Evidence for God from Science

FL, sorry about before. Now I know where you really live. Under a bridge.

King wrote:FL, sorry about before. Now I know where you really live. Under a bridge.

Close but not quite, he actually lives in a hole under a rock under a bridge in a fantasy world.

There is no reason to believe that any of the people mentioned in the bible are anything BUT real people.
There is reason to believe that for the genetic variation that we see today, more than just a "few couples" would be needed to re-populate the WHOLE planet.
The bible is not a history of ALL the peoples in the world. It is a history of a selective group.

King wrote:historical people? direct sons of Noah? There are so many varieties of mankind on this Earth, I don't believe it could have come through three couples (Ham, Shem, Japheth and their respective wives). I do believe we all have one origin, I do not believe in "multi-regional" theories on mankind's origins. If anyone has some advice on this matter, please let me know!

"All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups"

Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic VarietyBy David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 22, 2009

"There is a simplicity and all-inclusiveness to the number three -- the triangle, the Holy Trinity, three peas in a pod. So it's perhaps not surprising that the Family of Man is divided that way, too. All of Earth's people, according to a new analysis of the genomes of 53 populations, fall into just three genetic groups. They are the products of the first and most important journey our species made -- the walk out of Africa about 70,000 years ago by a small fraction of ancestral Homo sapiens.

One group is the African. It contains the descendants of the original humans who emerged in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. The second is the Eurasian, encompassing the natives of Europe, the Middle East and Southwest Asia (east to about Pakistan). The third is the East Asian, the inhabitants of Asia, Japan and Southeast Asia, and -- thanks to the Bering Land Bridge and island-hopping in the South Pacific -- of the Americas and Oceania as well. The existence of this ancient divergence has long been known.

What is new is a subtle but important insight into what happened on a genomic level as the human species spilled across the landscape, eventually occupying every habitable part of the planet.

People adapted to what they encountered the way all living organisms do: through natural selection. A small fraction of the mutations constantly creeping into our genes happened by chance to prove beneficial in the new circumstances outside the African homeland. Those included differences in climate, altitude, latitude, food availability, parasites, infectious diseases and lots of other things.
A person who carried, by chance, a helpful mutation was more likely to survive and procreate than someone without it. The person's offspring would then probably be endowed with the same beneficial mutation. Over thousands of generations, the new variant (what geneticists call the "derived allele") could go from being rare to being common as its carriers fared better than their brethren and contributed more descendants to the population.

Scientists have long known that regardless of ancestral home or ethnic group, everyone's genes are pretty much alike. We're all Homo sapiens. Everything else is pretty much details.

Recent research has produced a surprise, however. Population geneticists expected to find dramatic differences as they got a look at the full genomes -- about 25,000 genes -- of people of widely varying ethnic and geographic backgrounds. Specifically, they expected to find that many ethnic groups would have derived alleles that their members shared but that were uncommon or nonexistent in other groups. Each regional, ethnic group or latitude was thought to have a genomic "signature" -- the record of its recent evolution through natural selection.

But as analyses of genomes from dozens of distinct populations have rolled in -- French, Bantu, Palestinian, Yakut, Japanese -- that's not what scientists have found. Dramatic genome variation among populations turns out to be extremely rare.

Instead, it is "random genetic drift" that appears to be more important in sculpting our genes. Drift describes the chance loss of genetic variation that occurred not only in the out-of-Africa migration, but through all of human history as famine, climate change or war caused populations to crash and then recover.

Despite those calamities, it appears that all contemporary populations ended up largely the same, or only crudely distinguishable from one another, on the genome level."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... rss_nation

King wrote:FL, sorry about before. Now I know where you really live. Under a bridge.

Sorry about what before?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

King wrote:FL, sorry about before. Now I know where you really live. Under a bridge.

Close but not quite, he actually lives in a hole under a rock under a bridge in a fantasy world.

The fantasy world is all in your head, Dan2:20. The Bible says what it says; anybody - including atheists - understand that. You are the one who has to make up stories to have the Bible fit your many gurus' revelations.

FL

Note this part in that article:

Which brings us back to the tripartite Family of Man.

When a small number of people left Africa 70,000 years ago, they carried with them only a sample of the genetic diversity that had evolved on that continent in the preceding 130,000 years.

When the descendants of those migrants in turn divided into two groups 40,000 years ago, the westward-turning Eurasians and the eastward-turning East Asians each took by chance only some of the genetic diversity of their forebears.

