Rediscovery of Technology

Go look up what the geneticists said before replying Tenshanai.

Tenshinai wrote:

Daryl wrote:...

The decent from 8 women is quite plausible if you understand genetics. Look at family trees, you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents etc. Go back far enough and one of those eight women will be in your ancestors.
...

Do remember, that just we may be able to trace ancestry to a very limited number of persons, this does not mean those persons were the only humans alive at the time, it only means the other lineages have been lost over time.

Which is why the so called "genetical Eve" keeps CHANGING over time. Sometimes, someone finds an additional lineage previously unknown, this pushes the "Eve" back in time...

smr wrote:Go look up what the geneticists said before replying Tenshanai.

They said exactly what Tenshinai said. That we can trace back the genetic history of humanity to a small number of individuals does not in any way indicate that there was a point in time where those individuals were the only ones alive. That's not how inheritance works.

I believe they said that genetic line narrowed to 8 women. We can trace back the human race to the surviving child bearing women to 8 through the DNA passed down from mother to child! So, their might have been more women that were unable to have women but now we getting into semantics or just trying to be ass about this. This points to global catastrophe! The conclusion is that something really bad happened in our history that caused the human race to almost go extinct.

They said exactly what Tenshinai said. That we can trace back the genetic history of humanity to a small number of individuals does not in any way indicate that there was a point in time where those individuals were the only ones alive. That's not how inheritance works.[/quote]

smr wrote:I believe they said that genetic line narrowed to 8 women. We can trace back the human race to the surviving child bearing women to 8 through the DNA passed down from mother to child! So, their might have been more women that were unable to have women but now we getting into semantics or just trying to be ass about this. This points to global catastrophe! The conclusion is that something really bad happened in our history that caused the human race to almost go extinct.

They said exactly what Tenshinai said. That we can trace back the genetic history of humanity to a small number of individuals does not in any way indicate that there was a point in time where those individuals were the only ones alive. That's not how inheritance works.

[/quote]

IIRC, when a man from China asked a certain missionary why there was no mention of Biblical events in Chinese history, he pointed to the logogram for "Ship", a combination of "vessel, eight, and people," then II Peter 2:5. For more on the logograms that are thought to point to pre China biblical events, look up "The Discovery of Genesis by C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson" and later books. Of course, correlation is not causation. However, when there is correlation, a possibility of causation should be examined.

Having expressed my overall skepticism, I would now like to pick out what I would consider to be the top ten examples from the book, listed in the order in which they appear.

1. 先 (first) = 丿 (life, according to the authors, though I had not heard this interpretation before), 土 (soil), and 人 (person).

2. 元 (beginning) = 二 人 (two people).

3. 婪 (covet) = two 木 (trees, of life and of the knowledge of good and evil) and a 女 (woman).

4. 禁 (forbidden) = two 木 (trees) and a 示 (deity or statement).

5. 兇 (brutal) looks like, and is pronounced the same as, 兄 (elder brother), i.e., Cain, who killed Abel.

6. 犧 (sacrifice) = 牛 羊 秀 戈 (ox sheep lovely spear).

7. 上帝 (God) is pronounced ShangDi which resembles שַׁדַּי (Shaddai, one of the Judaic names of God).

8. 沿 (continue) = 氵 八 口 (water eight people); compare the aforementioned analysis of 船 (ship).

9. 乱 (confusion) contains the word 舌 (tongue), which the authors suggest is an allusion to Babel; note, though, that again I have the impression that 乱 is a simplified character of recent origin.

10. 遷 (migrate) = 西 大 卩 辶 (west big division walk), which the authors regard as a post-Babel reference; but note that the interpretation of 卩 as division is a bit obscure.

When discussing a world wide flood, why do people assume that the heights of mountains and depths of oceans would be the same as today? IIRC, the continents average about a half mile height above sea level, and the oceans average about two miles depth below sea level. Drop that assumption, and there is neither a shortage of water, nor one of a place for it to go.

What settled it for me is the estimated average thickness of over five miles of sedimentary rock combined with the fact that original rock cannot erode while there is sediment above it. Either we start with incredibly tall mountains, or enough shifting needed to expose that volume of base rock would destroy any trace of geological ages. To convince me that no such flood existed, you would need to show that the estimated average thickness is much thinner.

I note that only four females are mentioned on the Ark. Is anyone here capable of explaining what this would do to the genetic picture

smr wrote:I believe they said that genetic line narrowed to 8 women. We can trace back the human race to the surviving child bearing women to 8 through the DNA passed down from mother to child! So, their might have been more women that were unable to have women but now we getting into semantics or just trying to be ass about this. This points to global catastrophe! The conclusion is that something really bad happened in our history that caused the human race to almost go extinct.

No. You said it yourself: The reason why we do not see more ancestral lines of mitochondrial DNA is that those lines did not have female offspring at some point in time.

