RE: [asa] Two questions... (biological bottlenecking with Adam and Eve)

David said: "This is one reason why, as I see it, trying to find "Adam" in our genes isn't likely to be fruitful. "

I'm trying to press the point- is it scientifically "not likely" (implying it is still possible), or is it scientifically impossible?

If Dr. Campbell can come to say that a single biological male/female (literal Adam/Eve) is impossible, then maybe George Murphy will follow, joining Lamoureux in the quest of determining new theology in light of this scientific evidence (no literal Adam). I think this would be a break-through. I think we're still trying to catch-up to Darwin on this! ;-)

(BTW- I also have "the last human" book.)

.Bernie

________________________________________
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions... (biological bottlenecking with Adam and Eve)

Bernie -- as I understand it, not being an expert, from the perspective of evolutionary biology, it is indeed nonsensical to speak of a "first human."  This point is made in a really fascinating book ironically titled "The Last Human" (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234561177&sr=8-2 )  This is one reason why, as I see it, trying to find "Adam" in our genes isn't likely to be fruitful.  It must be more of a spiritual thing, I think.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
Hi Dr. Campbell-

 I having a hard time understanding why this argument seems to be going in circles.

 Again I ask, because I don't see a clear answer (the problem may be on the sender or receiver side), how can anyone trace something back to "the first human?"  For example, if someone says everyone today can be traced back to a mitochondrial eve, tell me how mitochondrial eve's mom is different, in that someone could say mitochondrial eve is the first human female but her mom isn't?  I really don't get it, but I want to.  (And I'm talking only biologically- not spiritually- this is a purely scientific question related to the human genome.)  To me it seems like someone is proposing that an apelike creature gave birth to a human, and I don't understand that- given the ring species phenomenon.

Here's a modern example of ring species, since you said you weren't aware of modern living examples (with the seagull):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Dr. Zack Moore talked about this on his evolution 101 podcast:
http://www.drzach.net/podcast.htm
(Free download at Apple iTunes; Apple iTunes is also free and you can listen on your PC)

Again, I'm talking only biologically- not spiritually- this is a purely scientific question related to the human genome.  It seems like the confusion comes in when talking about the spiritual element of humans, which has nothing to do (at all) with my question (which is purely biological).

You say below:
"They key problem is what all are humans?"

Exactly my point.  When someone claims there is a mitochondrial eve, they are saying that it is the first human- how is that defined such that mitochondrial eve's mom is not human?  Obviously, mitochondrial eve is related to her mom!

I have a hard time accepting your hypothetical analogy with Noah, because we both know it isn't true- there was no worldwide flood in our opinion.  It is like using the old analogy of a frog in a pot that is brought to boil- bad illustration because it isn't true.  I don't see how a goofy story can be used to illustrate something scientifically.  It could be like if I believe that people could fly if they knew the secret- giving an analogy of santa's flying reindeer to illustrate the point.

Maybe the big mistake here is in thinking that mitochondrial eve is the first human- which science says is not the case.  Rather than defending how one person can be the parent of all humanity, maybe the thing you should be doing is explaining how, instead, evolution happens in populations and not through a single founder?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: David Campbell [mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:04 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions... (bottlenecking)

<<<Bernie: Snipped- just the questions I'm interested in are captured below for context.>>>

> Everything comes from something else.  If you say there is a single ancestral pair from which all humans came from, what would that entail?  The change of 1 gene?  The change of 100's of genes?  What could be the biological change where you say the parent is nonhuman but the child is human?<

It might not entail anything unique genetically.  They might have had
identical twins, but they just happen to be the ones to which all
modern lineages trace back.

Where to recognize the first humans (meaning spritually accountable)
is not necessarily the same as where the single ancestral pair is.  If
the first humans included more than a single pair (seems likely but
not absolutely provable, given the problem of identifying the first
humans).  Under an "insert the soul"-type model, there might be no
physical or genetic difference.  If having spirituality reflects the
arrival at a threshold level of mental capacity, then presumably there
is some degree of genetics underlying it, although environment plays a
role as well.  The genetic difference might be quite subtle, however.
The only case in which a line can easily be drawn between parent
species and new species is when there is an instantaneous barrier to
interbreeding.  For example, in Glenn Morton's scenario, the
chromosome fusion that distinguishes humans from apes plays a key
role.  Chromosome fusion (or other chromosome rearrangement) makes
interbreeding difficult.  Not directly applicable to the human case,
but hybridization in which the hybrid can reproduce (asexually and/or
sexually with other hybrids) but not with either parent is the easiest
way to clearly make new species abruptly.  It's common in the wild and
in lab.  However, only in hindsight can you tell that a given change
is key to something new rather than an individual aberration.  (This
is also a problem with all the "how come we don't see new stuff
evolving today?" type arguments.  We probably are, but we can't know
until we wait millions of years or so to see what happens next.)

> In addition, I'm thinking of a presentation I heard on "ring species." A animal (such as a seagull) can have many changes as you follow the geography, with the head of the line being so different from the tail that they are called different species because they can't interbreed.  However, all the in-between varieties are interbreeding along the way.  If you look at just the head and tail, you'd say they are different species, but if you look at the line you can't tell where one species begins and another ends.  Apply that to human biological evolution.<

I don't know of evidence for a geographic ring, but there is something
similar going through time in humans.  Homo habilis is fairly
different from modern humans, but when you put in a full set of
intermediate fossils, it's hard to draw firm lines.

> All this makes it impossible for me to accept a single biological pair for all humans.  <

They key problem is what all are humans?

> Also the thing I don't understand about mitochondrial eve- what about her mom? What was so different about her mom... didn't she have mitochondria or how was it so different that there's some sort of break in which you can call her daughter the eve but not the mom?<

Here's an example.  Suppose, for purpose of the example, that all
modern humans descend from Noah.  Noah would be the Y-chromosome Adam
in this scenario-some male descendants of each of the sons have sons,
and so forth.  Noah's Y chromosome might not be any different from his
father's, but Noah is the most recent common ancestor.  Automatically,
there is a single Y chromosome ancestor in every generation before
that.  Noah's sons' wives would provide three mitochondrial
lineages-Mrs. Noah's mitochondria die out with the death of her sons.
The three wives share a common maternal ancestor at some point, if you
go back far enough.  If they were sisters, their mother would be
mitochondrial Eve.  On the other hand, if Shem had sons but no
daughters, then one of the three mitochondrial lineages would be lost.
 If only one of the three couples had daughters, then that wife would
be the mitochondrial Eve.

Thus, being the mitochondrial Eve or Y chromosome Adam does not
guarentee being the spouse of the other, nor does it guarentee that no
other individuals lived at the time.   It does tend to suggest a
relatively small population (either at the time when they lived or in
some sort of later bottleneck-i.e., only the descendants of a certain
individual happen to make it through).

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.