Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[Jobar]

https://www.computergear.com/1a077-no-science-no-truth-t-shirt.html if that doesn't show.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You haven't made a reasonable argument against "never fewer than 1000", though perhaps lpetrich did not provide the evidence for that, either (ETA: now I see that in a later post, he did). Of course, the 1000 can come from 10000, and those 10000 from another number, etc., and the number of humans may well never be under 1000. Where those 1000 come from? From their parents, and so on and so forth, and if you go back to a time where you reach a population of less than 1000, those entities were not humans, but the non-human ancestors of humans.

To be clear, I'm not claiming there were never less than 1000 (I don't have time for that kind of debate; I'll leave the matter to lpetrich, who knows that sort of thing a lot better than I do, and already provided evidence in support of that), but rather, that you have not presented a reasonable argument against that.

You just smuggled in a whole new (ancestral) species.
If you’re gonna do that, why not just say ...never fewer than 10 trillion
#primeordial

No, I did not smuggle anything. I explained why you did not make a reasonable argument against the view that there have never been fewer than 1000 humans. You should try to understand that, if you are interested in learning about the matter, instead of making bad arguments.

 

[Lion IRC]

I haven’t attempted ANY argument.
I just called you out for jumping from one species (prior to the 1,000) to another - the magical 1,000 - of which there were “never fewer”.

Zero humans is fewer than 1,000.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I haven’t attempted ANY argument.
I just called you out for jumping from one species (prior to the 1,000) to another - the magical 1,000 - of which there were “never fewer”.

Zero humans is fewer than 1,000.

Obviously, the people you call

“...never fewer than 1,000” theorists.

never suggested that there were never 0 humans, and you surely know that (or you're very, very mistaken about the beliefs of your opponents). They actually argued that there was never a 2-human population bottleneck. And yes, you did attempt to make arguments against those "never fewer than 1000" theorists, as you indicated when you replied to lpetrich

Oh, well in that case we’re good.
I thought you were one of those “...never fewer than 1,000” theorists.

The previous population could have been Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc etc

And you did not "call me" on anything for any jumping. I just explained why you were mistaken. I smuggled nothing.

 

[Lion IRC]

“Never fewer than”
These are your words - not mine.

If you want to rephrase your position that’s fine.

Maybe you mean...there is evidence that it got down to at least as low as 1,000.

Maybe you mean...species “A” plus ancestral species “B” combined, were (over time) never fewer than 1,000

But whatever the case, it’s YOU making the claim. You painted yourself into a corner. I certainly haven’t painted myself into an opposite corner. I’m just asking you about your own logic fail.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

“Never fewer than”
These are your words - not mine.

If you want to rephrase your position that’s fine.

Maybe you mean...there is evidence that it got down to at least as low as 1,000.

Maybe you mean...species “A” plus ancestral species “B” combined, were (over time) never fewer than 1,000

But whatever the case, it’s YOU making the claim. You painted yourself into a corner. I certainly haven’t painted myself into an opposite corner. I’m just asking you about your own logic fail.

No, "never fewer than" were your words, not mine, and it was apparent in context that the people you were talking about never said there were never zero humans, but rather, that the population never fell to levels lower than 1000 when there were humans. I used those words to mean what you obviously had meant in that context (else, I'd be attacking a straw man). If you actually did not take into consideration that the "never fewer than 1000" theorists you talked about of course are not suggesting there was no time at which there were no humans, you were attacking a position that has nothing to do with that of your opponents.

I do not need to rephrase my argument when I'm using your own expression in the sense in which you were using it, unless you were attacking a position that has nothing to do with that of your opponents, while attributing it to them. Were you doing that, as you're doing it to me now? Do you realize that you're doing that? Do you believe you have an argument here, and that that's a way of seeking truth, or showing something?

Okay, you believe a guy walked on water, raised the dead and resurrected, even after thinking about it, so you're making improper epistemic probabilistic assessments all along, so maybe you believe you're winning. Thank you (and some of the people in the other threads) for reminding me to leave again. This is surely not worth it. I just corrected your error, and you attribute me a logic fail, as if it were not obvious that the "fewer than 1000" (which I did not argue for, again), in this context, does not involve a claim that there was not a time with zero humans.

