The Barbarian

As an engineer, perhaps you'd be interested in an engineer's look at nature and how it works: Adrian Bejan is a Romanian-American professor who has made contributions to modern thermodynamics and developed what he calls the constructal law. He is J. A. Jones Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Duke University[1][2] and author of the 2016 book The Physics of Life: The Evolution of Everything.[3] The constructal law was stated by Duke's Adrian Bejan in 1996 The constructal law is the law of physics that accounts for the phenomenon of evolution (configuration, form, design) throughout nature, inanimate flow systems and animate systems together. The constructal law was stated by Adrian Bejan, the J.A. Jones Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Duke University, in 1996 as follows 1,2: “For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it.” https://mems.duke.edu/research/energy-technology-and-thermodynamics/bejan-constructal-law If you're not into a lot of biological material, or complex ecology, this might be a good start: https://www.amazon.com/Design-Nature-Constructal-Technology-Organization-ebook/dp/B004YWKKC8/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=design+in+nature&qid=1583417651&sr=8-1

No, he merely noted in On the Origin of Species, that the geologic record of the time was very poorly noted, and made an important prediction: Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall attempt to show in a future chapter, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record. That prediction has been repeatedly confirmed; it's one of the reasons scientists have acknowledged the fact of common descent. Your fellow YE creationists disagree with you: Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. Dr. Todd Wood, The Truth about Evolution http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html It is now known that a large assemblage of complex animals, some with body plans previously thought to have first evolved in the Cambrian, existed long before the Cambrian. No. Punc Eek was to explain why we have abundant evidence of transitional forms above the species level, but few species-to-species transitions. Of course, if Darwinian evolution were false, we'd have no transitionals at all. Drs. Kurt Wise and Todd Wood both have very good reputations for honesty. If you know of a dishonesty by either of these gentlemen, I'd be pleased to see it.

It was meant as a compliment, not as complement. Two errors there. First Catholic doctrine remains open. One can accept or reject the evidence for evolution, and remain in good stead as a Catholic. Even if a Pope or theological commission should express an opinion, it is not doctrine unless given ex cathedra, or by the bishops in council. Second, the evidence for macroevolutionary theory, as even informed YE creationists admit, is very good. It's true that Genesis was never meant to be a scientific work, describing how God did things. But it does mention that God used nature to produce life. So there is that. That has nothing to do with evolution, of course; the Bible neither supports nor rejects evolution as the way God produced the variety of living things. We do have His word that creation is a good guide to His work: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. If you think that is so now, you have never been to a poster session at a conference of biologists, or attended readings of papers.

Perhaps we could focus on one or both of two topics you brought up, epigenetics, and information content in populations as it applies to evolution. Both are very interesting and shed considerable light on other evidence.

Here's what Gould has to say about it: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. "Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260 He recognizes that punctuated equilibrium confirms Darwin's expectation that well-adapted populations in stable environments should not change much. Hence, speciation should be relatively rapid, and generally allopatric. That is, in small, isolated populations in new environments. This is supported by Mayr's observation that aberrant populations tend to be small, and in out-of-the-way places. Hence, Gould's ire with those who misrepresent his statement. Transitional forms, as even informed YE creationists admit, are abundant.

I'm not as good as you think. This isn't my first rodeo, and the arguments you advanced here, aren't new ones. You alluded to epigenetics. Would you like to talk about that?

This guy look familiar? Vendian animal. Lots more, including tracks of multi-legged organisms.

