Human evolution Intelligent Design

Why did human Y chromosome diversity “collapse” 7000 years ago?

Spread the love

From Stanford University at Eurekalert:

Starting about 7,000 years ago, something weird seems to have happened to men: Over the next two millennia, recent studies suggest, their genetic diversity -specifically, the diversity of their Y chromosomes – collapsed. So extreme was that collapse that it was as if there was only one man left to mate for every 17 women.

Anthropologists and biologists were perplexed, but Stanford researchers now believe they’ve found a simple – if revealing – explanation. The collapse, they argue, was the result of generations of war between patrilineal clans, whose membership is determined by male ancestors.

It’s not unprecedented for human genetic diversity to take a nosedive once in a while, but the Y-chromosome bottleneck, which was inferred from genetic patterns in modern humans, was an odd one. First, it was observed only in men – more precisely, it was detected only through genes on the Y chromosome, which fathers pass to their sons. Second, the bottleneck is much more recent than other biologically similar events, hinting that its origins might have something to do with changing social structures.

Certainly, the researchers point out, social structures were changing. After the onset of farming and herding around 12,000 years ago, societies grew increasingly organized around extended kinship groups, many of them patrilineal clans – a cultural fact with potentially significant biological consequences. The key is how clan members are related to each other. While women may have married into a clan, men in such clans are all related through male ancestors and therefore tend to have the same Y chromosomes. From the point of view of those chromosomes at least, it’s almost as if everyone in a clan has the same father.

That only applies within one clan, however, and there could still be considerable variation between clans. To explain why even between-clan variation might have declined during the bottleneck, the researchers hypothesized that wars, if they repeatedly wiped out entire clans over time, would also wipe out a good many male lineages and their unique Y chromosomes in the process. More.

Well, unlike many theses in human evolution, it’s plausible (unfortunately in this case). Early societies lived all too close to nature and the resulting desperation could certainly lead to wars of annihilation. Later in history, it usually made more sense to subjugate conquered peoples and make them pay tribute. But tribute only works if the average human can produce more than he himself needs to survive.

Some questions: Why 7000 years ago in particular? What was happening just then? Human beings cannot have just suddenly discovered violence. New weapons perhaps?

This thesis would be greatly strengthened if we found considerable evidence of violent deaths in male remains from that period.

See also: Researcher asks, if ecology caused the human brain to grow so large, what about the role of language?

Human evolution researchers: Social challenges decreased brain size

Early human religion: A 747 built in the basement with an X-Acto knife

and

Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

26 Replies to “Why did human Y chromosome diversity “collapse” 7000 years ago?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    And why just humans?

  2. 2
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    It’s almost as if there was a catastrophe that left only one male progenitor, and his sons, remaining in the world. Too bad we have no record whatsoever of a universal event like that in any of the world’s cultures or any of the world’s landscapes. This will forever be a mystery, I guess.

    /sarc

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    Dean_from_Ohio – actually, no. The “one male progenitor” would have lived about 200k years ago (that’s the estimate of the time when the most recent common ancestor of all y-chromosomes lived). Also, the effect is only seen in the y chromosome, so it’s a man only phenomenon.

  4. 4
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    Bob @ 3,

    Maybe I’m missing something, but the article portions above say the bottleneck effect happened between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago. The midpoint of that is 4,000 B.C. That’s in YEC territory.

    Dean

  5. 5
    jcfrk101 says:

    The progenitor of the gene and the event are two different things, I’m assuming Dean is speaking of Noah’s ark, in which case one man and his 3 son’s survived, while 4 women (their wives) survived increasing the genetic diversity within women, while creating a narrow bottle neck for the Y chromosome, as it would have come exclusively from Noah. The pro generator of that Y chromosome likely lived long before the bottle neck, likely form an ancestor of Noah.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Dean – but it’s not a bottleneck down to 1 or 2 individuals, and it’s also only in men. So you would need a lot of Noahs, each with (on average) 17 wives.

    jcfrk101 – the methods that are used trace the evolution of the Y chromosome back to the most recent common ancestor. If the Bible is to be believed, that would be Noah.

  7. 7
    goodusername says:

    Dean_from_Ohio

    Maybe I’m missing something, but the article portions above say the bottleneck effect happened between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago. The midpoint of that is 4,000 B.C. That’s in YEC territory.

