I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Alate_One]

(There may be one so called beneficial mutation to 100000 slightly deleterious mutations) . It is impossible for natural selection to detect and prevent the slightly deleterious mutations from accumulating, so it is equally difficult / impossible for selection to detect a slightly favorable mutation.
But for argument's sake, let's imagine against the evidence that the 70 new mutations added to our genome each generation are all favorable and constrained. Can 70 beneficial mutations added to our genome each generation, account for the 300 million base-pair difference between us and chimps? Absolutely not! If there was 30,000 Generations and 70 nucleotide mutations every generation that were beneficial….. we are nowhere close to the 300 million base-pair difference.

You seem to have forgotten one major problem in all of this. Evolution doesn't occur on the individual level. It occurs on the population level. Each individual human has slightly different mutations, and each individual will have a few hundred new mutations every generation. This means even a relatively small sized population (10,000 - 100,000 individuals) is accumulating far more mutations per generation than you posited since the mutation rate is multiplied by the number of individuals in the population.

This has clinical significance since the human population is now over 7 billion, that means every possible point mutation has already occurred in the current human population.

Mutations can be removed from a population purely by random chance since any new mutation has only a 50/50 chance of being passed on (neutral drift). Selection is going to act on anything that's beneficial.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You seem to have forgotten one major problem in all of this. Evolution doesn't occur on the individual level. It occurs on the population level. Each individual human has slightly different mutations, and each individual will have a few hundred new mutations every generation. This means even a relatively small sized population (10,000 - 100,000 individuals) is accumulating far more mutations per generation than you posited since the mutation rate is multiplied by the number of individuals in the population.

You're forgetting that small populations go extinct rather easily. Any negative mutation is that much more likely to cause the species to go extinct. Yet larger, more stable populations are far less likely, if at all, to see those mutations spread to the entire population.

Which brings us back to Haldane's Dilemma.

This has clinical significance since the human population is now over 7 billion,

7.7 billion, as of this month. Which doesn't help your positon.

that means every possible point mutation has already occurred in the current human population.

But again, that means that it will take far longer for mutations to spread throughout the population.

Mutations can be removed from a population purely by random chance since any new mutation has only a 50/50 chance of being passed on (neutral drift). Selection is going to act on anything that's beneficial.

False.

Consider for a moment (assuming your position for a moment) a species that originally just had legs, but today (or just later) has wings. Wings are complex in the extreme, and you need a working wing before selection will "choose" it. Which means that every part of a wing must be present not only physically, but genetically, before it will function the way it should.

You will ALWAYS have a bad leg before you have a good wing. Which means that the species is far more likely to be eaten or killed because of it's bad legs.

Forget getting to a bad wing, the bad leg is an extinction level event, because bad legs reduce the population, and the smaller a population, the more likely it is to go extinct, and since the population can only survive once it has a good wing, the smaller a population, the less likely it is for it to reach whatever mutation would supply that wing.

Question for you:

Have you ever considered what happens to a caterpillar when it turns into a butterfly? Serious question. I expect an answer.

 

[Right Divider]

Selection is going to act on anything that's beneficial.

And you know this how?

 

[ok doser]

And you know this how?

Because that's the magical premise of the evolution fairy tale.

 

[6days]

Each individual human has slightly different mutations, and each individual will have a few hundred new mutations every generation.

You are going the wrong direction if you are attempting to defend common ancestry. I had suggested a mutation rate of about 70 new mutations added to our genome every generation; and you are suggesting a few hundred mutations. More mutations is not a good thing.

In the past, evolutionists claimed that most mutations were neutral or silent, that some mutations would be deleterious and be removed by natural selection... And that beneficial mutations would remain in the genome. That belief has been proved wrong by science. Geneticists now recognize that virtually every mutation it's on the negative side of neutral (VSDM's) along with perhaps three that would be actually considered deleterious. Of course natural selection is in capable of detecting and removing a high mutation rate in any population with a low reproductive rate. These mutations accumulate causing genetic problems to future generations. We have upwards of 10,000 genetic problems and the number is increasing. There have been at least a couple secular geneticist who have referred to this as the population bomb. Articles have been written referring to this as a paradox, since it is inconsistent with evolutionary beliefs. The evidence from genetics shows us that the 'uphill' belief system of fish to philosopher is pseudoscience.

However the evidence is totally consistent with God's Word. A perfectly created genome has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption / mutations.

This means even a relatively small sized population (10,000 - 100,000 individuals) is accumulating far more mutations per generation than you posited since the mutation rate is multiplied by the number of individuals in the population.

No.... That is silly, and I'm surprised a PhD biologist would say such a thing. As [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] said, a small population only increases your problem.

Mutations can be removed from a population purely by random chance since any new mutation has only a 50/50 chance of being passed on (neutral drift).

That is nonsense Alate. If only half of those mutations are passed on to the next generation, they have a few hundred new ones (according to your numbers) added on to the new generation. I'm not sure you understand this correctly, but mutation rates are new mutations per diploid human genome per generation. IOW... every human being has thousands of deleterious mutations in our genome.

Like geneticist J.F.Crow says, we are genetically inferior to our stone age ancestors. And relaxed selection doesn't solve the problem for you... Genetics helps confirm God's Word of a perfect creation subjected to just a few thousand years of corruption.

 

[Lon]

I didn't either, but virtually all of the questions I saw in your linked list had one word answers. "Do all trees have rings?" "No."
Then you said some oak trees don't have rings, and those questions and answers were your citation.

Firstly, "oak" is a common name that's usually applied to an extremely large number of tree species that mostly live in temperate zones (Genus Quercus) all of which would presumably produce rings. Maybe there is some tropical tree out there with the common name "oak" that I'm not aware of that would fit your description? In any case you weren't precise enough for me to make that determination.

