Hello Doug,
Since the conditional refers to the creation of modern man within the past 60 -
200,000 years, instead of "bottleneck", perhaps a better choice of words (in
Glenn's post) would have been "point of genetic convergence" or something along
those lines. "Bottleneck" implies the selective elimination of pre-existing genetic
information, and that is not entailed or implied by de novo "creation" of modern
man.
Also, common ancestry is not logically connected to the distinction between
micro and macroevolution, for one can accept common ancestry while accepting the
micro/macro distinction, and one can reject common ancestory while accepting the
micro/macro distinction. The micro/macro distinction hangs on one's evaluation of
the intrinsic creative capacities and limitations of the duo of mutatation and
natural selection. Therefore, were common ancestry to be established beyond doubt,
this would pose no challenge to those maintaining the micro/macro distinction.
regards,
- Bryan
Doug Hayworth wrote:
> At 10:35 AM 6/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >glenn morton wrote:
> > >
> > > Many Christian apologists reject the notion that modern man has any genetic
> > > connection with the ancient hominids, such as Homo erectus. This is
> > > normally done based upon theological considerations in which they believe
> > > that modern man was created within the past 60-200,000 years ago. If the
> > > theological considerations are correct, then genetic data should show a
> > > genetic bottleneck, it should show no human genes which require longer than
> > > 60-200,000 years of coalescence time (the time for mutations to create the
> > > present observed diversity in modern populations) and we should have no
> > > non-functional retroviral insertions in common with the Old World Monkeys
> > > and chimps. Modern observations falsify all these apologetical
> > > expectations. Below are some quotes from two articles which examine the
> > > genetics of primates. Each quote is relevant to the predictions made by
> > > apologists noted above.
>
> I haven't looked at these specific data, but just technical caveat. It is
> not necessarily the true that a bottleneck would eradicate non-functional
> (i.e., neutral) retroviral insertions that originated in the common
> ancestor of humans and old world monkeys. For example, if the mutation was
> fixed in the ancestral species, then the sampling caused by a bottleneck in
> either daughter lineage is of little consequence for any particular
> mutation. Likewise, considerable polymorphism can make it through even a
> severe bottleneck as long as it is brief in duration. There are many
> considerations. Nevertheless, once horizontal transfer is ruled out as a
> possibility (which it can in many cases), these and gobs of other genetic
> data support the common ancestry of humans with other primates.
>
> Just another case where microevolution meets macroevolution and the wedge
> of truth meets dose of reality.
>
> Doug
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 28 2000 - 18:27:00 EDT