Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
If I seem unduly harsh, it is a consequence of past discussions in which I have been roundly condemned and slandered as a non-Christian -- invariably based on poorly considered (and even utterly unconsidered) Biblical readings by so-called literalists. I did not intend to be rude to you, and if I have been, I apologize.
Not really. It is creationism, after all that relies on the postulate of "poof -- out of nothing, everything."
Yet THAT scenario is dressed-up in scientific jargon and uses big words and a "bunch" of time to explain how ALL came from NOTHING, how ORDER came out of CHAOS.
Embarrassingly incorrect. Perhaps you should actually learn something about the theory of evolution before you splatter juvenile nonsense all over the board. It prevents people from concluding that you are simply drunk.
It would also be obvious to God that insects have six legs, not four, and that rabbits do not chew their cud.
Now, why would God indulge these misconstructions and not set those Iron Age goatherders straight? Why is it that God did not seem to know any more than the folks writing about Him?
Your article with my comments:
Which didn't answer the "absolute minimum amount of time" question, but IS on topic.
___
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
A new hypothesis about recent human evolution suggests that we came very close to extinction because of a "volcanic winter" that occurred 71,000 years ago.
Some scientists estimate that there may have been as few as 15,000 humans alive at one time.
___
"new" hypothesis - a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
___
The volcanic winter lasted about six years. It was followed by 1,000 years of the coldest Ice Age on record.
___
How do we know this?
___
It brought widespread famine and death to human populations around the world. It also affected subsequent human evolution.
___
Have we documented this?
___
This was because of a so-called bottleneck effect. The rapid decrease, in our ancestors' populations, in turn, brought about the rapid differentiation - or genetic divergence - of the surviving populations.
__
Please explain the mechanism by which the decrease of population results in an increase of differentiation, and why, if this is the case, going down to eight in "recent" history could not account for the genetic divergence we see today.
___
The idea is being advocated by Professor Stanley Ambrose of the University of Illinois.
___
Its nice he advocates his own idea. How much support does he have?
___
He believes that the eruption of Mount Toba in Sumatra caused the bottleneck.
___
I like that word believes.
___
"Modern human races may have diverged abruptly, only 70,000 years ago," he writes in the Journal of Human Evolution.
Geneticists have thought for some time that humans passed through a recent evolutionary bottleneck but they had little idea what may have caused it.
Scientists believe that an eruption of Toba caused a volcanic winter that lasted six years and significantly altered global climate for the next 1,000 years.
During those six years, there was substantial lowering of global temperatures, drought and famine. No more than 15,000 people survived.
___
How do we know that no more than 15,000 people survived?
Why not 14000? Why not eight?
___
When better conditions returned, the human population was able to grow once more and develop the genetic diversity we see today.
"When our African recent ancestors passed through the prism of Toba's volcanic winter, a rainbow of differences appeared," Professor Ambrose said.
Nice conclusion, is it a fact?
The rate of mutation and genetic change is relatively constant. When you consider that you are looking at diversity not only in humans, but across the board in animals, you can make a pretty good estimate of when the most recent common ancestors could have lived.
That's because we humnans have identified a classification called "mammals," to which bats are more similar to.
It would also be obvious to God that insects have six legs, not four
Once again, that's because "insect" is a classification of animal that we humans have devised.
Now, why would God indulge these misconstructions and not set those Iron Age goatherders straight? Why is it that God did not seem to know any more than the folks writing about Him?
Because the Bible was written to Iron Age goatherders. It would be ridiculous to expect scientific precision in that time - especially in a science that is defined by men's decisions, not a quantifiable phenomenon.
"The rate of mutation and genetic change is relatively constant."
And we know this because what?
Observation or supposition.
What is our time baseline?
Click here for guidelines concerning the Religion Forum.
That assumes that "rabbit" is an adequate translation of arnebeth in Lev. 11:5, a conclusion I am not willing to grant.
And locusts having four legs is a classification other humans devised.
God would know that locusts do not have four legs, regardless of whether or not the people back then did. God would know that rabbits do not chew their cud, regardless of whether the people back then did. God would know that bats were not "foul" regardless of whether the people back then did -- and God never even tried to set the record straight. If everyone back then had said "locusts have four legs" and God came along and said "locusts have six legs" it would be one of the most revolutionary statements in history. But God didn't do this. Indeed, God apparently is no more knowledgeable than the folks writing about Him.
What are the other possibilities?
To some extent. The criteria for classification can be arbitrary but, given them, taxonomy is only subjective to the extent that the things being classified fit into more than one category: is Archeopteryx more like a bird or a dinosaur? Is "Lucy" more like a modern ape or a modern person?
In biology, there is one true, non-subjective, classification: the one given by the phylogenetic tree. Cladistic analysis, especially that based on genetic traits, has allowed us to fill in some parts unambiguously: people and chimps have a fairly recent common ancestor, people-chimps-gorillas an older one, people-chimps-gorillas-orangutans an even more ancient one, etc.
A possible way to falsify evolution would be to find things that simply cannot be classified under this scheme.
Does anyone know whether Aristotle classified bats as mammals?
The 4-legged insect has nothing to do with taxonomy.
No, that's an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Anyome who can count can see that. I don't quarrel with those concerns. But it is silly to expect Iron Age sheep herders to follow modern taxonomic conventions. Might as well expect theme to differentiate between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
No offense taken, I also have clay feet.
I am very sincere in this discussion, learning and growing, and, unfortunately, challenged for time...I need to get some work done.
Blessings in Christ!
Then perhaps you will provide citations to the texts that contain the "summation" you provided in post 318.
Your question is meaningless. An individual cannot be diversified, only a population can be diversified.
Trying to identify which animal should be translated as what is kinda tricky since the phrases are usually hapax legomena, words only used in that passage and in no other known ancient literature.
That is why it is silly to read the Bible for scientific precision. The Fundamentalist Christians who do so are just as erroneous as the secularists who do so. Both misread Scripture in a way it neither claims nor can sustain.
We can calibrate it historically with other observations such as rates of erosion, rates of rock formation, radiometric dating, tree-rings, varve counting. All of these techniques give remarkably consistent results. If our uniformitarian assumption is wrong, then why do lots of different techniques that rely on uniformitarianism give the same results?
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.