Sorry guys. It won’t work. And I am not just trying to be disagreeable. You do not have a bottleneck like Ken Ham does. You need a bottleneck or there will always exist the people, the races, the cultures “who never got mixed in”.
You will enjoy my book @noUCA. Turns out you are behind on the science. Catching up will be fun!
You need to study the math. @Swamidass no doubt has the link handy that will take you to his informative article and graphic. (Of course, that information will also appear in his GAE book.)
Here are the illustrations and article from @swamidass I was talking about. This will help you with some of the concepts behind GAE.
In 2013, it was estimated that there were more than 100 uncontacted tribes around the world , mostly in the densely forested areas of the Amazon and New Guinea. The Sentinelese (Andaman Islands, India) are the most secluded tribe in the world .
Until your math includes everyone on the planet, you overweening confidence in your model is suspect. And I am not telling you anything you don’t already know, because one of you, at least, is a scientist.
Thanks for that pdf. I was trying to find it so that I can save the link for future reference and postings. I like that Figure 1 set of six illustrations of descent. It is very helpful in explaining what can be a contra-intuitive idea.
This topic has already been covered on previous Peaceful Science threads. The aforementioned articles will help you to understand why “uncontacted tribes” pose no problem for the math.
It already does, actually. So please read the articles before proposing alleged problems which aren’t problems at all.
You might also want to check out the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Ok, but with no bottleneck you are proposing a sensational solution to a huge problem. I presume this has all been peer reviewed. Again, this would be astonishing.
Yes! Peer reviewed and endorsed by Christian and non Christian scientists a like. It is astonishing and true!
I don’t know about “sensational” but if you mean counter-intuitive (for many of us), then I would agree that it makes a big sensation!
I would encourage you to rely less on personal intuition (which isn’t at all that reliable, even if many people presume so) and actually read the paper carefully until you understand what you are arguing against.
Your presumption is correct—and you should carefully consider the fact that scientists who actually specialize in the relevant fields have endorsed it. When you imply that they are all wrong while you as a layperson are right, that puts you squarely within the territory of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
If you mean that the math and the paper’s implications are exciting, I would entirely agree.
I just went through your paper. It is unconvincing and I believe I understand it all. It sounds like you are laying the onus on your reader to prove that genealogical isolation could not have occurred, when you are the one who must prove beyond doubt that no group could have been continually isolated for the last 10,000 years.
It is not hard to image an isolated culture in, say, the Amazon, that grows, then bottlenecks due to disease, then grows again, then bottlenecks again, whose current population remains low even after 10,000 years – and is one that never even gets close enough to the 99% of mixed descendants from A&E!
I don’t have to prove that this actually occurred. Yet, you must prove that it in fact did not occur.
Like I said, I would be astonished.
Of course it goes without saying that the Amazon group would have been an offshoot of a larger population continually outside the Garden from the beginning of time.
Suggestion: you need to let physicists and cosmologists review your paper. They don’t get any free rides when it comes to the temperature of the Universe. They are forced to explain every single outlying possibility. Hence, their appeal to inflation. Likewise, there are no free rides in genealogical studies.
Nope. Very confused are you.
You totally misread the article. Very sad. This actually helps your theology, showing it isn’t in conflict with evidence.
So you think that @swamidass must prove a negative. Seriously?
You have burden-of-proof completely backwards. I have noticed over the years that this is very common where the Dunning-Kruger Effect abounds.
Meanwhile, science is not about proof. It is about evidence. Have you pondered the fact that Dr. Swamidass is a computational geneticist and that these ideas have been endorsed by his academic peers? Have you considered the fact that human genomics, a massive body of evidence, supports what is described in the paper—and that that is why the paper survived peer-review scrutiny?
I have no doubt that it “goes without saying” within the self-protected confines of your own mind. But can your claim survive the scrutiny of the scientific community of specialists in human genomics? No. In fact, it “goes without saying” that your confidence in your own mastery of the topic is without foundation.
The fact that you want “physicists and cosmologists” to (hopefully) come to your aid says a lot. Do you seriously believe that physicists and cosmologists are familiar with the genomic evidence?
When my Hebrew exegesis fails to win agreement from Old Testament scholars, perhaps I should check with some biochemists. When my comparative linguistics ideas are rejected by those specialists, perhaps I can find agreement among geologists.
When you used the phrase “went through” did you mean that you read it? I find it interesting that you did not say that you "read" the entire paper. If I were intending to say that I read something, in its entirety, that I was about to critique, I would certainly begin by emphasizing that my review was based upon a thorough read of the document and not something else. I’m just curious.
Typical of creationists to demand an impossible standard of evidence. No, all Joshua has to show is that his model is a reasonable one, ideally a somewhat conservative one. And there are no isolated tribes. All have neighbors with which they are in communication.
May I substitute ‘atheists and agnostics’ in place of ‘creationists’, with respect to the existence of God?
You may do whatever you like, but I won’t guarantee any of it will make sense.