 

[lpetrich]

I've also found this article: A structured ancestral population for the evolution of modern humans - ScienceDirect

The view that modern humans evolved through a bottleneck from a single founding group of archaic Homo is being challenged by new analyses of contemporary genetic variation. A wide range of middle to late Pleistocene ages for gene genealogies and evidence for early population structures point to a diverse and scattered ancestry associated with a metapopulation history of local extinctions, re-colonization and admixture. A different balance of the same processes has shaped chimpanzee diversity.

Our species still emerged in Africa, however.

The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of of the mitochondria existed about 100 - 230 kyr ago, likely in East Africa. Its possessor was  Mitochondrial Eve, a woman who had at least two daughters who in turn had daughters, and so on to the present. The MRCA of the Y chromosome lived about 160 - 300 kyr ago, likely in west central Africa. Its possessor was  Y-chromosomal Adam, a man who had at least two sons who in turn had sons, and so on to the present.

But from that article, the MRCA's of many autosomal (transmitted by both sexes) genes are much older, around 500,000 to 1 million years, with some even older. These ages are consistent with an effective population of 10,000 over the last million years.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Lion IRC,

But fine, I will put it in another way, in case you really have trouble understading it. You have not provided any good argument against a claim that there was never a past time at which:

1. There were less than 1000 ancestors of present-day humans, and
2. The ancestors of present-day people were all human.

Additionally, I will point out that the view that there was never a time at which there were no humans is not defended by your regular opponents.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don’t have to put an “argument against a claim” that there were never fewer than 1000 humans.

All I have to do is find out whether there is a language barrier which prevents you from explaining how we instantly got from zero humans to 1000.

≥ 1000 of a non-human ancestor species all simultaneously, spontaneously changed into humans in the blink of an eye???

ETA

”Never fewer than”
These are your words - not mine.

I concede these were not your words - in the sense of you personally having previously used the term. What I meant was, that is the term commonly used by people who make this claim.
And that is your position is it not? Never fewer?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don’t have to put an “argument against a claim” that there were never fewer than 1000 humans.

All I have to do is find out whether there is a language barrier which prevents you from explaining how we instantly got from zero humans to 1000.

≥ 1000 of a non-human ancestor species all simultaneously, spontaneously changed into humans in the blink of an eye???

No, what you do is grossly mischaracterize my position, and that of your usual opponents. Of course, it is not the case more than 1000 of a non-human ancestor species all simultaneously, spontaneously changed into humans in the blink of an eye. Rather, at some point in the past there were human ancestors that were not human (maybe more than 1000, maybe fewer). Millions of years later, there were humans, and those humans were not less than 1000 at any point in time. Of course, the word "human" is not precise enough to be used in arguments involving things like like "Let X be the first generation of humans...", or "Let -n be the first year counting from the present at which there were humans...", etc. There is no non-arbitrary line between humans and non-humans at a specific generation or year, and we do not have sufficiently precise language. However, the language is sufficiently precise to say that there were never less than 1000 human ancestors of the present-day population.

Of course, the fact that we're talking about humans is not relevant when it comes to the issue of imprecision. The word "cat" for that matter is not precise enough to be used in arguments involving things like like "Let X be the first generation of cats...", or "Let -n be the first year counting from the present at which there were cats...", etc. There is no non-arbitrary line between cats and non-cats at a specific generation or year, etc.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

ETA

”Never fewer than”
These are your words - not mine.

I concede these were not your words - in the sense of you personally having previously used the term. What I meant was, that is the term commonly used by people who make this claim.

I have not seen that particular locution before (or I don't recall if I ever did), but assuming they use it (why not?), it should be clear in context what they mean. Talking about simultaneous chances and whatnot is to badly mischaracterize their position. Sure, you can claim victory, but you're not attacking what your opponents actually believe.

