Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Preston Garrison wrote:
>
>>>I don't agree Dick. Any number of studies

the any number seems to be same as the desired number of ancestors (2) :)

>>>have shown that every living person alive today can trace his or
>>>her ancestry back to a common ancestor who lived only a few
>>>thousand years ago, though obviously this person was not the only
>>>person alive at the time, nor will most of us have inherited genes
>>>directly from that person. See, e.g., Rhode, On the Common
>>>Ancestors of All Living Humans
>>>(<http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf>http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf);
>>>Chang, Recent Common Ancestors of All Present-Day Individuals
>>>(<http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/Ancestors.pdf>http://www.stat.yale.edu/~jtc5/papers/Ancestors.pdf).
>>>A focus on "bloodlines," I think, is archaic -- that's a
>>>scientifically meaningless term. A focus on the coalescence of
>>>genes, I think, is foreign to the Biblical text and unproductive.
>>>The focus ought to fall, I think, on geneology, which is what the
>>>papers referenced above discuss.
>>>
>>>David W. Opderbeck
>>>Associate Professor of Law
>>>Seton Hall University Law School
>>>Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>>
>>
>>There's really supposed to be a common ancestor in the last few
>>thousand years for everyone in a remote tribe in the Amazon and for
>>every Australian aborigine? Is this a statement about how
>>thoroughly the modern world has penetrated every corner of the
>>planet?
>>
>>Again, am I missing something?
>>
>
>I first learned about this several years ago from Glenn Morton on
>this forum. I haven't taken the time to read the papers, but my
>impression was that the conclusion was based on the observation that
>any individual has a lot of ancestors only a few generations back.
>Likewise most individuals who have descendants have very many after
>a few generations. Thus even taking into account that not all the
>ancestors in such a calculation are distinct and that descendants
>may mate with each other, it was concluded that one did not have to
>go back to a time when the human population was extremely small to
>find a common ancestor. Glenn pointed out that this didn't take into
>account that some populations have apparently been isolated from
>everyone else until quite recently.

I have to go with Glenn on this. It just seems unreasonable to insist
that no population anywhere, no matter how small, has remained
isolated the whole time.

But, the essential point seems to me to be, so what? What is the
implication of a recent common ancestor if most of us don't actually
have any DNA from that ancestor? What are we supposed to have
inherited, a soul?

I should also point out that if you are looking for Adam and Eve, you
have to find 2 most recent common ancestors that happen to be mates.
Of course, if Eve is a clone of Adam, that problem is solved. (Sorry,
Bernie. :)).

Again, am I missing something here?

Preston

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Feb 26 00:36:32 2009