DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
Well I would like a better understanding of DNA before any such conclusions are made.
That 800,000 seems very far fetched.
That 800,000 seems very far fetched.
Yes—that is the deeper point. The study’s conclusion is limited not only by its population model, but by the fact that our understanding of DNA-based inference is still incomplete.
We know a great deal about DNA’s chemistry and inheritance, but reconstructing events hundreds of thousands of years ago requires assumptions about processes we cannot observe directly. Researchers must estimate or model things such as mutation rates, generation intervals, recombination, selection, population structure, ancestral interbreeding, and how much genetic variation has been lost or preserved. Small changes in those assumptions can produce very different population histories.
There is also a category mistake in treating DNA as a literal historical recording. DNA contains traces of ancestry, but those traces are incomplete and shaped by mutation, selection, drift, migration, and sampling. A computer model interprets those traces; it does not simply “read” the past.
So the appropriate level of confidence is modest: the research may identify a genetic pattern worth investigating, but it cannot by itself establish that humanity was reduced to 1,280 people. The number is an inference generated within a framework of assumptions—not a directly observed fact
We know a great deal about DNA’s chemistry and inheritance, but reconstructing events hundreds of thousands of years ago requires assumptions about processes we cannot observe directly. Researchers must estimate or model things such as mutation rates, generation intervals, recombination, selection, population structure, ancestral interbreeding, and how much genetic variation has been lost or preserved. Small changes in those assumptions can produce very different population histories.
There is also a category mistake in treating DNA as a literal historical recording. DNA contains traces of ancestry, but those traces are incomplete and shaped by mutation, selection, drift, migration, and sampling. A computer model interprets those traces; it does not simply “read” the past.
So the appropriate level of confidence is modest: the research may identify a genetic pattern worth investigating, but it cannot by itself establish that humanity was reduced to 1,280 people. The number is an inference generated within a framework of assumptions—not a directly observed fact
TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 46-50, MVIP
if the premis of adam and eve is true.
yes. we are all related..
yes. we are all related..
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
Most major religions have a progenitor couple. With evolutionary theory we should also reach several instances of Adam and eve candidates that tie all humans together, all primates, and so on. So be it through faith or science, we are likely all relatives.
Though, if you take the story of Noah seriously, everyone got wiped out back to a single extended family group yet again. I don't take the story seriously, but that's what the fable says.
Though, if you take the story of Noah seriously, everyone got wiped out back to a single extended family group yet again. I don't take the story seriously, but that's what the fable says.
PhoenixPhail · M
@ViciDraco I don't take any of the bible's story seriously.