And that is your position is it not? Never fewer?

I don't know whether there was a time at which the number of ancestors of the present-day population of humans was less than 1000, and those ancestors were all humans. I'm not an expert on the matter. I have seen evidence indicating probably that never happened, but I haven't spent enough time studying it to be certain.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have not seen that particular locution before (or I don't recall if I ever did), but assuming they use it (why not?), it should be clear in context what they mean. Talking about simultaneous chances and whatnot is to badly mischaracterize their position. Sure, you can claim victory, but you're not attacking what your opponents actually believe.

And that is your position is it not? Never fewer?

I don't know whether there was a time at which the number of ancestors of the present-day population of humans was less than 1000, and those ancestors were all humans. I'm not an expert on the matter. I have seen evidence indicating probably that never happened, but I haven't spent enough time studying it to be certain.

This whole discussion is confusing. Is the discussion about the early history of homo sapiens or nit-picking about word choices?

Lion RC is a Catholic, so believes in evolution. As does everybody else in this thread. So there shouldn't be any disagreement about the fundamental aspects of it. Right?

 

[Lion IRC]

Ipetrich explained that the 1000 were (possibly) an ‘offshoot’ of a prior population of unnumbered, unspeciated ancestors.
The transition timeline, the ambiguity of species and the numerically undefined population is sufficiently blurred to give Angra Mainyu a convenient walkaway.

No, these 1,000 to 10,000 people are an offshoot of some previous population. That's how evolution works.

Oh, well in that case we’re good.
I thought you were one of those “...never fewer than 1,000” theorists.

The previous population could have been Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc etc

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ipetrich explained that the 1000 were (possibly) an ‘offshoot’ of a prior population of unnumbered, unspeciated ancestors.
The transition timeline, the ambiguity of species and the numerically undefined population is sufficiently blurred to give Angra Mainyu a convenient walkaway.

All we have from the early human population is genetic evidence from fossils and in extremely rare cases tools and other physical remains to show their lifestyle. It's not much to go on. It's wide open to all kinds of speculation. All we know is that at some point we had a healthy population large enough to minimise inbreeding, and then we didn't. We can use maths to calculate a probable number from that.

A lot of our current theories on early hunter gatherers are based on studying current hunter gatherer populations. While the best analogy we can make doesn't prove shit.

I have not seen any reports on finds of human remains dating to around the time of the Toba mass extinction 70 000 years ago. Which makes sense. Because in times of extreme mass starvation, bones would have been smashed to make use of every available calory. It creates a definite limit to what we'll be able to prove.

And then we have basic logic. We have fossil evidence of humans in a large region of East Africa before the Toba mass extinction. And we are around to chat on this forum today. Nobody strolls through a mass extinction event untroubled. We would have faced the same difficulties other creatures faced. Regardless of how small that population had been, it would have been small. Because that was the fate of all land animals at that time.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ipetrich explained that the 1000 were (possibly) an ‘offshoot’ of a prior population of unnumbered, unspeciated ancestors.
The transition timeline, the ambiguity of species and the numerically undefined population is sufficiently blurred to give Angra Mainyu a convenient walkaway.

No, it's not a "convenient walkaway". I explained what your opponents generally say, because you were attacking a position that isn't theirs and you did the same to me, insisting on demanding an explanation of how some weird things happened simultaneously or whatever, and none of that was happening.

 

[Lion IRC]

Go back to post #360 and follow the thread to see whether you have actually been straw-manned.

If I ask someone to justify why/how they think we got from zero humans to ≥ 1,000 (never fewer than at least 1,000) and the person doesn’t hold that belief, just say...”I don’t think that”

I twice invited you to restate your position if language/semantics was getting in the way. I asked you (and everyone) if perhaps you meant something a little less specific than there have never been fewer than 1,000 humans on this planet

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Go back to post #360 and follow the thread to see whether you have actually been straw-manned.