    But as Bob pointed out, this is a Y chromosome only bottleneck. There wasn’t a bottleneck in general at this time, as we’d see that in our DNA. That’s why they aren’t proposing some kind of natural disaster, like a meteor strike or volcanoes wiping out much of humanity.

    Something similar may have happened in just the last few centuries. About 1 in 200 men in the world has Genghis Khan as an ancestor:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine......xbB_VMvzWY

    It wasn’t Genghis alone impregnating all these women (although it wasn’t for lack of effort) but his many powerful sons, and their sons, etc, many of whom were powerful leaders that traveled throughout the Mongol empire.
    In future centuries as the descendants of Khan continue breeding, it will likely go from 1 in 200 to 1 in 20 and so on. As this occurs, there will be less Y diversity as other types of Y disappear – future geneticists may see a kind of bottleneck.

    If something similar happened at a time when the world’s population was much smaller, the effect would be even more pronounced. According to the paper the bottleneck they see occurred over a period of 2000 years.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    So Population Genetics has revealed a bottleneck for humans roughly around the time of Noah?

    This ‘bottleneck finding’ matches up with the bottleneck that Robert Carter had predicted for the male lineage in this article from 2011:

    The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve!
    Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos – 20 August 2011 – Robert Carter
    Excerpt: What would occur at the Flood, over a millennium and a half later, when the world population was reduced to eight people, with only three reproducing couples, of whom the three men are brothers? Using the same parameters as in Figure 11, I ran the model to simulate 1,500 years of marriage and birth, stopping every 500 years to reduce the population to three founding couples made up of three brothers (full siblings) and three women selected at random from the available unmarried women (Figure 12). From Figure 11, I knew that drift would effectively stop in any exponentially growing population prior to 500 years, so this seemed like a fair strategy.
    What can we learn from Figure 12? First, as before, drift occurs from Adam and Eve (horizontal blue line) to the first sampling at 100 years (jagged brown line) and nearly no drift is noticeable 400 years later (smooth green line). A bottleneck occurred after year 500. One hundred years later, the population has drifted even farther (jagged dark blue line). In fact, each bottleneck drives the allele frequency distribution closer and closer to the modern average.
    Note also that some amount of diversity in Adam is lost after several bottlenecks. The final curves have a significant number of alleles that are 100% A or 100% G, meaning that the initial A/G variation in Adam was lost. Population geneticists call this ‘fixation’, and this was a surprising result for me as I had not previously considered that some of the diversity of Adam could have been lost this way.
    https://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

    Of related interest: This following study found that nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,

    Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations – (Nov. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins — the workhorses of the cell — occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
    “One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,”,,,
    “Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older.” (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
    The report shows that “recent” events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
    The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132259.htm

    Also of related interest, after a long drawn out debate, Dennis Venema finally reluctantly conceded that he could not rule out a ‘first pair’, i.e. an Adam and Eve.

    Is There a First Human Couple in Our Past? New Evidence and Arguments – Ann Gauger – March 5, 2018
    To sum up, it’s very simple.
    A bottleneck of two that is older than 500,000 years ago cannot be ruled out. That does not mean such a bottleneck ever existed, but rather that the possibility cannot be excluded. Future models may change that number of 500,000 years, up or down.
    This is based on an analysis of the genetic data run by Drs. Schaffner and Swamidass, themselves evolutionary biologists and not ID supporters.
    In addition, the bottleneck hypothesis stood up to a test using TSP (trans-species polymorphism). The test showed TSP was due to convergent evolution. This was a surprise to Dr. Swamidass.
    A bottleneck of two, or a first pair at our origin older than 500,000 years, is possible.
    Evolutionary biologists, including Dennis Venema, can no longer say we had to come from a population of 10,000 at any time over the last 3 million years.
    This whole debate has come as a surprise to many.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/is-there-a-first-human-couple-in-our-past-new-evidence-and-arguments/

    All in all, the mathematics of population genetics has not been kind to Darwinian claims in the least. There are (at least) three devastating problems revealed by population genetics. The Waiting Time problem, Natural selection is grossly inadequate as the supposed “Designer substitute”,, and perception of reality itself become illusory.

