http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests.

The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.

The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.

"This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," said Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence.

"Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."

Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.

The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa, who appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.

The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations before the Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.

Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently.

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, asked, "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"

Today, more than 6.6 billion people inhabit the globe, according to the US. Census Bureau.

The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation, the Seaver Family Foundation, Family Tree DNA and Arizona Research Labs.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html
http://anthropology.net/2008/04/25/on-mtdna-diversity-within-africa-before-the-out-of-africa-migrations/?referer=sphere_related_content

Interesting study. However human mtDNA provide only a small part of the picture. The study need to be corroboted by analysis of the human Y-DNA, and also the X-linked and autosomal portions of the human genome. Almost all the traits we have are coded by the chromosomal DNA, thus a study not including it is only a small piece of the puzzle.

@Huxley:

How does any of the above non-sense show that the origin of mankind is Africa. All you just said was quote recent past events or old untestable (or unproveable) history and mythology. The oldest of the old event in the bible/k-ran is no more than 10000 years old.

From your post on "Human being being product of incest," you claimed that by insuniation that Adam/Eve era, as the first man/woman could not have been more than 10,000 years ago. But in your introduction of this thread, above, you spoke about the tragedy that almost wiped out humans at about 70, 000 years ago.

If I just compare the two statement, it is obvious that 70,000 is way more and earlier than 10,000! Further one will see that you can have a near extinction, unless you have been existing before the contion that brought about the calamity developed. In essence, it proves that human, have been in existence over 70,000 years and Adam and Eve, their parents must hae existed much, much earlier! Or does anyone exist as a progeny earlier than their forebearers?

You can see how faulty your Atheist and Agnostics ideas are. This alone is enough for a sound mind to quit fooling himself about denial of the existence of God. When you guys can even get the timeline of human existence versus the events that happened to them correctly, without shooting yourself in the foot, you should know that its time to face reality.

olabowale:

@Huxley: From your post on "Human being being product of incest," you claimed that by insuniation that Adam/Eve era, as the first man/woman could not have been more than 10,000 years ago. But in your introduction of this thread, above, you spoke about the tragedy that almost wiped out humans at about 70, 000 years ago.

Clearly, one of your problems is comprehension of English. That can be remedied by working on your comprehension and reading and doing more analytical work.

How does any of the above non-sense show that the origin of mankind is Africa. All you just said was quote recent past events or old untestable (or unproveable) history and mythology. The oldest of the old event in the bible/k-ran is no more than 10000 years old.

You have made the gross logical error of thinking that I believe the bible/k-ran is true and historical. Far from it. These books contain very little historical facts and truths. If the oldest events in the bible is about 10000 years old (including the supposed creation), when we know from scientific evidence that the earth is about 4 billion years old, then the bible must be wrong in its dating and timing of factual events. If you had difficulties in my previous comments, let me restate it here;

The bible/k-ran is mostly mythology and is wrong in its dating of the formation of the earth and the emergence of life on the planet. So I do not see a contradiction with the current thread. It is your understanding that is screwed up.

olabowale:


If I just compare the two statement, it is obvious that 70,000 is way more and earlier than 10,000! Further one will see that you can have a near extinction, unless you have been existing before the contion that brought about the calamity developed. In essence, it proves that human, have been in existence over 70,000 years and Adam and Eve, their parents must hae existed much, much earlier! Or does anyone exist as a progeny earlier than their forebearers?

Did you read all the article? This finding is very consistent little the theory that mankind originated from Africa, rather than the Arabian desert. If there really was a biblical Adam&Eve, then the bible got the dating and location wrong as this studies show. If humans existed more than 70000 years ago, then the bible/k-ran are wrong.

olabowale:

You can see how faulty your Atheist and Agnostics ideas are. This alone is enough for a sound mind to quit fooling himself about denial of the existence of God. When you guys can even get the timeline of human existence versus the events that happened to them correctly, without shooting yourself in the foot, you should know that its time to face reality.

You are mistaken yet again. Atheism/agnosticism make no claims about human origins. In fact, you will find that some of the people championing this research are actually theists. What is study show is that the account given in the desert mythologies are wrong. It does not make any claims about the existence/non-existence of gods.

@Huxley: Whatever my problem or problems, the fact is that 70,000 years ago is much earlier than 10,000 years ago. Since you are the one who is unsettled about the existence of One God the Creator, then the place where man began its dwelling on the surface of the earth and how long man has been here, your argument turned over its head by your own posts.

If you fail in one, then there is no assurance that you are not failing in others. First, you should realise that once the land mass of the earth was not as it is now. the continental divide was nearly not in existence. You can see how part of South America fits snoggly to the western side of African coast. That should tell you something. Further middleeast was land connected to the African mass prior to Suez Canal. Your lack of putting these known facts into consideration must have a great place in your wrong conclusion about existence ofthe first man on the continent of Africa, especially since you could not provide the bondary/boarder of Africa, when man , Adam and his wife Eve appeared on earth.

To proof my point, even though it is not addressing the issue of Adam and Eve directly, but it provides a window to my statement about indistinct boarder/boundary. Bilkis, known in the Bible as Queen Sheba rules over Ethiopia in the time of King Solomon. But her burial place is in a small town outside Ijebu Ode in Ogun State of Nigeria. Now tell me how did that occur, except that her Kingdom must have extended up to the p-lace of her burial at least? Considering that there is no record that she was captured and dethrowned throughout her reign.

But very interestingly, her territory extended all the way to Yemen. This is the additional information that one will get from the Qu/r'an, which the Bible completely lacks. So much for copying from the Bible. And by the way, Huxley are you aware that Queen sheba travelled to Jerusalem to meet King Solomon? Where did she use as a route? It was never reported that she took any water routh, but a land route. Finally, the M/uslims had minor Hijra (migration), from Makka to Ethiopia, in the years before the final migration to Madina. How did they make it, except that it was by land. And just to let you know that your argument is completely deficient, is Bakassi, an island off mainland West Africa, not what Nigeria and Cameroun fought in the World Court as part of their individual territory? Is Madagascar not part of Africa?

