. Good cultural traditions are worthy of being carried forward, no matter what their origins. But those parts of it that opposes what the Bible teaches, especially fanciful Gods -- that bit must be dumped.
I used to be Hindu, I know what I am talking about.
Also, it's "Jainism", not Janism.
From the article:
NOTE: We are not suggesting that the anatomical features of the Flores woman were simply those of a (miniature) modern type human. They are those of a (miniature) Homo erectus, a variant of the modern type, but within the human kind (see also How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?). Like the evolutionist anthropologist Milford Wolpoff and his allies, who are also aware of the differences between H. erectus and H. sapiens, we are saying that Homo erectus (and thus also the Flores people) should really be classified as H. sapiens. The human kind/species had a greater range of variation than exhibited today.
> What NYTimes article?
This one.
This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches.
It mentions the earlier estimates.
> to Y-Chromosome Adam; it's only relevant to mitochondrial Eve."
That's true. Thanks for the clarification.
> And yes, the genetic evidence does disprove that
> Y-Adam was the first man, because mitochondrial
> Eve didn't live at the same time.
No, the NYTimes article indicates they lived together:
"This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches."
The original (150000 year dates) research indicates the bottlenecking for _both_ sexes happened approximately at the same time.
Now that we've seen a paper talking about faster mDNA mutation rate, take a look at this article, which suggests the same for the Y-Chromosome:
I said: "It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched."
You said: "Incorrect. Unless there are other people to breed with there, they should have the same DNA as the original tribe."
I say: No!
Once there is no more mixing of 'A' and 'A.1' because 'A.1' has migrated away, their DNA lineages _would_ diverge, even if A.1 bred exclusively among _themselves_. This is because the mutations that A.1 accumulates will have almost no means of being transmitted back to A. And the mutations that A accumulates after A.1 brached off have few ways of being transmitted to A.1.
Your own bias is clouding your thoughts. If you can't accept that 3 braches converge to 1 original, what makes you accept 7 branches converge to one of the 3?
It's obvious also that the research underlying the article done by scientists who _agree_ with mainstream genetic and evolutionary theory, not with a earth created 5000 years ago as stated in the Bible.
There is a double bottlenecking of both male and female braches, at about the same time.
...
"The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.
The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters,"
"This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches."
Regarding genetic diversity, the Bible indicates the first humans _had_ excellent DNA - lifespans before the flood were of the order of hundreds of years, and began declining after the flood.
It's interesting how you there is a double bottlenecking.
What do you have to say about pygmies from the Congo jungle?
[An Indonesian island reveals the existence of an extinct group of pygmy humans]
Here is evidence that implies he lived sooner:
[ Original discussion]> The existence of a Y-Adam does not imply a genetic bottleneck
> -- meaning a population reduced to a small number with limited
> genetic diversity -- either; it just means that other males'
> descendents didn't make it this far.
Well, that's your take on the genetic evidence. Tell me, does the same genetic evidence _disprove_ that Y-Adam was the first man?
In response:
1. Re: tracking movement and breeding for 20000 years... it's a conjecture used in processing the data.
2. Re: meaning of "Average date."... quoting the article.
The team noted that if one group of people had been completely isolated until today, then, logically, the common ancestor must have lived before they went into isolation.
They then say the hypothesized Tasmanian isolation is not a difficulty due to 'no data' for Tasmanian aborigines (i.e. no data that they consider valid).
Please see my other posts in this thread for more evidence and clarifications.
Thanks, I understand your point better.
You said:
"This theorized common ancestor, if he exists, is everyone's ancestor, but was one of millions of people on the earth at that time that are also ancestors of people today."
Two questions:
1. Is there genetic evidence that provides proof that "millions of other men" lived contemporary with our common male genetic ancestor? Can it disprove that we descended exclusively from just one man?
2. You also said:
The fact that they are able theorize such a recent common ancestor for tasmanians as well in this study is because TODAY all tasmanians have some european ancestry
Is this also true for Amazon Indians, and Red Indians, and Pygmies from the Congo, and every other isolated people group? The study implies these all have genetic data from a common male ancestor who lived merely 3500 years ago.
Or Iraq!
From CNN...
> Now, since Noah didn't reproduce asexually, how can
> we determine what his original line was since we only
> have the three lines of his sons?
> Instead of the three lines merging to 1, they should be
> only the three original lines.
> Unless you could dig up Noah to map his genetics.
Well, we're armchair generals here. All the hard work is done by the scientists and this is really their statement. If we accept their statement that there are three lineages, we should also be willing to accept their statements that the 3 lineages converge to one.
I'm simply pointing out similarities between their data and the Biblical record.
> One of Eve's lines hit Asia and branches 6 times.
> And 2 of those branches never split again.
> In Asia, those original 6 branches are still shown.
> They only branch when they change geographic location.
>
> To me, that indicates other tribes not connected to the original Eve and inter-breeding.
It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched.
Here's the original article.
Prior to the new 3500 years figure, the earlier figure for our common genetic ancestors was about 150,000 years.
Back in 2003, I posted this pointing out how that 150000 figure needs drastic downward revision (to be divided by 20) given:...The link also contains other evidence including this paper which indicates the Danish population divered from populations in the middle east around 4500 years ago This study indicates a selective advantage for Cystic fibrosis carriers (see mean number of offspring of Cystic fibrosis families v/s control families)
What is an MCRA?
Which says:The article authors are simply trying to resolve a difficulty with another theory which states Tasmanians were isolated for 12000 years. If all humans descended from one man who lived about 3500 years ago, how could Tasmanians - who supposedly were isolated 12000 years - be descended from him too? So they conjecture that interbreeding with Europeans in the last 200 years has modified Tasmanians genetic data to look like the rest of the world's. This lets their conclusions not dispute the 12000 year isolation theory.
You said: "It doesn't mean that all genes originate from the same individual, ".
It does.
See quote below from an article called "The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves" in the NY Times (free subscription required)
The human genome is turning out to be a rich new archive for historians and prehistorians
Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals
But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population.
The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.
The same is true of the Y chromosome tree, a consequence of the fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only daughters,
This ancestral human population lived somewhere in Africa, geneticists believe, and started to split up some time after 144,000 years ago, give or take 10,000 years, the inferred time at which both the mitochondrial and Y chromosome trees make their first branches.
The tree is rooted in a single Y chromosomal Adam, and has 10 principal branches, Dr. Cavalli-Sforza reports.