Replies

To determine if the differences between man and chimp are reasonably due to chance we need defensable estimates on two things:

1) How big was the early population of humans and
2) How many population bottlenecks did humans go through (times when they were reduced to less than a 20 breeding members.)

See, here is where we start to disagree. There are several theories for population bottlenecks, none of them definitive yet. For example, see here for the theorized European bottleneck, or the recent FR thread on the Asian descendents of Ghengis Kahn, and I would tend to doubt (a prejudice, I grant) a 20-count human population anywhere but at the very beginning of the species.

The "Out of Africa" theory is, from what I've gathered, just a start to human population history. If we base this exercise on human population bottlenecks for gene fixation, then we are necessarily limited on the conclusions we can draw. I propose a different strategy: We KNOW that chimps and humans are different. The question we are trying to answer, I think, is how did that happen?

I think it would be more informative to identify, investigate, and expand upon the mechanisms of genetic variation. To claim that the chimp-human differences are due to chance is, IMO, to miss an investigative opportunity. "Chance" is not a mechanism. For that matter, neither is "Designer." Gene duplication and replication errors during meiosis and mitosis-- THOSE are mechanisms. The recent work on the role of virii in altering the genetic code is reported to be extremely interesting. For your side, if a Designer did the work, HOW did he do it, are we be able to distinguish "Designed" genetic change from that which occurs naturally, and if so, how would we go about doing that?

Dog-gone it, there you go again. Both of you side stepped any attempt to put this thing to numbers, even a reasonable estimate. C-man, you are now apealing to speculation about virii making monkies into men, at least that is what I get from your vauge response. Well, you at least said you doubted there was ever a bottleneck down to 20 breeders except at the start. That was better than our friend jenny, who did not hazard a guess.

Since you guys seem relectant, by default the crevo will put some numbers in. As I have been doing this whole thread, I will be outrageously generous to you in my assumptions.....

I will say there have been ten, no TWENTY OCCASIONS where the human population has super-bottle necked. A small group survied and ALL the rest died off. Each time, this group has had a hundred, no wait, a thousand, ok, as long as I am going crazy here, TEN THOUSAND mutations that were not present in any of their ancestors fixated throughout their whole population.

I must be insane. There is no way the population bottlenecked that much, and the number of mutations fixated is far too high. Even with a small population being a POSSIBLE exception to the Hardy -Weis. Law there is not REQUIREMENT that the mutations take hold, yet here I am saying TEN THOUSAND of them took hold at all 20 bottlenecks. Tell you what, just to get plain silly about it I will say it was TWENTY THOUSAND mutations that got fixated. Way too high of course.

If we total that up we get 20 X 20,000 = 400,000 mutations. That is a lot, but it pales before the 1.42 million we need in the coding regions alone. Add to that the fact that this is not for the coding regions, but the whole genome. Another words, we must compare the 400,000 mutations likely (and that only with fantastically pro-evo assumptions) to the minumum of 42 million observed (using your numbers again).

I can see why you guys are reluctant to give numbers. gore3000 points out that certain conditions are needed before neutral mutations can spread in a population. When you try to model human-chimp differences based on the laws of genetics that we know, the gene differences fall far outside what would be expected.

C-man is forced to appeal to some mystery virus. Is that really any more rational than appealing to a Designer? Is saying "I don't know" but I know evolution did it any less a faith based statement than what I hold true?

We have a lot in common, we are all men and women of faith. I invite you to have faith in the God of the Bible. It may not be the choice you make, but the reason for that choice will have nothing to do with its rationality.