Mr. Huxley, I am waiting for your improved understanding on the Continental boundary of Africa of Adam and Eve. Let me hear from you, Atheist/Agnostic scholar.

its amazing that we humans keep coming up with all these so-called "studies", I wonder how the research will benefit we humans. The truth is that nobody knows what happened ,

TCUBE:

its amazing that we humans keep coming up with all these so-called "studies", I wonder how the research will benefit we humans. The truth is that nobody knows what happened ,

So true. I like how some people posit ideas such as these in ways that it seems they were exactly there to see what happened and how.

TCUBE:

its amazing that we humans keep coming up with all these so-called "studies", I wonder how the research will benefit we humans. The truth is that nobody knows what happened ,

First off, there is value and virtue in (true) knowledge and it is enormously liberating. Just think about it. Do you think we would have had satellite communication today if humans still believed in biblical cosmology?

The fact that you cannot think of any practical use of this research is only a limitation of your mind and does not make the research result any less true. First, let's look at the non-practical aspects this research reveals;

1) All humans originate from Africa
2) The migratory patterns of humankind
3) The dangers the human race faces here on the planet


The practical usefulness could be as follows;

1) At a philosophical level, this result is a powerful counterpoint to arguments of racial superiority
2) Knowing the various links in our past gives us the means to develop therapies targeted at special local and regional variation of diseases.
3) The planet earth faces many cosmic threats from global warming, to asteriod impacts, to supervolcanoes etc. These threats have been know to exterminate whole plant/animal species in the past. If the human population could bounce back from a population of about 2000, then we know what it takes to keep us from being wiped out. Face with a similar problem again, I think with this konwledge we would resist the travails of nature better.

Can you think of some more?

@Huxley:

The fact that you cannot think of any practical use of this research is only a limitation of your mind and does not make the research result any less true. First, let's look at the non-practical aspects this research reveals;

1) All humans originate from Africa

How many types of humans are you talking about, except what those who belief in the existence of God call Adam and Eve and their progenies? Further, could you give us the boundary of the "Africa" you are talking about when the prior to the origination, immediately after it and just before humans began to migrate to the rest of the world. Will this Africa of yours exclude the land that is now cut off from the larger land mass that remain, after the SUEZ Canal was constructed?

2) The migratory patterns of humankind
3) The dangers the human race faces here on the planet

And the migratory patterns of man is really your concern? But fail to even acknowledge the existence of God Who created them, shephard them and gave them survival knowledge to outsmart the more fiarce animals and harsh climate which could have easily doomed this specie known as human. Yet you do not see that humans are their own worse enemies. The animals have not been able to conquer man. But man have been able to conquer man and creat calamitous condition for himself. Part of it is arrogance of knowledge. You have actually exibited that here. All those who deny the existence of God can do is to postulate hypothesis, which they prematurely call theories. And in time when the theory fails, they will shift the goal yet again.

The practical usefulness could be as follows;

1) At a philosophical level, this result is a powerful counterpoint to arguments of racial superiority

Is this your concern really? Let me assure you that no one will be spared of death and consequently of judgement day based on race. But you live in England. How do you cope with the colonizers who you are in their mist? Take heart, man.

2) Knowing the various links in our past gives us the means to develop therapies targeted at special local and regional variation of diseases.

Could anything be enviromental? If there is, then your link hypothesis dies off. Here in America, the Children of the Fulanis or the Asiatic Indians are now meatier, unlike their parents who may gain so flesh, but still lighter weight than somebody in their normal body frame, who are indegenous Americans. The result of this change is simply because of more nourishing food, etc.

3) The planet earth faces many cosmic threats from global warming, to asteriod impacts, to supervolcanoes etc. These threats have been know to exterminate whole plant/animal species in the past. If the human population could bounce back from a population of about 2000, then we know what it takes to keep us from being wiped out. Face with a similar problem again, I think with this konwledge we would resist the travails of nature better.

It is mankind, in his arrogance is the one spelling his own perulous end. Come to think of it, could lack of belief in God be one of man's greatest calamities? Of course. But God is so powerful that He brought about mankind from a single sould, yet before this soul was nothing but dirt/soil.

Can you think of some more?

olabowale:

@Huxley: How many types of humans are you talking about, except what those who belief in the existence of God call Adam and Eve and their progenies? Further, could you give us the boundary of the "Africa" you are talking about when the prior to the origination, immediately after it and just before humans began to migrate to the rest of the world. Will this Africa of yours exclude the land that is now cut off from the larger land mass that remain, after the SUEZ Canal was constructed?



And the migratory patterns of man is really your concern? But fail to even acknowledge the existence of God Who created them, shephard them and gave them survival knowledge to outsmart the more fiarce animals and harsh climate which could have easily doomed this specie known as human. Yet you do not see that humans are their own worse enemies. The animals have not been able to conquer man. But man have been able to conquer man and creat calamitous condition for himself. Part of it is arrogance of knowledge. You have actually exibited that here. All those who deny the existence of God can do is to postulate hypothesis, which they prematurely call theories. And in time when the theory fails, they will shift the goal yet again.

Is this your concern really? Let me assure you that no one will be spared of death and consequently of judgement day based on race. But you live in England. How do you cope with the colonizers who you are in their mist? Take heart, man.



Could anything be enviromental? If there is, then your link hypothesis dies off. Here in America, the Children of the Fulanis or the Asiatic Indians are now meatier, unlike their parents who may gain so flesh, but still lighter weight than somebody in their normal body frame, who are indegenous Americans. The result of this change is simply because of more nourishing food, etc.



It is mankind, in his arrogance is the one spelling his own perulous end. Come to think of it, could lack of belief in God be one of man's greatest calamities? Of course. But God is so powerful that He brought about mankind from a single sould, yet before this soul was nothing but dirt/soil.

Can you think of some more?