From the link: In making this claim, Muller and Newman are careful to affirm that evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining how preexisting forms diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and variation of genetic traits. Sophisticated mathematically-based models of population genetics have proven adequate for mapping and understanding quantitative variability and populational changes in organisms. That's more the province of evolutionary development: Evolutionary developmental biology (informally, evo-devo) is a field of biological research that compares the developmental processes of different organisms to infer the ancestral relationships between them and how developmental processes evolved. The field grew from 19th-century beginnings, where embryology faced a mystery: zoologists did not know how embryonic development was controlled at the molecular level. Charles Darwin noted that having similar embryos implied common ancestry, but little progress was made until the 1970s. Then, recombinant DNA technology at last brought embryology together with molecular genetics. A key early discovery was of homeotic genes that regulate development in a wide range of eukaryotes. The field is characterised by some key concepts which took evolutionary biologists by surprise. One is deep homology, the finding that dissimilar organs such as the eyes of insects, vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, long thought to have evolved separately, are controlled by similar genes such as pax-6, from the evo-devo gene toolkit. These genes are ancient, being highly conserved among phyla; they generate the patterns in time and space which shape the embryo, and ultimately form the body plan of the organism. Another is that species do not differ much in their structural genes, such as those coding for enzymes; what does differ is the way that gene expression is regulated by the toolkit genes. These genes are reused, unchanged, many times in different parts of the embryo and at different stages of development, forming a complex cascade of control, switching other regulatory genes as well as structural genes on and off in a precise pattern. This multiple pleiotropic reuse explains why these genes are highly conserved, as any change would have many adverse consequences which natural selection would oppose. New morphological features and ultimately new species are produced by variations in the toolkit, either when genes are expressed in a new pattern, or when toolkit genes acquire additional functions. Another possibility is the Neo-Lamarckian theory that epigenetic changes are later consolidated at gene level, something that may have been important early in the history of multicellular life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_developmental_biology The toolkit shows a remarkable consistency in evolution, and this demonstrates the way many novel body plans occur. But not all of them. The deuterostome body plan was initially not at all like that of chordates (evolved deuterostomes). So how did we get from sessile, rounded tunicates (sea squirts), to bilaterally-symmetrical chordates like us? Another trick evolution has - paedomorphism. The sea squirt has a larval form that is motile until it settles in, attaches somewhere, becomes sexually mature, and lives as a sessile blob. If a larva should become sexually mature before the final stage, we have an ur-chordate. Not so surprising. Is there evidence for this? Sure. Axolotls, for example, are salalmanders that become sexually mature as larvae and live out their lives underwater. It's a lot more interesting than they imagine. Yep. The axolotls, for example. Or that paedomorphic tunicate. Stuff like that. Perhaps, if they were to point out such a case that couldn't have evolved, they'd be more persuasive. What do you think "epigenetic" means? See the diagrams.

As you just saw, the molecular pathway for heme (a fragment of hemoglobin) points to a common ancestry for T-rex and birds. We can check that by looking at molecules in organisms relative to their DNA. Turns out, it does point to mutation and natural selection. Which as you know, are Darwinian processes. In many cases, we can even check using organisms of known descent. Doesn't matter. Reality is remarkably resistant to opinion. Sure. Engineers work with information, do they not? Want to see how information theory shows how evolutionary processes increase information in a population?

I just picked out one you cited and checked it. Turns out, it's a fraud. I'm very sure you didn't know. But how do you know all the others aren't frauds, too? This is why quotes don't work in science. It goes by evidence. I'm still willing to listen to your examples of major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, which have no transitional forms. Or even better, transitions between groups that are not said to be evolutionarily connected. Why not find those and we can dispense with quotes altogether?

You cited Eldredge and Gould. Notice Gould's comment. So that's why quotes aren't a very safe way to argue, unless you cite the article so it can be checked. You're not alone in being unable to think of any case of major groups lacking a transitional form between them. No one I've asked here or elsewhere can find any, although there are still a few gaps where a transitional has not yet been found. That's pretty solid evidence. But what's even stronger evidence is, there's not any transitional forms where the theory says there shouldn't be. No feathered mammals, no whales with gills, etc. Quite right. We must show homologies; mere intermediate morphology won't cut it. That's why you can't say a pterosaur is transitional to birds. And we can check by looking at genes or even molecular biology. For example, a bit of heme was found in a T. rex fossil. When examined, it was found to be most like that of a bird, rather than like that of other reptiles, confirming the many transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds as indicators of descent. It goes a lot farther than that. For example, the genes of archosaurs (the group that includes birds, dinosaurs, crocodiles, and pterosaurs) are closer to each other than to anything else. And we know that's valid, because we can compare the genes of organisms of known descent. The biochemistry works out that way, too. Scutes (scales found on dinosaurs, crocodiles, and birds) have the same chemical signature, not found on other scales. Hence, the importance of supporting biochemical and genetic data like that cited above. And if you do ever think of two groups said to be evolutionarily connected,without a transitional form, let me know,and we'll take a look at the case. Or maybe it might be instructive to find any transitional form were there shouldn't be one. Just keep in mind the difference between analogy and homology, so you don't get into the pterosaur/bird kind of mixup.

Eldredge and Gould saw rapid evolution as in the 10,000 to 100,000 year range. Since we've observed the evolution of a new digestive organ in lizards over a couple of decades, 100 t0 1,000 centuries are not very fast in terms of human expectations.

For a long time, the "Cambrian explosion" looked like the sudden appearance of living things. However, the subsequent discovery of the Ediacaran fauna (now definitely identified as animals because of cholesterol molecules found in some of them, clearly shows that complex animals existed long before the Cambrian. Would you like to learn about some of it?

