Roots of human family tree are shallow (agrees with the Bible)

by Deputy Dog 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Deputy Dog

  Looks like the Bible is right after all.

  From:

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060701/ap_on_sc/brotherhood_of_man_1

  With the help of a statistician, a computer scientist and a supercomputer, Olson has calculated just how interconnected the human family tree is. You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years — and probably on the low side of that range — to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.

  Furthermore, Olson and his colleagues have found that if you go back a little farther — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago — everybody living today has exactly the same set of ancestors. In other words, every person who was alive at that time is either an ancestor to all 6 billion people living today, or their line died out and they have no remaining descendants.

  It also means that all of us have ancestors of every color and creed. Every Palestinian suicide bomber has Jews in his past. Every Sunni Muslim in Iraq is descended from at least one Shiite. And every Klansman's family has African roots.
• 

  gaiagirl

  This is very flawed reasoning. The article implies that everyone alive today is descended from people alive 2000 years ago. Yet 2000 years ago, there were already people living in North American (and they had been there for over 10,000 years). So how are Native Americans "descendants" of people in, for example, the Middle East of that time? Further, 2000 years ago, there were already people living in Australia, and they had been there for over 40,000 years. How are Aboriginies "descendants" of people living in the Middle East of that time? Humans who looked exactly like us lived as long ago as 50,000 years, and archaic humans with more robust skeletons and larger brains (Neanderthals) lived 250,000 years ago or possibly more.
• 

  Leolaia

  The article implies that everyone alive today is descended from people alive 2000 years ago.

  Well, that is almost common sense...everyone has ancestors that were alive 2,000 years ago.

  Yet 2000 years ago, there were already people living in North American (and they had been there for over 10,000 years). So how are Native Americans "descendants" of people in, for example, the Middle East of that time? Further, 2000 years ago, there were already people living in Australia, and they had been there for over 40,000 years. How are Aboriginies "descendants" of people living in the Middle East of that time?

  No, no, that's not what the article is saying. It says that "everybody on Earth descends from somebody who was around as recently as the reign of Tutankhamen," etc. but does not claim that this person was a unique ancestor, as a progenitor of all these groups. This is not a "mitochondrial Eve" type claim. It is about "how interconnected the human family tree is". That is, how much breeding there has been between established populations. So, in the case of people who can trace their lineage to the Mayflower, the group includes not just white Anglo-Saxons but also Native Americans who had a descendent of the Mayflower pilgrims somewhere in their ancestry, or a Chinese-American whose grandfather has a descendent of the Mayflower in his lineage, etc. This does not mean that the Chinese, Native Americans, etc. are descended from the Mayflower immigrants.

  I am skeptical of this claim tho....Some of the more isolated populations, such as Australian aborigines, Papuans, etc. have intermarried with settler populations, but has it been to such an extent that every Aborigine etc. has a white ancestry somewhere in their lineage?
• 

  aniron

  Not long ago I finished reading Bill Brysons "A Short History of Nearly Everything"

  According the the scientists , evolutionists etc.

  We all came from a species of ape like creatures who sometime in the past. Wandered out of Africa into Europe, India, across land bridges to the Americas and Australia etc.

  They have kept changing their theories so often through the years. They find a fossil and proclaim to have found the "earliest human", being about 2 million years old, . Then a while later someone else digs up another fossil older than the first one. This becomes the "earliest human" and the first one becomes "just another type of ape".

  Or they present the skull of an early man, by skull they mean they found about 6 pieces of bone, not a whole skull. Then they say "well we found a piece of jaw here, this piece we found half a mile away, this piece we found 3 miles away and this piece we found stuck 50ft up a cliff face.

  I like most people have always thought they must have tons of such fossils of pre-historic man. But the book pointed out that all the fossils that have been found of ape/man could probably fit into the back of a Land Rover.

  After reading this book and the comments made by people in it. I got the impression that they haven't the faintest idea how man got here.
• 

  peacefulpete

  aniron, if you are interested in an excellent review of the present models of human evolution i'd recomend a book: The Fossil Trail : How We Know What We Think We Know About Human Evolution
• 

  AlanF

  Whether Steve Olson's math and assumptions are right or not, it has nothing to do with the Bible. His theory is purely mathematical, and unlike genetic testing it no empirical content. As such, it would be true whether there was a biblical Adam & Eve or not. Claiming that Olson's theory proves the Adam & Eve story is like saying, "One and one are two; therefore the Bible is true."

  But most likely Olson has made a number of wrong assumptions. We know for a fact that many groups of people were extremely isolated for long periods of time, such as Andaman Islanders, Tasmanians, Tierra del Fuegans, New Guinea Highlanders, and so forth. For some critical comments on Olson's theory, look here:

  http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/03/good-and-bad-of-population-genetics-in.html

  AlanF
• 

  skeptic2

  "After reading this book and the comments made by people in it. I got the impression that they haven't the faintest idea how man got here."
  For the record, the impression you got is completely wrong, assuming by 'they' you mean anthropologists. If by 'they' you mean IDists or creationists, then your statement is probably correct.

  To find out more about the current state of knowledge concerning human evolution, without having to pay for a book, try http://www.becominghuman.org/. If you want a book, good ones are The Complete Idiots Guide to Human Prehistory and Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution.
• 

  skeptic2

  "Looks like the Bible is right after all."
  Deputy Dog - What are you referring to in the Bible that relates to the news article you posted?
• 

  Seeker4

  DD:
  This idea has nothing to do with the Bible.
  Did you fail to see this comment in the article: "...Steve Olson, whose 2002 book "Mapping Human History" traces the history of the species since its origins in Africa more than 100,000 years ago."
  Hardly supportive of the Genesis story!!
  
  Aniron:
  Were you ever in the circuit work? Your comments on evolution and the fossil record sound as ridiculous as those of a CO who visited me when I was leaving the Witnesses. A bunch of poorly informed opinions presented as though they prove some point. You also have. A very interesting. Sentence structure.
  Check out those recomended books. I love Bill Bryson's writing, by the way, though I've yet to read that particular book. Would you recommend it?
  S4
• 

  skeptic2

  Because of the small population size a few thousand years ago, people alive then have a far bigger genetic influence down the line than you or I could have given a similar amount of time.

  "But the book pointed out that all the fossils that have been found of ape/man could probably fit into the back of a Land Rover."
  Here is a good list of the major hominid fossils found to date: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html