The foregoing is all rubbish; not a singe modicum of sense in it. To ask a slightly different question:

Given the various creation myths (the African, Australian Aboriginal, Native America, Jewish, Babylonian, etc) which one should one believe and why?

@Huxley: Your only escape route is to label whatever is beyond your grasp, rubbish.

Now tell me how did creation of things all happened, Mr. big bang theory? I guess we will never know how the matter in the theory came to place and how the force came into being for the Bang? Can you expalin that?

I am sure that everyone in your family look s exactly like the next person in family? That includes the gender, uh? Think man and your question above about the aborigine, etc, including african is rendered useless.

@olabowale

What are we talking about? Don't waste your time on this dumb ass. He is only projecting is own inner sense of desperation and loss.
The dude slept on the wrong side last night? hahaha, ;p

The buttom line is that the quest for knowledge is driving the human race nutts,

TCUBE:

The buttom line is that the quest for knowledge is driving the human race nutts,

Just imagine, if human had not quested for knowledge about the following;

Malaria,
snake venom,
tuberculosis,
Water cycle,
Nitrogen cycle,
DNA,
Germs,
Sewage treatment,
Radio-activity,
Electronics, electricity and magnetism,
Geology,
physics and cosmology,

What sort of world we would be living in today? Would you prefer to live in a world without the fruits of these quests?

I do not agree with Huxley on his non-belief in God. However to label him dumb is not the way to discuss. I am not sure if some of the discussants are scientists (particularly with experience with the DNA). Although he seems to overinterpret the data to suit his atheism, the data he presents have scientific validity. If a scientific discovery contradict widely held religious beliefs, there appear to be three options (1) The scientific discovery is flawed, (2) the widely held religious beliefs are flawed, and (3) both the scientific discovery and the religious beliefs are flawed. There is enough genetic and fossil evidence to show that the physical body of the the present humans can be traced back to a cluster inhabiting the African continent between 150000 and 200000 years ago. What is however unknown is wheather that cluster originated from Africa only, or that their is parrallel origin in other parts of the world or even a mixture of the two models. I specifically state the human body because the body can be studied by scientific technigues but the real man, the spirit that activates the body cannot be studied by scientific technique. `The human spirit is a "direct" creation of God, it is spiritual and as such it is not subject to biological evolution. The human body or more precisely its template, the DNA is a product of biological evolution. The human specie has been on earth for atleast 200000 years, probably millions of years.

m_nwankwo:

I do not agree with Huxley on his non-belief in God. However to label him dumb is not the way to discuss. I am not sure if some of the discussants are scientists (particularly with experience with the DNA). Although he seems to overinterpret the data to suit his atheism, the data he presents have scientific validity. If a scientific discovery contradict widely held religious beliefs, there appear to be three options (1) The scientific discovery is flawed, (2) the widely held religious beliefs are flawed, and (3) both the scientific discovery and the religious beliefs are flawed. There is enough genetic and fossil evidence to show that the physical body of the the present humans can be traced back to a cluster inhabiting the African continent between 150000 and 200000 years ago. What is however unknown is wheather that cluster originated from Africa only, or that their is parrallel origin in other parts of the world or even a mixture of the two models. I specifically state the human body because the body can be studied by scientific technigues but the real man, the spirit that activates the body cannot be studied by scientific technique. `The human spirit is a "direct" creation of God, it is spiritual and as such it is not subject to biological evolution. The human body or more precisely its template, the DNA is a product of biological evolution. The human specie has been on earth for atleast 200000 years, probably millions of years.

I was not even making a case for atheism with this thread. If anything, I was making a case for the falsehood of the biblical account. If the genesis account is not literally true as given, how do we know which way to re-interpret in? Should we be guided by scientific data in our understanding of "scriptures". As every good scientist knows, scientific discoveries are an approximation of the truth and are accepted in the scientific community only tentatively. But that does not mean that the direction of truth knowledge cannot be known.

Think about it; Which is the most like of these?

1) Germs causes diseases OR miasma causes disease?
2) Hereditary traits are transmitted via gene/DNA OR via food/water/air?
3) The earth revolves around the sun OR the sun revolves around the earth?

For each of the above, do you think there is likely to be an overwhelming rejection of the current scientific consensus?

m_nwankwo you raise an important point about this issue of human spirit. At what point in the developing zygote does the spirit become infused into the developing cells?

If such spirit-infused cells were to be aborted either naturally or artificially, could it be said to be "human"?

Is the "spirit" part of what constitute consciousness?

Where did you get this informations and how could it be verified? Is it biblical?

@Huxley

What is true cannot be contradicted by past, present or future scientific development. Science has the capacity to verify things connected with matter. T

@Huxley

What is true cannot be contradicted by past, present or future scientific development. Science has the capacity to verify things connected with matter. Thus if religion makes a claim of an event that happened materially, then science will now or in the future authenticate or disaprove of such claims. I do not want to be drawn into the falsehood or otherwise of the bible or any other sacred texts. The much that I can say is that whatever is of God cannot be contradicted by past, present or future discoveries. If such contradictions are exhaustively proven to exist, then such religious claims are purely the postulations of men which they ascribed to God. Neither science nor anything else will contradict the truth, that is a relaible yardstick by which what is of God is separated from what is of man. Now to the answers to the questions you raised

1. Germs cause some of the disesases especially infectious diseases

2. Hereditary traits are transmitted via the genes

3. The earth revolves around the sun

4. The spirit is connected with the zygote from conception, that is, at fertilization, thus from the point of fertilization, the developing zygote or mass of cells as you call it is human.

5. The spirit is independent of the brain counsciousness. Thus the spirit is not part of counsciousness rather the brain and its associated counsciousness is the instrument that the spirit uses to navigate and experience in matter.

6. I get the information from the book "In the Light of Truth-The Grail Message" My experiencing of this book for years has also enabled me to have personal experience of some of the things I post. Thanks.

m_nwankwo:

@Huxley

What is true cannot be contradicted by past, present or future scientific development. Science has the capacity to verify things connected with matter. T

How then do you know what is true? If an Eastern "spiritualist" came to you talked about Yin & Yang, Karma, etc. Are these truths or would you dismiss their claims?