So let's test that belief. Show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional. Pick several, if you'd like. Show me what you have.

From Stephen Gould: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. "Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260

As ancient Christians like St. Augustine showed, the "days" are figurative, and represent categories of God's creation, not time spans. For us, it's the acknowledgement that God created all things, and made nature to do His will. There is no neo-Darwinian explanation for biological life on Earth. The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas on this: "The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency." Summa Theologiae, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm See above. Whether God chose contingency or necessity to effect His will is really not important. I assume He created things so as to effect His will, as it says in Genesis. "Theistic evolution" is a religious belief, not part of science. Truth is, evolution can only be theistic, since it's part of nature, and therefore a creation of God. However, the methodology of science can't investigate the supernatural, so it can only observe nature. So "theistic evolution" would describe the view of any Christian familiar with, and receptive to the evidence . Anything else?

No. He did know that there was a lack of known transitionals at the time. Now we have a huge number of them. YE creationist Kurt Wise mentions dozens of them in his paper, adding that they are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf No. He expected that complex forms like the eye would have to have many functional transitional stages. Turns out he was right. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility." Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species chapter VI In several phyla we can actually see all the stages of development. Would you like to see them? Horses, forams, and ammonites show that to be wrong. But Darwin pointed out why one would expect to see long periods of stasis, with occasional sudden change. A well-adapted population, in an unchanging environment, would show little change, he wrote. Hence, long periods of gradual evolution are the exception. But they exist. And ID doesn't really rule such things out: "t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview." Michael Denton Nature's Destiny That's for sure. You and I have dozens of mutation that didn't exist in either of our parents. And they are almost all functional. As does evolutionary theory. And we know why. Irreducible complexity can easily evolve. Would you like to see an observed example?

Maybe not "uber genius", but well above most, I would say. Catholics, for example recognize that man's body is produced by natural processes, but his soul is given directly by God.

It's incompatible with your particular interpretation of Genesis. Which is an entirely different issue.

Barbarian observes: Radicals on Chinese characters aren't usually what they would be by themselves. They generally are semantic or phonetic hints about the meaning of the character. And "口" (kou) does not mean "people." "People" would be "人" (ren). Yes. Someone thought it would be more convincing if they said it meant "people" rather than "mouth." I think we all got that.

That's a common superstition, but it's completely false. The first indication that we had of a truly ancient Earth came from geologists who realized that what they saw could not possibly have happened in a few thousand years. And they knew this long before Darwin. Not long after Darwin, physicists, using well-confirmed heat calculations, showed that the Earth, even if it merely cooled off from its original state, would be at a minimum of tens of millions of years old. And just a little later, physicists showed that there were rocks on Earth billions of years old. Astronomers later showed that our sun was of a group of stars that are fairly long-lived, and ours is about 4 billion years old. None of these are "evolutionary" and none of them are "assumptions." You've been badly misled. No. It says that mutations occur fairly rapidly, and most mutations in humans have been modified again by subsequent mutations. Would you like me to show you the difference?

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:19-23) Of course, it's not a prophesy; that's just your revision to make it more acceptable to you. But it was a rather bad choice, given Paul's words... For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. As you have seen, there are creationists who have tried to glorify him not as God but as a being with a human-like body, in spite of His Son telling us that spirits have no bodies, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. Ignoring the things God has shown us in His creation, they instead invented a revision of Genesis from their own imaginations.

Well, let's take a look at that belief: Here were two clearly distinct species, separated by up to 700,000 years of evolution, yet the remnants of their sexual proclivities are captured in the DNA of the majority of people alive today. What’s more, it soon emerged that our ancestors weren’t only getting it on with Neanderthals. Just as Pääbo was finishing sequencing the Neanderthal genome, a parcel landed on his desk. It contained a tiny fragment of a finger bone from the Altai mountains in Siberia. The piece was 30,000 to 50,000 years old and was thought to be from another Neanderthal. His team was in for a big surprise. The DNA analysis revealed an entirely new group of archaic humans, now dubbed the Denisovans, which split from a common ancestor with Neanderthals some 500,000 years ago. Once again, comparisons with modern human genomes showed that the two interbred. Genetic studies reveal this to have happened in Eurasia. They also show that Denisovans ranged from Siberia to South-East Asia, and that at least one of their genes helps modern Tibetans to live at high altitude. The idea that our ancestors hybridised with other hominins was once dismissed. Now it was starting to look as though they would mate with anything vaguely human. Denisovans are nearly ghosts: we have that one finger bone and a few molars as a physical testament to their existence, but no more. Then in 2016, a true ghost emerged from the genomes of 44 individuals who lived in the Middle East between 14,000 and 3400 years ago. Their DNA held genetic markers indicative of a distinct group of ancient H. sapiens based in the region more than 45,000 years ago. The members of this population are now known as Basal Eurasians, and they present a conundrum. Their DNA, which is still found in modern Europeans, shows none of the telltale signs of interbreeding with Neanderthals. This came as a surprise because ancestral humans mated with Neanderthals very soon after leaving Africa 60,000 years ago in the migration that was to give rise to all people of non-African heritage alive today. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24031992-600-traces-of-mystery-ancient-humans-found-lurking-in-our-genomes/ Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24031992-600-traces-of-mystery-ancient-humans-found-lurking-in-our-genomes/#ixzz6FYHCJS8p Looks like your guy is really wrong.

