This means, of course, that Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the literal ancestors of all humanity.Įvidently math is not Professor Coyne’s forte.Ĭoyne goes on to say that even these figures are under-estimates: they represent “the ‘effective population size,’ invariably smaller than the census size.” The population sizes are estimated by back-calculating (based on reasonable estimates of mutation rates and other parameters) how small an ancestral population could be and still give rise to the observed high level of genetic variation in our species. For population geneticists, this is the “effective population size,” invariably smaller than the census size, so these are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions. Sheehan et al., building on an earlier paper by Li and Durbin (references below), calculated that the minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa about 60,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. In a related post published late last year, Coyne explains in detail why he is convinced that science has ruled out the existence of Adam and Eve: What would be surprising is if the college didn’t require its professors to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Since Bryan College describes itself as “a nondenominational evangelical Christian college named after William Jennings Bryan: statesman, orator, and renowned prosecuting attorney in the famous Scopes Evolution Trial,” this requirement should hardly occasion surprise. In a recent post, Professor Coyne criticizes Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, for requiring its teaching professors to sign an updated “statement of belief” which, for the first time, explicitly affirms the existence of an historical Adam and Eve.

CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.Professor Jerry Coyne can’t seem to leave the Adam and Eve question alone. has granted permission to to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with,. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. perf 0,16s, ref 20220626/1324īitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gFĮVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. Why would you train into and purchase this ship if it's too risky to use for your valuable ships and redfrog (or buying/selling) can handle transporting your cheap ships for next to nothing?Ĭopyright © 2006-2022, Chribba - OMG Labs.

The alternative to the bowhead is redfrog or individual shipping/flying. 1 or 2 pirate / tech 2 battleships inside make this a compelling gank target with current HP values.Īnd even a low risk of such a gank will discourage smart players from actually using it. For a ship to be worth moving intact instead of selling or shipping packaged, it needs to be valuable. I worry that the EHP is too low for the capacity.

This is in the same range as tank-oriented freighters - I'm sure people using the hauler would want as much as possible but this range should be reasonable, yes? I have in-game fitting window showing around 350k EHP with a DCU II, 2x reinforced bulkheads II, 3x Transverse bulkhead I

Eve dutch east querious