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    Moreover, population genetics, besides falsifying Darwinian evolution because of the waiting time problem, also casts Charles Darwin’s main claim to scientific fame, i.e. Natural Selection itself, under the bus:

    Haldane’s Dilemma
    Excerpt: Haldane, (in a seminal paper in 1957—the ‘cost of substitution’), was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift – creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors – it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane’s dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation – but has obtained identical results.
    John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 159-160

    Kimura’s Quandary
    Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in response to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most ‘evolution’ must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom’s (neo-Darwinism’s) very validity.
    John Sanford PhD. – “Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome” – pg. 161 – 162

    Kimura (1968) developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma” is correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional.
    – Sanford

    “many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection”
    Michael Lynch
    The Origins of Genome Architecture, intro

    “the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer”
    Michael Lynch
    The Origins of Genome Architecture, p 368

    “a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance”
    Mae Wan Ho
    Beyond neo-Darwinism – Evolution by Absence of Selection

    In other words, Neutral theory, and the now falsified concept of junk DNA itself, was not developed because of any empirical observation, but was actually developed because it was forced upon Darwinists by the mathematics of population genetics. In plain English, neutral theory, and the concept of junk DNA, is actually the result of a theoretical failure of Darwinism within the mathematics of population genetics!

    Here are a few humorous quotes on the implications of neutral theory:

    (With the adoption of the ‘neutral theory’ of evolution by prominent Darwinists, and the casting aside of Natural Selection as a major player in evolution, William J Murray comments),,,
    “One wonders what would have become of evolution had Darwin originally claimed that it was simply the accumulation of random, neutral variations that generated all of the deeply complex, organized, interdependent structures we find in biology? Would we even know his name today?
    What exactly is Darwin really famous for now? Advancing a really popular, disproven idea (of Natural Selection), along the lines of Luminiferous Aether?
    Without the erroneous but powerful meme of “survival of the fittest” to act as an opiate for the Victorian intelligentsia and as a rationale for 20th century fascism, how might history have proceeded under the influence of the less vitriolic maxim, “Survival of the Happenstance”?”
    – William J Murray

    Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial – David Berlinski – November 2011
    Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. “A critique of neo-Darwinism,” the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, “can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science.”
    By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53171.html

    On Enzymes and Teleology – Ann Gauger – July 19, 2012
    Excerpt: People have been saying for years, “Of course evolution isn’t random, it’s directed by natural selection. It’s not chance, it’s chance and necessity.” But in recent years the rhetoric has changed. Now evolution is constrained. Not all options are open, and natural selection is not the major player, it’s the happenstance of genetic drift that drives change. But somehow it all happens anyway, and evolution gets the credit.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62391.html

    And, as if the waiting time problem and the casting of Natural Selection under the bus were not bad enough, Donald Hoffman has, through numerous computer simulations of population genetics, proved that if Darwinian evolution were actually true then all of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “,,,evolution is a mathematically precise theory. We can use the equations of evolution to check this out. We can have various organisms in artificial worlds compete and see which survive and which thrive, which sensory systems or more fit. A key notion in those equations is fitness.,,, fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    Thus, in what should be needless to say, a worldview that undermines the scientific method itself by holding all our observations of reality are illusory is NOT a worldview that can be firmly grounded within the scientific method!

    Moreover, completely contrary to materialistic premises, conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the math of population genetics predicts. In fact, in the following experiment it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the math of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!

  9. 9
    Allan Keith says:

    BA77,

    So Population Genetics has revealed a bottleneck for humans roughly around the time of Noah?

    No. A bottleneck for the Y chromosome. But I can see why a bible literalist would jump at anything that supports his myth, yet ignore the millions that are incompatible.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Allan Keith, it is the height of hypocrisy for a Darwinian Materialist to say a “bible literalist would jump at anything that supports his myth”.

    The entire Darwinian worldview is built on nothing but myths and imagination. Any time reality encroaches upon the house of imaginary cards that Darwinists have built to support their mythical worldview it all comes crashing down. But Darwinists never, ever, accept what the real world is telling then about their theory.

    For instance, when John Sanford included realistic rates for detrimental mutations, it falsified “Fisher’s Corollary”, but Darwinists refused to accept the results.
    Specifically, “Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality.”

    Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018
    Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,,
    Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He (Fisher) incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease.
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....rs-impact/

    Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part II: Our Mutation-Selection Model – February 20, 2018
    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp.....-impact-2/

    Likewise, there are many false assumptions built into the mathematics of population genetics.

    “It is clear that population genetics models rely on assumptions known to be false, and are subject to the realism / tractability trade-off. The simplest population-genetic models assume random mating, non-overlapping generations, infinite population size, perfect Mendelian segregation, frequency-independent genotype fitnesses, and the absence of stochastic effects; it is very unlikely (and in the case of the infinite population assumption, impossible) that any of these assumptions hold true of any actual biological population. More realistic models, that relax one of more of the above assumptions, have been constructed, but they are invariably much harder to analyze. It is an interesting historical question whether these ‘standard’ population-genetic assumptions were originally made because they simplified the mathematics, or because they were believed to be a reasonable approximation to reality, or both. This question is taken up by Morrison (2004) in relation to Fisher’s early population-genetic work. “
    – Samir Okasha 2006/2012

    And yet, despite these many false assumptions, and as pointed out in post 8, the mathematics of population genetics STILL managed to falsify core Darwinian presuppositions.

    Moreover, to add insult to injury, although every rigorous theory of science requires verification from mathematics, and experimentation, in order to be considered scientific in the first place, the reductive materialism that Darwinian evolution is based upon denies the reality of ‘immaterial’ mathematics:

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Thus, in a twist of extreme irony, for Darwinian Materialists to, however haphazardly, try to use mathematics to verify their theory is for them, in reality, to tactically appeal to God to support their theory.

    As David Berlinski states, “There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.
    http://tofspot.blogspot.com/20.....-here.html

    As Van Til humorously stated, the Atheist is like a child who “needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face”

    “In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.”
    Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

    Of supplemental note. The geological evidence for fairly recent, cataclysmic, worldwide flooding is fairly compelling:

    Humanpast.net
    Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding – in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124)
    What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt – all at once, everywhere – by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the ‘Younger Dryas’ or ‘Dryas III’. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion – from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today’s 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124)
    A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83)
    http://humanpast.net/environme.....ent11k.htm

  11. 11
    cmow says:

    goodusername @ 7,
    Just think of the situation in reverse — if Genghis Khan is the x-great-grandfather in 1 of 200, then how many people alive in the Mongol Empire (or world) in 1200 AD have zero live descendants today? Is there a way to work out that answer? I would bet that it is a surprisingly large percentage.

  12. 12
    vmahuna says:

    Well, this makes PERFECT sense to me. But then the Celts have been clannish for as far back as anyone wants to go. You think Highland Scots left a lot of survivors after they defeated the boyos from the next glen? And in cashless societies, what are the PROFITS from a successful war? Wimmen.

    Only when multi-village clans gelled into Kingdoms (first you get professional priests, THEN you get kings) was the Chief Honcho in Charge interested in PRESERVING any of the defeated males as potential laborers instead of just passing out widows as war booty. (Um, the original meaning of “shake your booty”?) So OF COURSE there was more diversity in the ancestry of the mothers than the fathers.

    But there should have still been THOUSANDS of clans spread across Europe and western Asia when Civilization (people dwelling in permanent cities) showed up. How tight is the Y Chromosome bottleneck supposed to be?

  13. 13
    goodusername says:

    cmow,

    Yep, the further you go back the fewer the number of people who will have surviving descendants – but those that do have surviving descendants will have a lot.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

  14. 14

    BA77 @ 10: “The entire Darwinian worldview is built on nothing but myths and imagination.”

    True indeed. The a/mat delusion is very strong.

  15. 15
    Amblyrhynchus says:

    Maybe I’m missing something, but the article portions above say the bottleneck effect happened between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago. The midpoint of that is 4,000 B.C. That’s in YEC territory.

    In this case the “bottleneck” occurred independently (and only approximately at the same time) in multiple populations. Not very Noah-ish.

    Frankly, it’s much more likely to be about selection on the Y or a switch to agricultural lifestyles than this warfare idea.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    previous comment on this thread subject to any further unsubstantiated speculations that might come up of course.

    Mean while back in the real world, billions upon trillions of protein molecules are at work in each of our human bodies, and yet Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for a single protein molecule out of those untold trillions of molecules.