I mean that it is true. When St. Augustine wrote De Genesi ad Litteram, he meant by "the literal meaning", what it actually says. That is, it's a figurative account and must be taken in that way, just as the parables of Jesus are true, even though they are figurative. A parable is a short and simple story that teaches a religious or moral lesson. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/parable Parables.—The word parable (Heb. MSLH, mashal;Syr. mathla, Gr. parabole) signifies in general a comparison, or a parallel, by which one thing is used to illustrate another. It is a likeness taken from the sphere of real, or sensible, or earthly incidents, in order to convey an ideal, or spiritual, or heavenly meaning. As uttering one thing and signifying something else, it is in the nature of a riddle (Heb. khidah, Gr. ainigma or problema) and has therefore a light and a dark side,—”dark sayings”, Wis., viii, 8; Ecclus., xxxix, 3; it is intended to stir curiosity and calls for intelligence in the listener, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” Matt., xiii, 9. Its Greek designation (from paraballein, to throw beside or against) indicates a deliberate “making up” of a story in which some lesson is at once given and concealed. As taking simple or common objects to cast light on ethics and religion, it has been well said of the parable that “truth embodied in a tale shall enter in at lowly doors.” It abounds in lively speaking figures, and stands midway between the literalism of mere prose and the abstractions of philosophy. What the Hebrew MSHL is derived from we do not know. If connected with Assyrian mashalu, Arab. matala, etc., the root meaning is “likeness”. But it will be a likeness which contains a judgment, and so includes the “maxim”, or general proposition bearing on conduct (Greek “gnomic wisdom”), of which the Book of Proverbs (Meshalim) is the chief inspired example. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/parables The parable is a literary device used often by Jesus Christ in his teachings. While Christ used the parable, according to Matthew 13:10-17, he did not expect the crowds to understand them. The word parable comes from the Greek, parabole, and is a metaphor or simile that makes a comparison drawn from everyday life. The parable draws the listener to its attention by its vividness or strangeness that engenders in the listener's mind enough doubt about its meaning to stimulate active thought. The use of parables by Jesus was a continuation of their use in the Old Testament where the Jews were familiar with teaching by parables and, thus, their use by Jesus was a natural continuation. The parables of Jesus are found in the three synoptic gospels and form a key part of his teaching. His parables, while seemingly simple, often with imagery, each conveys a message that is deep and central to his teaching. As keys to his teaching, the Orthodox Church continues to convey these messages through the liturgical services where often a parable is the lesson for the day. Parables start the Paschal season with the story of the Pharisee and Publican and continues with the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Last Judgement. Through the year the lessons of Divine Liturgy include the parables of the Sower and the Seed, the Mustard Seed, the Unmerciful Servant, the Vineyard Workers and the Employer, the Good Samaritan, and others. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Parable From the very beginning, human beings have loved to listen to stories. And Jesus loved to tell them. The parables are vivid, rich,arresting stories that make us think and teach us lessons about our relationship with God and others. From talents to mustard seeds, from shepherds to Samaritans, Jesus used common reference points to teach important truths. But the parables are filled with ambiguity and room for interpretation. With historical and cultural background, and careful scholarly detail https://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Scripture-Parables-Anglican-Association/dp/0819221678 I don't see "fictional" therein. The three great branches of Christianity seem to do so, yes.

In addition, coalescence times for Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA have been revised to well above 100,000 years since 2011. Finally, such coalescence would not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Genetic material inherited exclusively from either father or mother can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[12] In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[6] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck The times involved in such a theory seem to rule out the literalist reading of the Flood Story. Seems not to be so.