As a result, African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

But each had more than enough diversity for the trip.

PaulSacramento wrote:Note this part in that article:

Which brings us back to the tripartite Family of Man.

When a small number of people left Africa 70,000 years ago, they carried with them only a sample of the genetic diversity that had evolved on that continent in the preceding 130,000 years.

When the descendants of those migrants in turn divided into two groups 40,000 years ago, the westward-turning Eurasians and the eastward-turning East Asians each took by chance only some of the genetic diversity of their forebears.

As a result, African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

But each had more than enough diversity for the trip.

This is interesting re common out of Africa thinking and the genetics that support same....

"Archaeologists have discovered evidence that places Homo sapiens in Israel as early as 400,000 years ago -- the earliest evidence for the existence of modern humans anywhere in the world."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123554.htm

This article below is also interesting. Of course there are many assertions that differ and all appear to be based on 'empirical evidence'.

"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago."

http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

No doubt there are differing datings all of which are based on 'empirical evidence'. What I think the changing face of 'empirical evidence' really means to me is that scientists have no idea about deep ancestry and like to mess around with algorithms and get grant money.

Mazzy wrote:What I think the changing face of 'empirical evidence' really means to me is that scientists have no idea about deep ancestry and like to mess around with algorithms and get grant money.

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Note this part in that article:

Which brings us back to the tripartite Family of Man.

When a small number of people left Africa 70,000 years ago, they carried with them only a sample of the genetic diversity that had evolved on that continent in the preceding 130,000 years.

When the descendants of those migrants in turn divided into two groups 40,000 years ago, the westward-turning Eurasians and the eastward-turning East Asians each took by chance only some of the genetic diversity of their forebears.

As a result, African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

But each had more than enough diversity for the trip.

This is interesting re common out of Africa thinking and the genetics that support same....

"Archaeologists have discovered evidence that places Homo sapiens in Israel as early as 400,000 years ago -- the earliest evidence for the existence of modern humans anywhere in the world."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123554.htm

This article below is also interesting. Of course there are many assertions that differ and all appear to be based on 'empirical evidence'.

"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago."

http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

No doubt there are differing datings all of which are based on 'empirical evidence'. What I think the changing face of 'empirical evidence' really means to me is that scientists have no idea about deep ancestry and like to mess around with algorithms and get grant money.

This article -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123554.htm

Is fascinating!!

Why wasn't a bigger deal made about this in the press I wonder?

Silvertusk wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Note this part in that article:

Which brings us back to the tripartite Family of Man.

When a small number of people left Africa 70,000 years ago, they carried with them only a sample of the genetic diversity that had evolved on that continent in the preceding 130,000 years.

When the descendants of those migrants in turn divided into two groups 40,000 years ago, the westward-turning Eurasians and the eastward-turning East Asians each took by chance only some of the genetic diversity of their forebears.

As a result, African populations today have greater genetic diversity -- more variants in more genes -- than Eurasians or East Asians, and Eurasians somewhat more than East Asians.

But each had more than enough diversity for the trip.

This is interesting re common out of Africa thinking and the genetics that support same....

"Archaeologists have discovered evidence that places Homo sapiens in Israel as early as 400,000 years ago -- the earliest evidence for the existence of modern humans anywhere in the world."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123554.htm

This article below is also interesting. Of course there are many assertions that differ and all appear to be based on 'empirical evidence'.

"This study introduces a large-scale, detailed computer model of recent human history which suggests that the common ancestor of everyone alive today very likely lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago."

http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

No doubt there are differing datings all of which are based on 'empirical evidence'. What I think the changing face of 'empirical evidence' really means to me is that scientists have no idea about deep ancestry and like to mess around with algorithms and get grant money.

This article -

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123554.htm

Is fascinating!!

Why wasn't a bigger deal made about this in the press I wonder?

Hey there

My suspicion as to why a big deal isn't made about any data that flys in the face of 'common scientific thinking' is because a stack of scientists strutting around labs would get the sack.

No scientist would ever let a few facts get in the way of a good story. Scientists do not need the science of observation and sound reasoning anymore because they have algorithms they can manipulate to support any changing flavour of the month in relation to deep ancestry. This is now called empirical evidence and 'science' and is meant to hold more value than the bible that 'science' consistantly ends up validating anyway. Go figure!