If I ask someone to justify why/how they think we got from zero humans to ≥ 1,000 (never fewer than at least 1,000) and the person doesn’t hold that belief, just say...”I don’t think that”

I twice invited you to restate your position if language/semantics was getting in the way. I asked you (and everyone) if perhaps you meant something a little less specific than there have never been fewer than 1,000 humans on this planet

Post #360 is not mine, and lpetrich says he's seen estimates of a population of 1000, but nothing like 2. Obviously, he was talking about the human population.

You asked "Where did the 1000 come from? How many parents?" (post #363), and lpetrich replied than it was from a lot more than 1000 parents, and then gave more details (https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=582708&viewfull=1#post582708).

Then you said (in reply to lpetrich):

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=582840&viewfull=1#post582840

You’re saying that the population shrunk from 10,000 to 1,000
OK
Where did the 10,000 come from?

Well, actually, that's false. lpetrich did not say that the population shrunk in that manner. He said that 1000 humans came from more than 1000 parents, and also said he's seen estimates of 10000, not 1000. He did not say there were actually 1000, let alone that the population shrunk like that.

But that's a detail. It gets much worse. In the next post, DrZoiberg said:

You’re saying that the population shrunk from 10,000 to 1,000
OK
Where did the 10,000 come from?

It can be calculated from the genetic variation in the genome

Now, his reply was unclear, but whatever he meant, he most certainly did not mean what you attribute to him in your next post

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=582865&viewfull=1#post582865

10,000 humans all spontaneously and simultaneously popped into existence?
WOW

...and folks say the bible is hard to believe.

You roll your eyes at people after attributing to them claims they never made.

lpetrich said in reply:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=582869&viewfull=1#post582869

No, these 1,000 to 10,000 people are an offshoot of some previous population. That's how evolution works.

Now you replied:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=582919&viewfull=1#post582919

No, these 1,000 to 10,000 people are an offshoot of some previous population. That's how evolution works.

Oh, well in that case we’re good.
I thought you were one of those “...never fewer than 1,000” theorists.

The previous population could have been Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc etc

Here, you're implying that those "“...never fewer than 1,000”" theorists would have been a fair target of your previous criticism involving people spontaneously and simultaneously popped into existence. That has nothing to do with the position of anyone I've ever read of. And so, I explained you hadn't made a reasonable argument against "never fewer than 1000" ( https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=582932&viewfull=1#post582932 ). Obviously, in that context, 'never fewer than 1000' did not mean that there was no time at which there were zero humans. In fact, even your strawman involving 1000 humans popping into existence assumed a previous time with zero humans. But regardless, you were just making things up and attributing them to your opponents.

You then make an accusation of "smuggling" an ancestral population in no way related to my points (https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=583015&viewfull=1#post583015), and when I replied (https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=583200&viewfull=1#post583200), you continued to make stuff up about my position (https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=583207&viewfull=1#post583207).


Then, after I replied ( https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=583222&viewfull=1#post583222 ), you accused me of a logical error I did not commit, while you continued to misconstrue my position; you also said that

“Never fewer than”
These are your words - not mine.

which was false. Those were your words in the thread, which you attributed to others, and I interpreted in the reasonable way one could interpret them. Your full post was

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=583236&viewfull=1#post583236

“Never fewer than”
These are your words - not mine.

If you want to rephrase your position that’s fine.

Maybe you mean...there is evidence that it got down to at least as low as 1,000.

Maybe you mean...species “A” plus ancestral species “B” combined, were (over time) never fewer than 1,000

But whatever the case, it’s YOU making the claim. You painted yourself into a corner. I certainly haven’t painted myself into an opposite corner. I’m just asking you about your own logic fail.

But I don't need to rephrase. I used your words. As I said, I do not need to rephrase my argument when I'm using your own expression in the sense in which you were using it, unless you were attacking a position that has nothing to do with that of your opponents, while attributing it to them.