    “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    – Jay Homnick
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/

    Douglas Axe – The Research (Part 2) 11-5-2016 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRj8vUMp03o&index=11&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8
    1. Axe, D. D. 2004. Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. J Mol Biol 341: 1295-1315.
    Available at http://www.toriah.org/articles/axe-2004.pdf

    Douglas Axe – The Research (Part 3) 11-12-2016 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1kmw9u3ljo&index=12&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8
    1. Axe, D. D. 2010. The limits of complex adaptation: An analysis based on a simple model of structured bacterial populations. BIO-Complexity 2010(4): 1-10.
    Available at http://www.bio-complexity.org/.....O-C.2010.4
    2. Gauger, A. K. and D. D. Axe. 2011. The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme functions: a case study from the biotin pathway. BIO-Complexity 2011(1): 1-17.
    Available at http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2011.1
    3. Lynch, M. and A. Abegg. 2010. The rate of establishment of complex adaptations. Mol Biol Evol 27: 1404-1414.
    Available at http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../1404.long

    Douglas Axe – The Research (Part 4) 11-19-2016 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k83I98AMGUo&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUx3ngrgTIQyl-B2TaQBoq8&index=13
    1. Gauger, A. K., S. Ebnet, P. F. Fahey, and R. Seelke. 2010. Reductive evolution can prevent populations from taking simple adaptive paths to high fitness. BIO-Complexity 2010(2): 1-9.
    Available at http://www.bio-complexity.org/.....O-C.2010.2

  17. 17
    aarceng says:

    Dean_from_Ohio @ 4

    ” Maybe I’m missing something, but the article portions above say the bottleneck effect happened between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago. The midpoint of that is 4,000 B.C. ”

    The midpoint of that is 6,000 years, but still in YEC territory, especially with the assumptions they would have had to make to calculates a figure.

    Actually 5,000 years ago is getting close to Noah’s Flood when the male line was reduced to one for the entire world’s population.

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    aarceng – the mean is 6000, but that’s 6000 years ago, which is 4000BC.

    As I’ve already pointed out, the data don’t support a single male 5-7 thousand years ago, so I’m afraid it doesn’t point towards Noah.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob states:

    As I’ve already pointed out, the data don’t support a single male 5-7 thousand years ago, so I’m afraid it doesn’t point towards Noah.

    And is Bob as certain of his claim as Dennis Venema was of his claim that Adam and Eve could not possibly have existed?

    ,,, after a long drawn out debate, Dennis Venema finally VERY reluctantly conceded that he could not rule out a ‘first pair’, i.e. an Adam and Eve.

    Is There a First Human Couple in Our Past? New Evidence and Arguments – Ann Gauger – March 5, 2018
    To sum up, it’s very simple.
    A bottleneck of two that is older than 500,000 years ago cannot be ruled out. That does not mean such a bottleneck ever existed, but rather that the possibility cannot be excluded. Future models may change that number of 500,000 years, up or down.
    This is based on an analysis of the genetic data run by Drs. Schaffner and Swamidass, themselves evolutionary biologists and not ID supporters.
    In addition, the bottleneck hypothesis stood up to a test using TSP (trans-species polymorphism). The test showed TSP was due to convergent evolution. This was a surprise to Dr. Swamidass.
    A bottleneck of two, or a first pair at our origin older than 500,000 years, is possible.
    Evolutionary biologists, including Dennis Venema, can no longer say we had to come from a population of 10,000 at any time over the last 3 million years.
    This whole debate has come as a surprise to many.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/is-there-a-first-human-couple-in-our-past-new-evidence-and-arguments/

    Discussion Is Over: On Adam and the Genome, Former BioLogos Fellow Backs Down – May 3, 2018
    Excerpt: Venema:
    “What we have established is that a very sudden bottleneck to 2 followed by exponential population growth might escape detection using current methods if it occurred before 700,000 years ago. That is interesting, but it does not change the points I made in the book.”