Yes, science is necessarily naturalistic and cannot investigate the supernatural.

I would be much obliged if you could answer the questions I posed above. I will restate them here again;

1) At what point in the developing zygote does the spirit become infused into the developing cells?

2) If such spirit-infused cells were to be aborted either naturally or artificially, could it be said to be "human"?

3) Is the "spirit" part of what constitute consciousness?

4) Where did you get this informations and how could it be verified? Is it biblical?

m_nwankwo:

@Huxley

What is true cannot be contradicted by past, present or future scientific development. Science has the capacity to verify things connected with matter. Thus if religion makes a claim of an event that happened materially, then science will now or in the future authenticate or disaprove of such claims. I do not want to be drawn into the falsehood or otherwise of the bible or any other sacred texts. The much that I can say is that whatever is of God cannot be contradicted by past, present or future discoveries. If such contradictions are exhaustively proven to exist, then such religious claims are purely the postulations of men which they ascribed to God. Neither science nor anything else will contradict the truth, that is a relaible yardstick by which what is of God is separated from what is of man. Now to the answers to the questions you raised

1. Germs cause some of the disesases especially infectious diseases

2. Hereditary traits are transmitted via the genes

3. The earth revolves around the sun

4. The spirit is connected with the zygote from conception, that is, at fertilization, thus from the point of fertilization, the developing zygote or mass of cells as you call it is human.

5. The spirit is independent of the brain counsciousness. Thus the spirit is not part of counsciousness rather the brain and its associated counsciousness is the instrument that the spirit uses to navigate and experience in matter.

6. I get the information from the book "In the Light of Truth-The Grail Message" My experiencing of this book for years has also enabled me to have personal experience of some of the things I post. Thanks.

Ok, so you are agreed that the scientific facts I list above are very unlikely to be overturned wholesale. If anything, new scientific discoveries are only like to add weight to these and provide further refinements to their theories.

4. The spirit is connected with the zygote from conception, that is, at fertilization, thus from the point of fertilization, the developing zygote or mass of cells as you call it is human.

Curious about this one. If a fertilised egg has a spirit, did this spirit come from the sperm or the egg or from the spirit world?

Do you know how many fertilised eggs are lost naturally from the woman's womb very year? They run into the hundred of millions. Are you saying that all of these "humans" are purge from this life by their creator God even before they have the chance of a life?

@m_nwankwo: What is interesting about you, is that you are neither here or there. You fluctuate between incomplete belief in the ability of One true God, at least in your tieing Jesus to be equal or son, and even the "holy ghost," which can not properly defined. Jesus was not more than a mere human being, regardless of his birth process. It is your lack of complete belief of that One God, that has led you to the idea that the religious beliefs maybe flawed, because you can see a Scientific process that proof some kinda "cluster group" human ascensory. I guess you are isolating Science away from religion.

That maybe true, in the case of Christianity and Judaism. It is very cleart hat a scientist should not necessarily be a true believer in God, based on the scientific knowledge he has. And those who truly believe in One God should not be true scientists. Both statements, I draw from your post above. Unfortunately, you have no inkling of Is/lam. You would have recognised that Religion and Science and all branches of knowledge are not in disagreement at all.The very first revelation to Mu/h/ammad (as) consisted of 5 short verses. In them knowledge was commanded. Investigation was commanded. Human creation was commanded. Teaching was commanded. In all of these God is placed at the center.



For if it was not by the mercy of God on mankind, there would not have been an allowance for knowledge and discovery of things. I could present a long thesis about God to you, and in it I will disregard all others as having no power of their own, individually and or cumulatively comparitively to God. Afterall, M/u/hammad had to die like every human, based on what the Qu/r'an states. Jesus will have to return and dies like what is expected of "son of man!" Moses who ost heard the voice of God, without Angel as the carrier of the speech died. And so was Ibrahim (as) who is known as friend of All/ah. Noah died, even though he was saved from a perulios flood. Eve died who was was the first to be created genetically. Adam (as) died who was the first to evolve in an evolutionary way from admixture of soil and water.


All of these will happen, and all animals will die. The Angels will all die, including Michael, Gabreil, Angel of death, etc. Satan the Jinn that tormented and seduced mankind so much from the comandments of A/lla/h in varied degrees will die. All that will remain is God Almighty Himself. And there will be recreation by Him of all things for Judgement day.

Yet, in all of these above, you still cling to "cluster group" first human idea, instead of isolated single Adam, and the Eve from them all clear sign? This is why I said you are neither here nor there; never a believer in truth in how you orientate your idea.

For the fun of it, please tell me how did your cluster group of first human happen? And why has not been a repeat of it since? Finally, how do belief that the Soul is from God, not an evolutionary substance? But the body of man is evolutionary, yet both combined to form the man alive, whereas God said that He created man uniquely and not from evolutionary form? Don't you know that God created everything, unique and not evolutionary from other creations? The lack of undertanding of the complete ability of God to do this, is why you are truly in doubt of the Power and Might of Him.

Interesting study. However human mtDNA provide only a small part of the picture. The study need to be corroboted by analysis of the human Y-DNA, and also  the X-linked and autosomal portions of the human genome.

@ nwankwo
Yeah , I agree it would be much more convincing if all the different genetic elements in the human genome were used to corroborate this study. However, this might not be easily tractable. The mitochondrial DNA provides an excellent system to go back in time since it is transmitted only through females. So theoretically, You can trace back the origin of this DNA all the way to one woman. I think their rationale for the most part is logical and that in itself is actually very, very interesting.