But even then, I did put it in another way: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...are-equivalent&p=583246&viewfull=1#post583246

But fine, I will put it in another way, in case you really have trouble understading it. You have not provided any good argument against a claim that there was never a past time at which:

1. There were less than 1000 ancestors of present-day humans, and
2. The ancestors of present-day people were all human.

Additionally, I will point out that the view that there was never a time at which there were no humans is not defended by your regular opponents.

Your reply was:

}

I don’t have to put an “argument against a claim” that there were never fewer than 1000 humans.

All I have to do is find out whether there is a language barrier which prevents you from explaining how we instantly got from zero humans to 1000.

≥ 1000 of a non-human ancestor species all simultaneously, spontaneously changed into humans in the blink of an eye???

ETA

”Never fewer than”
These are your words - not mine.

I concede these were not your words - in the sense of you personally having previously used the term. What I meant was, that is the term commonly used by people who make this claim.
And that is your position is it not? Never fewer?

Another gross misconstruction of my position (or any of your opponents', really), with the ridiculous "≥ 1000 of a non-human ancestor species all simultaneously, spontaneously changed into humans in the blink of an eye???"

So, my reply:

No, what you do is grossly mischaracterize my position, and that of your usual opponents. Of course, it is not the case more than 1000 of a non-human ancestor species all simultaneously, spontaneously changed into humans in the blink of an eye. Rather, at some point in the past there were human ancestors that were not human (maybe more than 1000, maybe fewer). Millions of years later, there were humans, and those humans were not less than 1000 at any point in time. Of course, the word "human" is not precise enough to be used in arguments involving things like like "Let X be the first generation of humans...", or "Let -n be the first year counting from the present at which there were humans...", etc. There is no non-arbitrary line between humans and non-humans at a specific generation or year, and we do not have sufficiently precise language. However, the language is sufficiently precise to say that there were never less than 1000 human ancestors of the present-day population.

Of course, the fact that we're talking about humans is not relevant when it comes to the issue of imprecision. The word "cat" for that matter is not precise enough to be used in arguments involving things like like "Let X be the first generation of cats...", or "Let -n be the first year counting from the present at which there were cats...", etc. There is no non-arbitrary line between cats and non-cats at a specific generation or year, etc.

And instead of admitting your repeated misconstructions of other people's views, attributing to us beliefs that we do not have and never suggested we have, etc., you said:

Ipetrich explained that the 1000 were (possibly) an ‘offshoot’ of a prior population of unnumbered, unspeciated ancestors.
The transition timeline, the ambiguity of species and the numerically undefined population is sufficiently blurred to give Angra Mainyu a convenient walkaway.

That's not remotely what happened.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If I ask someone to justify why/how they think we got from zero humans to ≥ 1,000 (never fewer than at least 1,000) and the person doesn’t hold that belief, just say...”I don’t think that”

But we didn't get 1, then 2, then 4 then.. and so on. When we first got something resembling modern humans there would have been at least thousands of humans all at once. Because for creatures that reproduce sexually evolution operates on large populations. The mutations happen in individuals. But a mutation isn't a change in the genome unless it stays in the genome and spreads. Until it spreads we don't say that it's a change in the species.

Where we draw the line between Homo erectus and homo sapiens is completely arbitrary. It's only a gradual shift over huge spans of time, where the humans living in proximity will all display extremely similar features. Why we put them in different categories is simply down to taxonomy. There's loads of specimins which we can argue could belong to any of the bordering species. That's true for any living thing that ever has lived.

 

[Lion IRC]

That’s what I thought.

Huge spans of time.
Invisible, gradual change.
Nobody paying much attention to the head count.
Then, one day somebody looks up and says...hey, look everybody. It’s a bunch of humans. WOW- there’s gotta be at least a thousand
Nobody knows for sure when/where it all started, so they arbitrarily declare a line in the sand where/when the starters gun went off and 1000 humans all simultaneosly came out of the gate and the human race began.

Cool story bro. But the exact same events could have commenced with one single human pair who went on have thousands of mutant unique offspring...over “huge spans of time”...with “gradual shifts”...etc etc

Evolution is creation in slow motion.

 

[DBT]

If things evolve, they are not being created.