Human evolution

How do we know that the original humans had to be a crowd of about 10,000?

Spread the love

At Adam’s Lost Dream, Jay Hall, who teaches math at Howard College in Texas, comments on the Christianity Today’s simian Adam and Eve, courtesy BioLogos:

Collins claims that humanity came from a group of 10,000 ancestors around 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. That is, mankind came from a group and not Adam and Eve. Elizabeth Mitchell comments, “Search the Christianity Today article much as you will, it never explains how the conclusion that there had to be 10,000 original people was reached. Oddly enough, neither does the BioLogos website.”According to A. Gibbons, writing in Science, “… researchers have calculated that ‘mitochondrial Eve’ – the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.”

One way of looking at it: Christianity Today and BioLogos need a slow clock and a big pool more than God or anyone else does. But, asking the Darwin flaks to step aside for a minute, what are the facts as known at present? (Real facts, not Darwinfacts. = not defending tenured bores), in simple terms?

10 Replies to “How do we know that the original humans had to be a crowd of about 10,000?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    How do we know that the original humans had to be a crowd of about 10,000?

    Because that’s all that could fit in the Coliseum?

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    10,000 monkeys decided to go for a walk one day?

  3. 3
    Ilion says:

    Which “new clock,” that puts mtEve at a mere 6000 years ago? I haven’t (yet) heard of this.

  4. 4
    benpiper says:

    I think you’re looking for an answer that doesn’t exist. The reason the number “had” to be 10,000 is that Darwinists feel compelled to discredit Scripture at every turn, even if that means looking empirical evidence square in the eye and pretending it doesn’t exist.

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    Which “new clock,” that puts mtEve at a mere 6000 years ago? I haven’t (yet) heard of this.

    Google

    Source appears to be:

    Ann Gibbons, “Mitochondrial Eve: Wounded, But Not Dead Yet”, Science, Vol. 257, 14 August 1992, p. 873.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/257/5072.toc

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Now if we could just find a way for Y chromosomal Adam to hook up with Mitochondrial Eve…

  7. 7
    Grunty says:

    “How do we know that the original humans had to be a crowd of about 10,000?”

    I think the usual answer is, through studies of nuclear DNA (i.e. non-mitochondrial DNA) – basically, from what little I understand, the diversity of the nuclear genome and the known mutation rates give an indication of the size of the population at various times past. By the way, I don’t think one can say it was “about 10,000”, I suspect the “10,000” figure is actually a lower bound.

    But hopefully someone more familiar with the subject can give more details?

  8. 8
    Elizabeth Liddle says:

    The age of mitochondrial Eve (or Y chromosomal) doesn’t tell you very much about the size of the population they belonged to.

    Nor does it tell you about the size of population that formed “the first humans”. There was no such population.

    However, it might be possible to figure out how narrow the narrowest bottleneck is in the modern population. That wouldn’t mean that anything earlier wasn’t human, though, nor even that that population was especially like us (though it probably was, -ish).

    That’s if you accept a universal common ancestor, of course.

    Although if you think that “ensoulment” happened at a particular point in our lineage, then genetics isn’t going to help date that event much, because as far as I am aware, no-one has suggested a soul-gene.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    there is now a compelling line of ‘Genetic Adam and Genetic Eve’ evidence. This genetic evidence strongly supports the Biblical view of the sudden creation of man as these following videos and article clearly show:

    Human Evolution? – The Compelling Genetic Evidence For Adam and Eve
    Dr. Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482

    Dr. Rana defends the integrity of the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve, on page 4 of the following site, from some pretty high level criticism:

    Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve by Fazale Rana – November 2010
    http://www.reasons.org/files/e.....010-04.pdf

    The “Eve” Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence – John Sanford
    Excerpt: Given the high mutation rate within mitochondria and the large geographic separation among the individuals within our dataset, we did not expect to find the original human mitochondrial sequence to be so well preserved within modern populations. With the exception of a very few ambiguous nucleotides, the consensus sequence clearly represents Eve’s mitochondrial DNA sequence.
    http://www.icr.org/article/mit.....-sequence/

    This following video, and article, are very interesting for they talk about the scientific evidence for a ‘genetic Adam’ and a ‘genetic Eve’, and how the evidence relates to Noah’s flood:

    Does human genetic evidence support Noah’s flood? – Fazale Rana – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4116168

    Book Review; Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man:
    Excerpt: The Bible claims that there was a genetic bottleneck at the Genesis flood. Whereas all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve (through the three wives of Noah’s sons), all males trace their Y-chromosomes through Noah (through his three sons). This predicted discrepancy for molecular dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data is actually seen in the scientific literature.
    http://www.godandscience.org/n.....05-09.html

    TABLE OF NATIONS (GENEALOGY OF MANKIND) by Tim Osterholm
    Excerpt: The fact is, that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 of the Bible has been found completely accurate; resulting partly from linguistic studies, partly from archaeology, and, more recently still, from the findings of physical anthropologists, who are, to this day, recovering important clues to lines of migration in ancient historic times. As implied in verse 32 of Genesis 10, this Table includes everybody; meaning that so-called fossil man, primitive peoples (ancient and modern) and modern man are all derived from Noah’s three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
    http://www.soundchristian.com/man/

    etc.. etc..

  10. 10
    Christoph Heilig says:

    The “young” Eve is quite old stuff, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21238138.

    I don’t know, what the up-to-date assessment of this thesis is.

    But it sounds incredible to me on historical/archeological grounds alone.

Leave a Reply