cheetah

I don't get it. It seems by your definition that the only species that have ever almost gone extinct must have actually forthwith GONE extinct. Apparently, there is no such thing as almost extinct, except for perhaps that short twilight before the true and final extinction? How long does that twilight last by your definition. By your definition, the word almost is useless, because it doesn't provide any further information. The species is either extinct or not. Right?

Jimmy Davies

By my definiton this particular species in this particular instance WAS NOT IN DANGER OF GOING EXTINCT. Only our imaginations limit the number of possibilites for a species not going extinct, Cheetah. I concede that. But....there was no extinction danger for humans at this time. The idea we were down to 2000 inividuals is contended by some premature ejaculating guys dug in the dirt for a woefully inadequate length of time and jumped to unwarranted conclusions, sorta like writing the Yankees off because they were 10 games out of first place on May 1st. Yankees were close to extinction, I guess!

The fossil record across the millenia where humans struggled, survived and thrived just laughs in their presupposing faces.

Throughout history the only thing that exterminates Man, is Man. Or maybe an asteroid the size of Mount Rushmore. But she hasn't struck us yet. I got a better shot at winning the lottery.

Majestyk

This seems relevant.
In defense of the prematurely ejaculating geniuses that were involved in the study, they did not claim that humanity was close to extinction. That conclusion is apparently that of the author of the BBC article.

The American Journal of Human Genetics report focuses on the evidentiary suggestion that the human population was as low as 2000 individuals. It does not conclude that extinction was an imminent possibility.

Plague. Pyroclastic flow. Tsunami. All these things have killed humans on a level of thousands. It is not illogical to proclaim that one small population could have suffered 100% casualties from a naturally occurring event.

We live in an incredibly narrow window of possible environmental conditions. We fail to realize as we go about our day-to-day existence that the solid ground under our feet is actually a rather thin crust, which floats on a sea of liquid rock. We complain about “extreme” variations in ambient temperature, oblivious to the fact that our neighboring planets have average temperatures that allow for lakes of liquid metal or fields of CO2 snow. We draw breath because nature allows it, not because we are superior to our terrestrial host.

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry Jimmy, but you've still lost me, too. You say the numbers are irrelevant. So supposing the total number of humans dropped, not to 2000, but to 200, or 20, or 2 (wouldn't the cretinists love that one! )? At what point could one sensibly say that the species almost went extinct? Is not a 'critically endangered' species 'almost extinct'? Almost, as in 'nearly'; extinct, as in 'gone, caput, no more of them'.

Or are you saying that the estimates are likely to be wrong, and / or that even so, 2000 is still a reasonable number (and hence, the numbers are relevant )? In which case, it's just a debatable claim, not something to question people's logic on.

Cheers, Oolon the confused

Oolon Colluphid

Pathogenic organisms are irrelevant, of course

Of course, since we're still here, 'Man' hasn't been exterminated, so not even Man has exterminated Man... .
Sure, you personally may have. But it is very likely that the Earth will be struck by a decent-sized meteorite, at some point. Of the estimated billion-or-so potentially life (all life) -threatening asteroids whose orbits cross that of the Earth, we have only catalogued a tiny fraction -- a few thousand -- let alone having the slightest idea of their movements.

Now space, as Douglas Adams noted, is big. Really big. Which is why we aren't hit by them every week. But hit by some, the Earth has been, and surely will be again, and we have no idea when this will happen. We will likely get no warning, because by the time it's close enough to see, it will be minutes away.

(As Bill Bryson notes in his new book, blowing it up with nuclear missiles would not be that great an idea. What you'd get is lots of smaller chunks of rock arriving one after the other, carpet-bombing the Earth, with the bonus of them being highly radioactive.)

In other words, that there is just one easy way in which we might get wiped out.

And the smaller the population, the more vulnerable it is. That's basic population ecology

Cheers, Oolon

markfiend

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the study just imply that everyone on the planet now is descended from ~2000 individuals 70000 years ago?

Therefore, if we can't pinpoint an extiction event, shouldn't we instead look for a reason why those 2000 were more fit than the rest of the population?

I have a hypothesis; those 2000 were the first people to get a really virulent form of religion, a religion which preached intolerance of "heretics", so those 2000 and their descendents wiped out all the other H. sap populations around.

Some support for this hypothesis is the fact that the human race (descended from those 2000) has a tendency to practice virulent intolerant religions to this day.

Jimmy Davies

Pathogenics have not exterminated Man, OC, so this remark is irrelevant.

"Of course, since we're still here, 'Man' hasn't been exterminated, so not even Man has exterminated Man... ."

Man has exterminated Man. Neanderthal no longer exists. I got more proof of this than the boys claiming we were down to 2000 individuals. And certain groups of Men have been exterminated, like the Natchez and Arawak Indians, for examples. Tell them men don't exterminate men. Oh, sorry, can't, they are exterminated.

"Sure, you personally may have. But it is very likely that the Earth will be struck by a decent-sized meteorite, at some point. "

Yep, and it hasn't exterminated Man. And I mentioned it could hit the Earth and destroy Man, but I also think you got your math faulty. The odds an asteroid willl destroy all of Man is STILL less than my winning the lottery. Contact a scientist and let him give you the actual remaining odds, remaining because, of course they are reduced with every moment that passes since the last asteroid of note impacted the Yucutan coast 65 miliion years ago.

You're kidding about a meteor being one easy way in which we could be exterminated, right? There are NO easy ways in which we could get wiped out. Even if AIDS goes pneumonic, 6 percent of the population is immune according to research. My state has 750,000 folks. That'd still leave 45,000 after the pandemic.

"And the smaller the population, the more vulnerable it is That's basic population ecology."

So what does this interesting fact have to do with the price of tuna fish in Upper Slobovia? There was no "near extinction" of Man. Couple of guys just needed some exciting paper to write to leave their scientific urine mark on the territorial bushes of science. That's all.

Nice points, otherwise, oolon.

Jimmy Davies

Ho Oolon, I am saying that just because you personally are signed up to fight Mike Tyson in his buck prime doesn't mean he is 12 rounds from possible defeat. Every organism alive almost didn't get born by that measure. Maybe the Big Bang almost didn't happen, maybe the Japs almost didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, maybe a smart sperm almost impregnated Barbara Bush but a stupid one did, so we got Dubya instead, maybe the phone rang and I almost didn't post this post. I don't blame you for being confused. What guy wouldn't be?

ps418

Premature ejaculating? Interesting. Why do you feel the need to resort to such childish ad hominems against researchers you've never met and whose personal beliefs (and ejaculation habits) you know nothing about? Also, why didn't you bother to read the article before spouting insults against them? There was no "digging in the dirt" involved. The research was based on genetic data only.

Patrick

Jimmy Davies

Extinction wasn't an emminent possibilty? That's what I've been saying.

Plague. Pyroclastic flow. Tsunami. All these things have killed humans on a level of thousands? Got that part right. It is not illogical to proclaim that one small population could have suffered 100% casualties from a naturally occurring event? Except it didn't. The human race is lucky they survived all these threats? Like Gary Player says, the more I practice the luckier I get.


So, we draw breath because nature allows it, not because we are superior to our territorial host? No, we draw breath because we draw breath. We are as we are, there is no superior or inferior to it. Probably should stop being so anthropormorphic. It gets you confused.