I would like to cite Takahata, N (January 1993), "Allelic genealogy and human evolution", Mol. Biol. Evol. 10 (1): 2–22:

Genetic variation at most loci examined in human populations indicates that the (effective) population size has been - lo4 for the past 1 Myr and that individuals have been genetically united rather tightly. Also suggested is that the population size has never dropped to a few individuals, even in a single generation. These impose important requirements for the hypotheses for the origin of modem humans:
a relatively large population size and frequent migration if populations were geographically subdivided. Any hypothesis that assumes a small number of founding individuals throughout the late Pleistocene can be rejected. Extraordinary polymorphism at some loci of the major histocompatibility complex (Mhc) rules out the past action of severe bottlenecks, or the so-called founder principle, which invokes only a small number of founding individuals when a new species emerges.
This conclusion may be extended to the 35Myr-old history of the human lineage, because some polymorphism at Mhc loci seems to have lasted that long. Furthermore, although the population structure prior to the late Pleistocene is less clear, owing to the insensitivity of Mhc alleles, even to low levels of migration, the nature of Mhc polymorphism suggests that the effective size of populations leading to humans was as large as 10 5. Hence, the effective population size of humans might have become somewhat smaller in most of the late Pleistocene. The reduction could be due either to the then adverse environment in the Old World and/or to the increased migration rate. It is also argued that population explosion fostered by the agriculture revolution has had significant effects on incorporating new alleles into human populations.

We have evidence that the absolute lowest number of human beings in history is somewhere in the tens of thousands; this is over the whole million-year history of homo sapiens and its immediate ancestors.
Also note that, barring a complete genetic workup of the entire human species, we will never know how many ancestral lines exist; there is enough room in the sampling techniques used to allow lines to slip through the cracks, as it were.

Now, to be fair, a global catastrophe cannot be ruled out when looking at human ancestry alone.
But human ancestry isn't the only source of data available to us. Any global catastrophe that would drastically reduce the number of humans would also create a corresponding die-off of a variety of animal species; we have no evidence of this outside of the ice ages our species has lived through.
We certainly do not have evidence of a biblical flood.

smr, I am trying to say this as diplomatically as possible: You do not know what you are talking about. You ignore scientific consensus in favour of some interpretation that would make biblical accounts more true. You, as pointed out in other topics, are a believer first; You only care about data and evidence if you can twist it into an affirmation of your preconceived notions.

DDHvi wrote:When discussing a world wide flood, why do people assume that the heights of mountains and depths of oceans would be the same as today? IIRC, the continents average about a half mile height above sea level, and the oceans average about two miles depth below sea level. Drop that assumption, and there is neither a shortage of water, nor one of a place for it to go.

Then explain plate tectonics. Your model necessitates that there was major geological activity all over the planet during a timeframe where humans were around to record it.
Also please explain where all the water has gone, because the deep ocean trenches are not deep enough to hold all the water required for a global flood.

I note that only four females are mentioned on the Ark. Is anyone here capable of explaining what this would do to the genetic picture

This is impossible. We have evidence of at least 8 distinctive ancestral lines, and we have further evidence that the human population never dropped below several tens of thousands of individuals (and none of those drops happened in recorded history).

EDIT:
If this happened the way it's described in the bible, then those four women would have to each carry two strains of mitochondria in their cells without overlapping and while somehow not giving this peculiar trait to their sons and daughters.
We would also see a much smaller degree of genetic variation in humanity as a whole.
In conclusion, that part of the Ark story has been thoroughly disproven.

EDIT THE SECOND:
When discussing mitochondrial Eve, consider that she was human (homo sapiens sapiens). We have evidence that she lived 140000 years ago; we have fossil evidence of homo sapiens going back at least double that time. Therefore, we know she had contemporaries.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_rece ... ing_humans

ONE of the theories is that at a point somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 years ago, humanity got reduced in numbers to something like 10,000 individuals.
I can't recall the study or the full explination but whatever caused the die-off, it was a choke-point in genetic record as interpreted by the (then- at the time of the study) known miticondrial lines and statistical work on the mutation rates. The graphic provided with the study were to display what the researchers thought they observed. That the apparent mutation rates changed based on what was thought to be the relative age (because of distribution) of the mutations and there were way too few mutations before point X in the time line vs what appear to be the "normal" frequency of non-leathal mutations after point X.
Essentialy, post the catastrophy which killed off the majority of the population (actual size unknown) only 8 female lines survived that can be traced back through the miticonria. That does NOT mean that all the genetics of every other line vanished, just that the mitochondria of those 8 lines remain.
Since we get some genes from each of our parents (but not 50/50) what and how much we get from mother or father can vary quite a bit. Mothers give genes they got from earlier female ancestors to sons which can be shared with different female lines.

