-Removed-Originally posted by divegeester
Twhitehead knows.
The dickishness is all coming from you.
I am merely asking for clarification as to what you want to know.
Also recall that in the other thread, you considered blatant insults to be asking for further details. That is not what I have done here. Not even close.
-Removed-Given that biology doesn't actually define when a species first evolves, there is no correct answer to that question.
You cited something from wiki saying 2,000 or 10-30k
And I cited that (the larger figure) as the smallest known bottleneck - and that is speculative. The 2000 figure, I believe is for a sub population but I have not looked into it further.
I asked where did these come from.
You said from other humans?
I'm asking what other humans and why weren't they included in the 2,000 or the 10-30k humans which you said were the first populations.
Please take the trouble to look up the Wikipedia page I referenced and find out what 'bottleneck' means.
Once again, I did NOT say that the 10-30k humans were the FIRST population. I said that was the smallest population. The bottleneck.
Humans must have originated somewhere,
Yes, from their ancestors.
there must have only been a few early homosapiens
No, there is no good reason to think that, and lots of good reasons to think that it is not the case. Genetic evidence for one.
and the chances are there was incest.
I am sure there has been plenty of incest, but it is not due to a small population size. It is due to the fact that humans sometimes commit incest. It was never necessary.
Originally posted by KellyJayHow is it "scary stuff"? It isn't scary for people like you who have declared yourself "forgiven" and "saved". And it isn't the slightest bit scary for people who don't believe it. So for whom exactly do you think it's "scary stuff"?
Scary stuff, knowing from that point on no matter what you do, your fate is now set and
Hell is where you are going.
-Removed-That is because your question does not make sense as you are not understanding what I have said - and in fact repeatedly ignoring and misquoting what I have said.
My point is that as home sapien emerged there would have been a very small population
And my point is that you are wrong. There is no requirement that Homo Sapiens have a small population.
- you cite 2000 or 10,000-30000. Not me.
And I cite it in a given context - NOT as a figure for the emergence of Homo Sapiens.
I asked you were these first humans came from and you said "other humans".
I know you find me pedantic, but sometimes being explicit and careful with language is important. You did NOT ask me where the first humans came from, or at least if you did, I did not answer 'other humans'.
The post in which I say 'other humans' is where you asked about the minimal population, NOT the first humans.
What "other humans"? You just said the ones you cited were the first.
NO I MOST EMPHATICALLY DID NOT!
You're not making any sense.
Because you have your glasses on backwards.
If they were the first, why would there be "others"? If there are others, then they (the group you referenced) are not the first are they.
Correct. They are not the first, and I NEVER EVER EVER SAID THEY WERE.
Furthermore if these groups mated with each other then they must have been in close proximity.
Not sure what your point is here.
Your whole premise just doesn't make sense.
That is because it isn't my premise, it is one you made up and falsely attributed to me. Rather like the other thread where you kept claiming I said something I didn't.
My guess is you are just trolling.
