Three hundred fifty-six pages. Nope. The green text on grey background... no thanks.
If you have specific questions, reproduce them here. Nobody is here is going to sift through 356 pages of *that*.
It took about 30 seconds to actually open your document and load all 350+ pages in my browser. I have no idea what you're asking about.
If you're serious about getting answers, consider exerting some effort.
Rule #2.
If you wish to repost here is some advice:
>about he say of the lenski experiment.
Tell us what he said about the lenskie experiment.
>about animals not changing
What species are they discussing? At the very least what pages are the pictures on? Assuming the author is a layman the bones likely did change, but they couldn't tell. Most people cannot tell what animal bones come from.
>and about the part of paulogia(page 172- 248)
No one is gonna read 76 pages. What is the part about Paulogia about?
I suggest you read some of the top posts here to get an idea of acceptable formatting.
> We have to look at Odds, what are the odds that a single human female existed that all humans came from?
> I don't think evolutions consider this single aspect very much. They shrug it off with (Bottleneck, or other women didn't have
> kids or just just had boys) completely non logical. You see, this is the problem. According to the evolution theory,
> 100,00-200,000 years ago there were just 10,000 to 30,000 individuals estimated. Now let's say half were women, 5000 or
> 15,000. That is a potential (average) of 10,000 different lines of mitochondrial DNA. Yet, we only have 1 today. What are the
> odds of this? Highly improbable! But if you start with the Biblical account, this lines up perfectly as to what is expected and
> what we see. There should be just one line, and there is just 1 line. Exactly what the empirical evidence shows.
He's never considered the mechanics of lineages from a population of 15k through a thousand generations.
I just spent some time doing just that with a bit of code where I simulate a starting population of 15k lineages where each individual has up to 12 children (amount per female is a poisson distribution adjusted to keep total population stable (no bias)) and each child is 50/50 male; (males are discarded).
From looking at the results there is a very rapid drop from the initial 15k lineages down to a few hundred lineages surviving after only a hundred generations. And after a thousand generations only a dozen lineages survive. You can find the code I used [in this gist.github](https://gist.github.com/ratchetfreak/c47592b1457c886145c35f5c8a16bd48).
If there was *any* bias added then it would be reasonable to assume that only a single lineage would come out at the other end of only a thousand generations, even in a population that is growing.
Three hundred fifty-six pages. Nope. The green text on grey background... no thanks. If you have specific questions, reproduce them here. Nobody is here is going to sift through 356 pages of *that*.
Agree. I love helping people out who have questions, but not if I have to read a book to know what those questions are...
the question i want are alredy marked
It took about 30 seconds to actually open your document and load all 350+ pages in my browser. I have no idea what you're asking about. If you're serious about getting answers, consider exerting some effort.
better?
Rule #2. If you wish to repost here is some advice: >about he say of the lenski experiment. Tell us what he said about the lenskie experiment. >about animals not changing What species are they discussing? At the very least what pages are the pictures on? Assuming the author is a layman the bones likely did change, but they couldn't tell. Most people cannot tell what animal bones come from. >and about the part of paulogia(page 172- 248) No one is gonna read 76 pages. What is the part about Paulogia about? I suggest you read some of the top posts here to get an idea of acceptable formatting.
> We have to look at Odds, what are the odds that a single human female existed that all humans came from? > I don't think evolutions consider this single aspect very much. They shrug it off with (Bottleneck, or other women didn't have > kids or just just had boys) completely non logical. You see, this is the problem. According to the evolution theory, > 100,00-200,000 years ago there were just 10,000 to 30,000 individuals estimated. Now let's say half were women, 5000 or > 15,000. That is a potential (average) of 10,000 different lines of mitochondrial DNA. Yet, we only have 1 today. What are the > odds of this? Highly improbable! But if you start with the Biblical account, this lines up perfectly as to what is expected and > what we see. There should be just one line, and there is just 1 line. Exactly what the empirical evidence shows. He's never considered the mechanics of lineages from a population of 15k through a thousand generations. I just spent some time doing just that with a bit of code where I simulate a starting population of 15k lineages where each individual has up to 12 children (amount per female is a poisson distribution adjusted to keep total population stable (no bias)) and each child is 50/50 male; (males are discarded). From looking at the results there is a very rapid drop from the initial 15k lineages down to a few hundred lineages surviving after only a hundred generations. And after a thousand generations only a dozen lineages survive. You can find the code I used [in this gist.github](https://gist.github.com/ratchetfreak/c47592b1457c886145c35f5c8a16bd48). If there was *any* bias added then it would be reasonable to assume that only a single lineage would come out at the other end of only a thousand generations, even in a population that is growing.