For the use of the Y-chromosome,
I don't know if it can be used to actually trace back our evolutionary roots. I am at loss at how that is possible. I can imagine using the Y-chromosome to study divergent evolution i.e how and where we became different but it would be a little challenging to use it to study convergent evolution i.e where and how we originated. The genome had undergone a lot of changes (recombination , polymormpism etc) during time and tho these differences are a good tool box to study our differences and thus relate it to our evolution, those differences would be a stumbling back if we want to go back all the way in time. For that u might want to need a genetic element that had been stably passed down from generation to generation with very little changes. The maternal mitochondrial DNA is the closest that we have gotten to that kind of genetic element.

@Huxley
Science in my understanding is simply investigating the laws of God as it manifests in matter. There are possibly two types of scientists: One type investigates the laws of nature and sees these laws of nature as an end in itself and do not boarder to investigate how these laws and its manifestations came into being in the first place. The second group investigates the laws of Nature and the origin of these laws and I belong to this second group.  

1. Huxley, the spirit is not material, and it did not come from the sperm or the egg. The spirit is spiritual and belong to what you refered in your penultimate post as "supernatural"

2. The only way a fertilized eggs can be lost naturally is through miscarriages. I have not seen evidence that miscarriages are so prevalent among women. What is more common are embryoes discarded as a result of invitro fertlization, embrayo screening, abortion and similar man made procedures which mocks at the sacredness of life.  God does not cause misscarriages. There are several biological and spiritual reasons why a misscarriage can occure but that is not the purpose of our discussion.

@Uche2nna,

Thanks for your informative post. The Y-DNA can be used to trace paternal ancestry, just like the mtDNA is used to trace maternal ancestry. It is not the entire loci in the Y-chromosome that is used, but some sections of it. These sections often refered as the Y-DNA is passed on from fathers to sons from generation to generation unmodified. Like the mtDNA, the Y-DNA are generally not subject to recombination. Any phylogenetic studies must be done with markers that show little or no recombination. Stay blessed.

@Olabowale,

Your inference from my posting is not correct. Science is a creation of God and can actually lead the scientist who looks deeper to the recognition of God. I can discuss with you and exhuatively explain all the issues you have raised. The problem is that you seem not to focus on the topic and always redirect the discussion into Trinity and evolution. Of course if you really want us to discuss these issues exhuustively, then contact me by email, and we can then exchange phone contacts and talk in details on these issues. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

@Olabowale,

Your inference from my posting is not correct. Science is a creation of God and can actually lead the scientist who looks deeper to the recognition of God. I can discuss with you and exhuatively explain all the issues you have raised. The problem is that you seem not to focus on the topic and always redirect the discussion into Trinity and evolution. Of course if you really want us to discuss these issues exhuustively, then contact me by email, and we can then exchange phone contacts and talk in details on these issues. Stay blessed.

I want to believe that too

m_nwankwo:

@Huxley
Science in my understanding is simply investigating the laws of God as it manifests in matter. There are possibly two types of scientists: One type investigates the laws of nature and sees these laws of nature as an end in itself and do not boarder to investigate how these laws and its manifestations came into being in the first place. The second group investigates the laws of Nature and the origin of these laws and I belong to this second group.

1. Huxley, the spirit is not material, and it did not come from the sperm or the egg. The spirit is spiritual and belong to what you refered in your penultimate post as "supernatural"

2. The only way a fertilized eggs can be lost naturally is through miscarriages. I have not seen evidence that miscarriages are so prevalent among women. What is more common are embryoes discarded as a result of invitro fertlization, embrayo screening, abortion and similar man made procedures which mocks at the sacredness of life. God does not cause misscarriages. There are several biological and spiritual reasons why a misscarriage can occure but that is not the purpose of our discussion.

Check out the following article from the New Scientist Gillian Bentley,

Gillian Bentley is a Royal Society research fellow in the Department of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge.


WOMEN'S fertility has been hitting the national news in the past few weeks as a storm of debate and moral outrage has descended on reproductive clinicians and their patients. The first story concerned the law requiring fertility clinics to destroy unclaimed frozen human embryos after five years of storage. This was followed by two stories about a woman's right to selectively abort fetuses in a multiple pregnancy.

But while the media debates the sanctity of embryonic life, women lose fertilised eggs through spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, every single day. And they are lost in vastly greater number than those embryos lost through either intentional thawing or elective abortions.

Normal human reproductive processes might appear extraordinarily wasteful since they involve discarding embryos and fetuses at rates that would alarm the least conscientious of objectors debating the morality of abortion and reproductive technologies. These physiological processes are, however, the result of long-term evolution designed to optimise the production of viable offspring. Surely most of our conscious human reproductive decisions, whether storing frozen embryos or selective abortions, have the same end in mind?

Despite our burgeoning numbers, human reproduction is a random process requiring an excess of gamete and embryo production. In the fragile biological endeavour to produce a viable fetus, eggs and embryos are lost every day on a scale that staggers the imagination. Even before birth humans are endowed with copious, even profligate, amounts of gametes.

So, at about the twentieth week of gestation, a female fetus has as many as 7 million potential eggs in her ovaries, but these begin to die off naturally through a process called atresia. At birth there are only about 2 million of these incipient eggs left, and at puberty between 300 000 and 400 000. (Among Western women, only about 300 to 400 of these eggs are ever ovulated and an average 2.2 children born.) These astounding numbers represent about one egg lost per woman every four minutes. The greatest loss of eggs, then, takes place even before a woman is born. Of course, males also lose sperm cells at phenomenal rates: roughly 1000-plus sperm per second are produced from puberty onwards and millions of sperm either go to waste after ejaculation or remain in the testes until they die. The reason for this apparent excess is that humans are a relatively infertile species compared with most other mammals. At best, only 20 per cent of couples will conceive in any given month of trying.

On top of this at least 30 per cent of all fertilised eggs are miscarried before they implant in the uterus. In such cases, most women would not have realised they were pregnant, even though the embryo may have reached around 100 cells, well beyond the four-cell legal maximum permitted for frozen embryos. Beyond these early spontaneous abortions, about 15 per cent of all clinically recognised pregnancies end in miscarriage, or fetal resorption in some cases. For women over 35, rates increase to 20 per cent and are even higher among older women.

