tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post5229079154015770013..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: Common ancestry, bottlenecks, and human evolutionStephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-43177936573828178772011-10-24T12:31:24.577-07:002011-10-24T12:31:24.577-07:00You wrote: " Well, I don't say that we &q...You wrote: " Well, I don't say that we "know" this.... I don't think the <br />authors of that paper would say that we "know" human population history...."<br /><br />Then you wrote: " I do think science "knows" that the 2-person founder hypothesis is wrong...."<br /><br />If you still don't see it in your comments, I suggest you get your eyes examined.Bilbonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-43348148477372836552011-10-23T15:58:41.035-07:002011-10-23T15:58:41.035-07:00Weird. I don't remember writing that, and sure...Weird. I don't remember writing that, and sure don't see it in any of my comments. I think I was clear enough. Thanks for the comments.SteveMathesonhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-8268720452337589282011-10-23T15:53:57.086-07:002011-10-23T15:53:57.086-07:00Steve, my original question was: "How is it t...Steve, my original question was: "How is it that we know that the human population never dipped below a few thousand?" Your original answer was that we don't know. Based on that answer, I pointed out that since there may be serious theological implications to the question, scientists should say they don't know. Now you say that we do know. I suggest that you make up your mind. Meanwhile, thanks for the link to Coyne's summary. Bilbonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-75556583237771954092011-10-23T14:57:28.888-07:002011-10-23T14:57:28.888-07:00I do think the phrasing of your questions suggest ...I do think the phrasing of your questions suggest that scientists ought to take the 2-person account seriously, and I'm suggesting to you that they may not have any reason to do so.<br /><br />As to how population sizes are inferred, the abstract of the <i>Nature</i> paper (linked above) gives you some indication of what the authors did. Or you can read <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-big-was-the-human-population-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/" rel="nofollow">Jerry Coyne's summary</a>.SteveMathesonhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-87612512210967796532011-10-23T14:39:11.513-07:002011-10-23T14:39:11.513-07:00I'm not asking scientists to privilege certain...I'm not asking scientists to privilege certain accounts of natural history. I'm asking how do we know that the 2-person account is incorrect, or doesn't fit the evidence, or doesn't explain the evidence, or h0wever you prefer to phrase it. Bilbonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-19938546927225519412011-10-22T09:55:50.321-07:002011-10-22T09:55:50.321-07:00No, I don't believe scientists should consider...No, I don't believe scientists should consider the 2-people founder hypothesis merely because a particular subset of a particular religion wants that hypothesis to be true. Nor do I believe that scientists should ignore or oppose the hypothesis for that reason.<br /><br />It is my view that the 2-people founder hypothesis has zero explanatory power and could only be true by virtue of currently unexplainable and unanticipated phenomena. So, in my view, the only reason to consider such a view is a commitment to a disputed religious account of human history, an account that fails to explain not only genomic data, but also paleontological findings. (Not to mention geological evidence, if the flood of Noah is similarly considered as part of the historical narrative.)<br /><br />In other words, I do think science "knows" that the 2-person founder hypothesis is wrong, to the extent that the hypothesis cannot account for the data at hand without making gratuitous assumptions regarding unexplainable mechanisms.The scientists who wrote the paper in question used the word "infer" in the title of their report. They didn't claim to "know" the population sizes. If your point is that some scientists seem to blur the distinction between what we can say we "know" and what we have inferred, I get it, but I think it's a mistake to ask science to privilege certain accounts or hypotheses without explaining why those accounts deserve strong consideration.SteveMathesonhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-55802627124061646522011-10-22T09:35:02.132-07:002011-10-22T09:35:02.132-07:00 Since the question of whether our human populatio... Since the question of whether our human population began with only two people, or with several thousand people, may have serious theological implications, then I think it is incumbent upon scientists to make plain whether or not they really do know which it was. Don't you think so?Bilbonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-7971704483443794252011-10-21T13:26:13.916-07:002011-10-21T13:26:13.916-07:00Well, I don't say that we "know" thi...Well, I don't say that we "know" this. Human population history was inferred from patterns of genetic variation in different human subpopulations. The model in the paper I link above makes assumptions about generation time (25 years) and neutral mutation rate, then infers genetic diversity at different times in the past. I don't think the authors of that paper would say that we "know" human population history, but I do think they would say that current human genomic structure, considered globally, gives no indication of a severe bottleneck.<br /><br />Does that answer your question?SteveMathesonhttp://sfmatheson.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-83805926386631805052011-10-21T12:48:35.203-07:002011-10-21T12:48:35.203-07:00Hi Steve,
How is it that we know that the human ...Hi Steve, <br /><br />How is it that we know that the human population never dipped below a few thousand? Bilbonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-3701284758374593182011-09-26T18:23:59.663-07:002011-09-26T18:23:59.663-07:00testingtestingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com