Some of existing theory on potential colonization of other planets has the minimum population (over a fairly short time though possibly multiple sets of colonists) of 10,000 individuals from a board population base to avoid serious genetic problems from inbreeding and lethal or at least massivly debilitateing problems from known problems caused by various recessive genes.

What nobody seemes to want to ask is just how long and how did the population that resulted from ONLY having Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.......take to recover from what can only be interpreted as miniscule gene pool and a several hundred years of an essentialy unimaginably bad case of inbreeding. We probably should not even think about what the next 20 generations experienced.
Or, perhaps, many of the problems the human race is experiencing now are the end result of all that inbreeding till we somehow avoided going extinct.

Makes you wonder.

Brigade XO wrote:What nobody seemes to want to ask is just how long and how did the population that resulted from ONLY having Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives.......take to recover from what can only be interpreted as miniscule gene pool and a several hundred years of an essentialy unimaginably bad case of inbreeding. We probably should not even think about what the next 20 generations experienced.
Or, perhaps, many of the problems the human race is experiencing now are the end result of all that inbreeding till we somehow avoided going extinct.

Makes you wonder.

Except that we know that that hasn't happened.

Bit of a problem with the theory

ONE of the theories is that at a point somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 years ago, humanity got reduced in numbers to something like 10,000 individuals.

Cross checking in a myriad ways shows that the Australian Aborigines were well established here by 40,000 years ago, and may possibly have been here from 20,000 years earlier than that. Genetic matching tracks them as coming here via India, and their genetic makeup didn't vary much until the Europeans arrived. This is probably the most clear cut migration evidence example, but there are many others, many of which predate the 20,000 years ago timeline. Thus if humanity had reduced to that small a number they must have had good transport to get back together and then remigrate.

When all the scientific evidence from all the various disciplines all comes together to produce a coherent explanation for the current world, you have to be a particular type of person to say "But the bible says" and then try to rationalise away all the mountain of evidence to suit your paradigm.

I'm not going to waste time doing the maths but the doozy of rationalising away where all the flood water went by saying the earth was much more uniform and level within modern humanity's time is certifiably insane. The energy involved to lower and raise the ocean trenches and mountain ranges within such a geologically short time span would have sterilised the earth. That upheaval would have made a flood irrelevant. That's without considering how the geology theories all hang together so well anyway.

Daryl, did you watch the entire video from start to ending? The reason I ask this, they answer many of your questions. Did this happen according to their theory? My answer would be maybe and maybe not. That's kinda like some portions could be true and some not. In the Indian tradition, the civilization has been been destroyed 5 to 6 times (sorry can not remember the exact number!). A prime example of this, in India archeologists have discovered 2 port cities that had a huge population and are underwater. The last time the land was not underwater is about 30,000 years ago. My personal belief that the Noah story comes from different age. (This belief I have held for a least 20 years a long time before I became a Christian.) We have had over 140 different cultures that report a great flood scattered across the globe. Trying to match up what the geneticists with the bible could be described as cherry picking (so be it!) (You might be right!).

If we have had a multiple world wide cataclysmic events then Major evolution is invalidated but Minor evolution theories gain dramatic headway. Then we are headed down a rabbit hole that is hard to tell what is what.

Let me ask you a question: Do you believe it possible to live a 1000 years (at some point)?

In America, the FDA has authorized a study about proposed life extension technology/treatment that will extend our lifespans to 140 years. I had to print this article out for the boss because that wanted to know more about this subject. Now, I just focused on a company that had been authorized to do a study on a therapy to change this. (Their are plenty of different drugs/gene manipulation just by goggling this subject.)

My point that myth might be reality at some point.

Daryl wrote:Bit of a problem with the theory

ONE of the theories is that at a point somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 years ago, humanity got reduced in numbers to something like 10,000 individuals.

Cross checking in a myriad ways shows that the Australian Aborigines were well established here by 40,000 years ago, and may possibly have been here from 20,000 years earlier than that. Genetic matching tracks them as coming here via India, and their genetic makeup didn't vary much until the Europeans arrived. This is probably the most clear cut migration evidence example, but there are many others, many of which predate the 20,000 years ago timeline. Thus if humanity had reduced to that small a number they must have had good transport to get back together and then remigrate.

When all the scientific evidence from all the various disciplines all comes together to produce a coherent explanation for the current world, you have to be a particular type of person to say "But the bible says" and then try to rationalise away all the mountain of evidence to suit your paradigm.

I'm not going to waste time doing the maths but the doozy of rationalising away where all the flood water went by saying the earth was much more uniform and level within modern humanity's time is certifiably insane. The energy involved to lower and raise the ocean trenches and mountain ranges within such a geologically short time span would have sterilised the earth. That upheaval would have made a flood irrelevant. That's without considering how the geology theories all hang together so well anyway.