The majority of these miscarriages occur during the first three months of a pregnancy, the same period during which most elective abortions are carried out. Many of the early spontaneous abortions occur either because of chromosomal abnormalities, or inadequate hormonal support; the embryo would therefore never survive the gestation period. Frozen embryos have even lower chances of survival. Only about 2 per cent of these when thawed are sufficiently viable to produce a live birth. A small proportion of miscarriages occur during the second and third trimesters. Prior to the advent of modern technology, most of the fetuses would not have survived.

Successful reproduction, as well as the capacity to shut down reproductive function when necessary, evolved through the body's ability to take account of human health and energy reserves, factors that have long ceased to be the only reasons for limiting our reproductive potential. Nowadays, we weigh our potential to raise children in socioeconomic terms, such as the likelihood of support from a partner, the size of our salaries and long-term employment prospects—signals which our bodies are ill-equipped to read.

Instead, the decisions we make about contraception, elective abortions, infanticide (in some cultures), and reproductive technologies have superimposed themselves on our evolutionary make-up, together with all their emotional baggage. So legal rulings, such as whether unclaimed frozen embryos should be destroyed, continue the long social evolution by which conscious human decisions about the limits of human reproduction are being called upon to replace what were formerly unconscious decisions made at a physiological level.

The current furore does, however, remind us that society remains unable to deal with the moral responsibility of these conscious decisions despite the fact that major reproductive losses occur naturally every day. Yet these losses are not perceived as immoral or unjust. We generally accept them as part of a natural process.

Why can't we view our conscious decisions in this light? How will we deal with developments that further tax the limits of our moral horizons? We may, for example, soon harvest the eggs of fetal ovaries to help infertile women produce children. Indeed, it's uncertain that we will ever completely resolve the ethical arguments surrounding these new technologies given the diversity of human thought. But our own physiology provides an instructive example of just how we might do so.

Gillian Bentley is a Royal Society research fellow in the Department of Biological Anthropology at the University of Cambridge.


Source: The NewScientist http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120456.100-forum--doing-what-comes-naturally.html

My email is aqeedahfirst@yahoo.com

My skype address is lfhb_maw

@Huxley,

I have read the article you posted. It is not a scientific paper but rather the opinion of the author. Inspite of that I will address the points raised.

1. Preccursor cells that will finally devlope into mature eggs are not mature eggs. Therefore it is false to say that millions of eggs are destroyed even before a foetus is born. Both cell death and cell proliferation are normal physiological processes in a living organism. I am sure even the author is aware that he cannot equate mature eggs to precursor egg cells. The author recognised this and labelled them as "potential eggs" Having already recognised that potential egg is not a mature egg, it is an irony to then state that millions of eggs are destroyed during embrogenesis, birth and development.

2. A mature egg or a mature sperm remain gametes in so far as fertilization has not taken place. A human spirit cannot connect with either a mature egg or a mature sperm. It can only connect with a fertilized egg. In simple language, neither the sperm or the egg is human but a fertilized egg is human. Thus the reabsorbtion of unused sperm or the decomposition of an unused egg (menstruation) are biolgical processes. God designed the human body that way. However, once fertilzation has taken place, that ball of cells is not just a biological entity, it has the breath of God, the spirit pulsating through it. It is human and has a right to life like any other person. Even at the moment of conception, it is possible for those blessed with "X-ray" eyes to see the connection between the inhabiting spirit and the fertilized ovum.

3. I question the study that claim that 30% of fertilized eggs are lost before implantation take place. I will like to know the sample size for such a study, the age of participants, their race, predisposing factors like smoking, alcoholism, their medical history etc. It only when these are provided can a deduction be made.

4. Sponteneous miscarriges can happen for a variety of biological and spiritual reasons. However what ever is the prevailing biolgical or spiritual reasons, God is not the cause. If we follow Gods law in our spiritual and biological life, then misscariges, diseases and much of what torments us today will cease to exist.

@Olabowale

My e-mail address is on my profile.

@ huxley and nwankwo
Interesting discussion !!!

Correct me if I am wrong, I thot the controversy about this whole in vitro stuff was built around fertilized eggs as opposed to gametes.

m_nwankwo:

@Huxley,

I have read the article you posted. It is not a scientific paper but rather the opinion of the author. Inspite of that I will address the points raised.

1. Preccursor cells that will finally devlope into mature eggs are not mature eggs. Therefore it is false to say that millions of eggs are destroyed even before a foetus is born. Both cell death and cell proliferation are normal physiological processes in a living organism. I am sure even the author is aware that he cannot equate mature eggs to precursor egg cells. The author recognised this and labelled them as "potential eggs" Having already recognised that potential egg is not a mature egg, it is an irony to then state that millions of eggs are destroyed during embrogenesis, birth and development.

2. A mature egg or a mature sperm remain gametes in so far as fertilization has not taken place. A human spirit cannot connect with either a mature egg or a mature sperm. It can only connect with a fertilized egg. In simple language, neither the sperm or the egg is human but a fertilized egg is human. Thus the reabsorbtion of unused sperm or the decomposition of an unused egg (menstruation) are biolgical processes. God designed the human body that way. However, once fertilzation has taken place, that ball of cells is not just a biological entity, it has the breath of God, the spirit pulsating through it. It is human and has a right to life like any other person. Even at the moment of conception, it is possible for those blessed with "X-ray" eyes to see the connection between the inhabiting spirit and the fertilized ovum.

3. I question the study that claim that 30% of fertilized eggs are lost before implantation take place. I will like to know the sample size for such a study, the age of participants, their race, predisposing factors like smoking, alcoholism, their medical history etc. It only when these are provided can a deduction be made.

4. Sponteneous miscarriges can happen for a variety of biological and spiritual reasons. However what ever is the prevailing biolgical or spiritual reasons, God is not the cause. If we follow Gods law in our spiritual and biological life, then misscariges, diseases and much of what torments us today will cease to exist.