    There’s a Monty Python sketch for almost every occasion, isn’t there? Venema, under pressure, appears to have changed his claim.
    Buggs:
    “As I say, I think that most readers of Adam and the Genome pp45-65 would conclude that your major point was that a bottleneck of two in the human lineage over the last 18 million years is almost impossible on the basis of analyses of current human genetic diversity. Your new view is a significant departure from this point.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/discussion-is-over-on-adam-and-the-genome-former-biologos-fellow-backs-down/

    And please bear in mind, the math of population genetics is loaded with unsubstantiated assumptions:

    “It is clear that population genetics models rely on assumptions known to be false, and are subject to the realism / tractability trade-off. The simplest population-genetic models assume random mating, non-overlapping generations, infinite population size, perfect Mendelian segregation, frequency-independent genotype fitnesses, and the absence of stochastic effects; it is very unlikely (and in the case of the infinite population assumption, impossible) that any of these assumptions hold true of any actual biological population. More realistic models, that relax one of more of the above assumptions, have been constructed, but they are invariably much harder to analyze. It is an interesting historical question whether these ‘standard’ population-genetic assumptions were originally made because they simplified the mathematics, or because they were believed to be a reasonable approximation to reality, or both. This question is taken up by Morrison (2004) in relation to Fisher’s early population-genetic work. “
    – Samir Okasha 2006/2012

    Bottom line, take any claims from Darwinists about population genetics with a large grain of salt and keep a hand on your wallet.

    Moreover, the Y Chromosome in and of itself is antagonistic to Darwinian presuppositions:

    Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

    A False Trichotomy
    Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/

    Y Chromosomes in Chimps and Humans are Horrendously Different by Paul Giem – video (2017)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D506eUSPzvc

    Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
    http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html

    And yet, despite finding such “dramatic renovation”, they find the Y chromosome to be stable in its gene content:

    CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
    Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
    http://www.reasons.org/interpr.....lutionists

    Theory of the ‘Rotting’ Y Chromosome Dealt a Fatal Blow – February 2012
    Excerpt: “the sequence of the rhesus Y, shows the chromosome hasn’t lost a single ancestral gene in the past 25 million years. By comparison, the human Y has lost just one ancestral gene in that period, and that loss occurred in a segment that comprises just 3% of the entire chromosome”, “,,,earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. “Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it’s clear the Y isn’t going anywhere.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....154359.htm

  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 19 – yes. Just look at Fig. 1 of the paper & count the number of lineages in the Y chromosome tree 10kya ago. It’s absolutely clear that the data are saying that there was quite a few more than one man around 5-7 kya.

  21. 21
    Pearlman says:

    RCCF 7k YA calibrates to shortly after the 1996 anno mundi dispersion from Bavel, thus more isolated groups of the 70 families.
    reference RCCF framework for understanding science.

  22. 22
    Mung says:

    So Population Genetics has revealed a bottleneck for humans roughly around the time of Noah?

    But, rather curiously, not for the rest of the animal kingdom.

    YECism works in mysterious ways.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, Ignoring all evolutionary assumptions built into the estimate of course.

    Moreover, if you trust this so much, why do you not trust Hoffman’s findings from population genetics that found, if Darwinian evolution were true, all your observations of reality would be illusory? (see bottom of post 8)

    It is very telling of your philosophical bias against Theism that you will unquestionably accept those findings from population genetics that go against Theism (YEC in this case) and yet, on the other hand, completely ignore those findings which directly falsify Darwinian evolution as a viable scientific theory in the first place.

    You can’t have it both ways Bob.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Per Mung at 22, first off, I’m not a YEC, secondly, how do you know? Genetics is still very much in its infancy, and the much more reliable geologic evidence we have supports worldwide cataclysmic flooding approx. 13,000 years ago (see bottom post 10)

  25. 25
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I trust what the data is saying because it’s presented (see Fig. 1 of the paper). I haven’t commented on Hoffman, so I have no idea why you would assume that I don’t trust his findings. I haven’t looked at his work, so I can’t really comment for its validity, and from the quote you give I don’t see how it’s relevant to the dating of coalescent events and their interpretations, which is what we’re discussing.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Bob, do let us know if their is ever any finding that will ever persuade you that Darwinism is wrong:

    Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
    George Ellis& Joe Silk – 16 December 2014
    Excerpt: As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.,,,
    In our view, the issue boils down to clarifying one question: what potential observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandoning it? If there is none, it is not a scientific theory.
    https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

    Myself, I can find numerous fatal flaws in Darwinian theory that prove that it is irretrievably wrong:

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ
    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – paper
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

Leave a Reply