There is a lot of scientific evidence on the side of a very high natural miscarriage rate. Check out the articles and links below. This can only mean that if all these death is god's plan, then he must be killing between 30 and 60 million humans worldwide yearly. This would really be atrocious. Do you want to make your good god responsible for these deaths?

===============================================================================


http://www.gloriaspregnancyinfo.com/pregnancy_complications/understanding_miscarriage.html

Understanding Miscarriage & Coping With Pregnancy Loss
Understanding Miscarriage imageIf you are visiting this section, chances are that you have recently had the terrible misfortune of losing a baby to miscarriage or being born still. First of all, we wish to extend our deepest and most heartfelt condolences if this is the case.

This section is dedicated to assisting women experiencing a miscarriage, trying to conceive again, or are pregnant after enduring a loss or losses. The ultimate goal is to provide women with a haven of comfort and support that they generally cannot find in their local communities or workplaces.

Women who have undergone a miscarriage are usually faced with insensitive and sometimes well-meaning people who say the wrong things. Women who are grieving the loss of their babies experience disapproval, or worse yet, silence from those whom they thought they could trust to understand their pain. This web site exists to provide the understanding that these women need.

What is a miscarriage?

Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. About 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks. This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before you get a positive pregnancy test. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman finds out she's pregnant, because they happen so early that she goes on to get her period about on time. If you lose a baby after 20 weeks of pregnancy, it's called a stillbirth.

What can cause a miscarriage?
Between 50 and 70 percent of first trimester miscarriages are thought to be random events caused by chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg. Most often, this means that the egg or sperm had the wrong number of chromosomes, and as a result, the fertilized egg can't develop normally.

In other cases, a miscarriage is caused by problems that occur during the delicate process of early development — for example, when an egg doesn't implant properly in the uterus or an embryo has structural defects that don't allow it to continue developing. Since most healthcare practitioners won't do a full-scale workup after a single miscarriage, it's usually impossible to tell why the pregnancy was lost. And even when a detailed evaluation is performed — say after you've had two or three consecutive miscarriages — the cause still remains unknown in about half of cases.

When the fertilized egg has chromosomal problems, you may end up with what's sometimes called a blighted ovum (now usually referred to in medical circles as an early pregnancy failure). In this case, the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and the placenta and gestational sac begin to develop, but the resulting embryo either stops developing very early or doesn't form at all. Because the placenta begins to secrete hormones, you'll get a positive pregnancy test and may have early pregnancy symptoms, but an ultrasound will show an empty gestational sac. In other cases, the embryo does develop for a little while but has abnormalities that make survival impossible, and development stops before the heart starts beating.

Once your baby has a heartbeat, which is usually visible on a ultrasound at around 6 weeks, your odds of having a miscarriage drop significantly.

How to cope after having a miscarriage
Coping with miscarriage is a very personal experience that every woman will do differently. Also it will depend on the gestational age of the baby before the miscarriage. Some women form a bond with their unborn child immediately upon the news that they are pregnant, while others only do when signs and symptoms of pregnancy begin.
It's My Fault - While coping with miscarriage many women believe that it is their fault that they miscarried. Many women will even feel that they are inadequate as a woman because they must be "defective" if they can not carry a pregnancy to term. While other women will wonder what they have done to deserve such a devastating experience.

* It is not your fault! Approximately 40% of miscarriages have no medical explanation for their occurences. Also 50-60% of first trimester and 20% of second trimester miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormatlities within the fetus.

Anger - Anger is a completely normal feeling during the process of coping with miscarriage. Women can feel anger towards God for "letting this happen", medical field for not preventing the miscarriage, anger towards others who are pregnant or have children, and even their significant other for not coping with miscarriage the way they think they should.

* Anger is expected during the process of coping with miscarriage. Just understand that the anger is about the pregnancy loss and not having control over this devastating experience.
* Be nice to your signifigant other because it's not their fault either and they may be hurting on the inside but may have trouble showing it on the outside.

Feeling of Depression - This feeling if it occurs has different severity for each person coping with miscarriage. However, a minority of women actually develop actual depression. Women may find themselves crying at odd times, not wanting to get out of bed at times, and feeling of hopelessness.

* These are all normal feelings of grief. It is okay to cry and is actually healthy to cry. However, if these syptoms interfere with the woman's daily life after several weeks she may need to find addtional support through professional counseling, church, or family and friends.

I will never get pregnant again or I am afraid to get pregnant again - While coping with miscarriage it is only natural to feel that it may happen again to you. Especially when a lot of women try for a long time to get pregnant and then this devastating experience occurs.

* 90% of women who experience a miscarriage with the first pregnancy will have a successful second pregnancy. Do not give up hope while coping with miscarriage and allow yourself to grieve but do not loose the hope of having children some day.
* Also realize that all women are afraid when they get pregnant again after a miscarriage. So do your best and try not to worry about "what if it happens again".

Conceiving after a miscarriage
Conceiving after miscarriage creates different feelings for each woman as well as differences among women and men. There are a lot of questions and fears that have to be addressed before most women feel that they are ready to attempt conceiving after miscarriage. Some women want to attempt conceiving after miscarriage right away while others want nothing to do with conceiving after miscarriage. It is a long road that no one can understand but the woman and man who are going through the miscarriage experience.
How long will the bleeding last after a miscarriage? Most women want to know how long they will have vaginal bleeding before they even think about conceiving after miscarriage. While this will vary from woman to woman, most women have vaginal bleeding for 4-5 days up to 2 weeks. However, if someone experiences a third trimester loss they may have vaginal bleeding up to 6 weeks. It is important that during that time the woman does not place anything within the vagina (no intercourse, no douching, no tampons).

* Allow this time to let your body heal and cope with the loss you have just had.

No desire for sex - There are a lot of women who are left with no desire to have sex after a miscarriage which makes conceiving after miscarriage extremely difficult. Many women state that it reminds them to much of their unborn child and / or the miscarriage experience. Also many women agree that they are afraid of conceiving after miscarriage and having another miscarrige. Some women even admit that they do not feel that they are adequate enough as a woman since they can not carry a pregnancy to term. Many women's feelings of inadequancy leads them to feel sexually unattractive.

* Allow your body and mind to heal before you consider conceiving after miscarriage. If sex is to painful then you must communicate that to your partner and try to make them understand it is still to difficult of a time. In time it will get easier and you will find that you want to become intimate again and conceiving after miscarriage is what you may want.
* Also when you do attempt conceiving after miscarriage remember that 90% of women who have had one miscarriage have a successful next pregnancy, and even 60% of women who have had two miscarriages have a successful next pregnancy.

Desire to get pregnant right away - The desire to immediately attempt conceiving after miscarriage is a common feeling. A lot of women just really want to have a child and do not want to wait a few months before they attempt conceiving after miscarriage. It truly comes down to how you are dealing with your miscarriage. No one knows their body better than a woman does, so if she feels she is ready to attempt conceiving after miscarriagte then try.

* It truly is up to the woman when she wants to attempt conceiving after miscarriage. However, make sure you have had time to mourn and cope with your loss and prepare your mind and body for pregnancy again before you attempt conceiving after miscarriage.
* It is a good idea to at least wait until you have one normal menstrual cycle to allow your body to prepare itself for conceiving after miscarriage. Some physcians even say that you should wait for three menstrual cycles before you attempt conceiving after miscarriage. This is truly a decision that should be left up to the couple trying to attempt conceiving after miscarriage.

Not getting pregnant while trying - Many couples want to get pregnant right away the first time they try conceiving after miscarriage. The stress and emotions that will occur during this time is extremely difficult. Each month when a woman begins her menstrual cycle she will be reminded of the miscarriage and that she is not pregnant now when she should be. Most women agree that after they stopped timing and planning the sex and just let it happen they became pregnant.

* Do not plan to get pregnant immediately after you decide to attempt conceiving after miscarriage. The stress of wanting to be pregnant will definately hinder the intimate sexual contact and make sex no longer enjoyable and more like a job.
* The best way to get pregnant is have sex everyother day between the tenth and eighteenth day of the woman's menstrual cycle. However, be spontaneous and make it romantic and enjoyable.

The fear of having another miscarriage - Once a woman experiences a micarriage that fear of it happening again will be with her for every pregnancy there after. No one can understand the feeling of this fear except for someone who has experienced a miscarriage themselves and have been successful conceiving after miscarriage.

* Do not be surprised at how scared you are once you become pregnant. It is natural to have this feeling and most women will have this fear for every additional pregnancy no matter how long ago the miscarriage was.
* Be honest to your husband or loved one because they will not understand how you are feeling, even after you have one successful pregnancy.

More to come on Understanding Miscarriage,

===================================================================================
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/miscarriage.html?pageNum=2

About miscarriage

A miscarriage is a pregnancy that ends before the fetus is considered “viable” (before 20 weeks of gestation). A fetus is viable if it can live outside the mother’s womb. Pregnancy losses after the 20th week of gestation are known as preterm deliveries.

Womb

A woman’s reproductive system includes the uterus, cervix, two ovaries, two fallopian tubes and the vagina. The fallopian tubes are narrow tubes that connect the ovaries to the uterus. Once a month, an egg is released by one of the ovaries, and travels down the fallopian tube, where it may be fertilized by sperm.

Once the egg and sperm join, they rapidly begin to develop new cells. This bundle of cells, called the embryo, normally implants on the inner wall of the uterus. Once implanted, the embryo continues to grow inside a sac of amniotic fluid, contained within the placenta. After several weeks, the embryo is called a fetus.

In a miscarriage, the woman’s body expels all or some of the fetus, the placenta and the fluid surrounding the fetus. The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. It is also referred as early pregnancy loss.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), up to 50 percent of all fertilized eggs die and are spontaneously aborted, usually before a woman even realizes that she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 25 percent, according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Miscarriage usually occurs between the 7th and 12th week of pregnancy (during the first trimester).


In many cases, chromosomal abnormalities in the fertilized egg prevent it from developing normally and the pregnancy terminates naturally. Typically, such problems are the result of errors that occur by chance as the embryo divides and grows.

In other cases, complications may occur during the delicate process of early human development that may prevent an embryo from continuing gestation. For example, the egg may not implant properly in the uterus or the embryo may have structural defects that do not allow it to continue growing inside the mother’s uterus (womb).

In all cases, spontaneous expulsion of the pregnancy is preceded by death of the embryo or fetus. Sometimes a miscarriage may be accompanied by an infection in the uterus (septic miscarriage). This is a serious condition that can result in shock and organ failure, which requires prompt medical treatment.

When a woman experiences the loss of two or more consecutive pregnancies in the first or second trimester OR the loss of three or more pregnancies before 20 weeks gestation, she is experiencing recurrent miscarriage. Other terms for this condition include: recurrent spontaneous miscarriage, recurrent spontaneous abortion and recurrent pregnancy loss.

According to the ASRM, less than 5 percent of women will experience two consecutive miscarriages, and only 1 percent will experience three or more miscarriages.

A woman who experiences recurrent miscarriage is typically subject to more diagnostic tests than a woman who has a single, first trimester miscarriage. However, in 50 to 75 percent of couples who experience recurrent miscarriage, no explanation is found, according to the ASRM. Treatment options for recurrent miscarriages depend on the cause of the miscarriages and usually differ from standard miscarriage treatment options.

Couples may be comforted to know that, according to the ASRM, pregnancy is successful in 60 to 70 percent of women who experience unexplained recurrent pregnancy losses.
===================================================================================
http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/emotional-life/grief-and-loss/coping-with-a-miscarriage.aspx
http://www.babycenter.com/0_understanding-miscarriage_252.bc;jsessionid=D77CC1245A97520B480B0A92C74C9790.02-08?print=true
http://www.scrippshealth.org/News.asp?ID=271
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/miscarriage.html?pageNum=2