It doesn't matter. The points: 1) YOU are lost in details. 2) YOU already gave ground here but seem to like arguing over nothing and 3) YOU have a superiority complex "Dr." I do too, with my measly MA but my IQ is decent. Difference? Perhaps I work on my pride a bit more: James 4:6 Matthew 5:5 As those who love God, we should know our Bibles better than our trade because one identifies all of who we are.

Then you're positing that God is creating false history in those trees, since that's what tree rings are.

WHOSE false history? If the scriptures are understood correcly, then you've been told and simply choose to ignore it among all other scientists. SCIENTISTS are supposed to consider all data, especially one so trustworthy as given by God. Think a bit, you've been so long in college classes that you've bought uncritically, all you've been presented with. "Those who cannot, teach." It means your best scientists don't even get into these discussions.

Personally I do not believe those days are literal.

Who cares? Do you care what I personally believe? What matters is what scripture says and us being sure about it.

Instead they fit a poetic pattern. If you look at the first three days, You see separation happening. Light separated from darkness, water from land etc. Then in the next three days those separated parts of creation are filled, given purpose etc. This is why the light and dark precede sun and moon on the fourth day. It makes the story easier to remember and effectively demotes the sun and moon to just lights in the sky. That idea was quite revolutionary for the ancient world since so many cultures worshiped the sun and the moon.

Of the two public colleges in my area, both science chairs are/were YEC. Point? It be good to not naysay so many who believe the scriptures.

Here is my Bible degree: All of Hebrew is poetic but this particular is instruction. Once anyone says Genesis is not to be taken literally, then the instruction of Genesis no longer applies to you in a direct manner. The problem is then, that you interpret God instead of God interpretting you. Whatever one who loves the Lord God must do, one is that we should listen to Him and talk less. I'm not trying to lecture other than as this applies to both of us/all of us.

I disagree on that point, that science is merely studying and interpreting the world God has given us. The Bible's function isn't to tell us how the natural world works. It is to teach us how to treat other human beings, something science cannot do.

Incorrect. The Bible is given 1) to tell us what is wrong with the world and us and 2) to tell us of the Grace of God and how it is going to be remedied. In the Garden, man is cursed with work of the land (science) and the woman is cursed with labor (science). I have a Bible degree and a Masters. The problem often is looking at the two as if they are unrelated. All of creation is God's, including the subject of both of my degrees. While we separate disciplines, there are problems with not allowing your Bible instruction to enter your science work. My daughter is currently earning her science degree. My brother has his biology degree. SOmething they both do, is question where science disagrees with their scriptural understanding.

Sorry, it's easy to pick up a no holds barred habit when arguing with half a dozen people at once.

Understood. I've been there, its not easy.

Scientific knowledge is always subject to more testing and improvement.

While you are jumping into a dozen or so fires, it'd be good to remember that too. These kinds of discussions tend to lead to 'all or none' which isn't necessary.

I'm sorry to hear that. I've had plenty of family members with cancer. There are times when cancer treatment will actually make someone sicker with little chance of benefit. When I first read your statement I thought you were rejecting chemotherapy in general. I had a relative do this and take vitamin C injections for a cancer that should have been treatable, she unfortunately died far too early. I think chemotherapy of some time will always be the workhorse of cancer treatment, although some GE immune cells are starting to be used in some cases.

Seattle Cancer I. and the UW have come up with a pill that they believe cures some forms of childhood cancer. It is a long way from eradicating this malady, but whole foods is a good preventative too. My argument was simply for example to say the above: "Scientific knowledge is always subject to more testing and improvement."

It works very well for this discussion.

My grandmother went through radiation and chemo only to have the cancer reappear. The second round we chose not to treat and she had a healthy happy life for many years before the cancer finally took her.

In any case my apologies for that assumption and I wish you and your mother well.

Thank you, but I'd appreciate your prayers too. 1 John 5:14

 

[7djengo7]

the human population is now over 7 billion

At what number of humans would you say did the human population start? What was the original human population number? Did the human population begin with 1 human? 2 humans? More than 2 humans? How many? Bear in mind that I was told by one of your colleagues that

1 animal is not a population.

I asked chair

What would you say is the goldfish population of a fishbowl, in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?

Surprise, surprise: chair never got back to me with an answer to that elementary question. But then, I don't know that he advertised himself as one having a PhD. But, I've heard it said that you have a PhD.--and that your PhD. happens to be in talking about populations--so perhaps you could answer the question that chair failed to answer. What is the goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?

a relatively small sized population (10,000 - 100,000 individuals)

Is a population of 10,000 - 100,000 individuals a relatively small-sized population in comparison with a population of 1 - 2 individuals? If you have a PhD. in talking about populations, should it not seem quaint, an eagerness on your part to talk all day long about population numbers of 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8-digits, while running away from questions about population numbers of, say, less than 10 individuals?

So, again, what's the smallest size there's ever been of a human population?
Could a population have ever gotten into the 10-digit numbers without having first gotten to 1 or 2 individuals?

 

[JudgeRightly]

At what number of humans would you say did the human population start?

:think:

One, but then another was made for him.

:thimb:

What was the original human population number?

One.

Did the human population begin with 1 human? 2 humans? More than 2 humans? How many?

It began with one, and then a second was made from the first.

So, again, what's the smallest size there's ever been of a human population?

:think:

Before or after the Flood?

And greater than zero, yes?

 

[7djengo7]

One, but then another was made for him.

Correct. But you're cheating by having reference to the answers key.

One.

Correct, again.

It began with one, and then a second was made from the first.

Very good!

Before or after the Flood?

Well, what's the smallest size of human population there's been since the flood?

And, what's the smallest size of human population there was prior to the flood?

And greater than zero, yes?

Not necessarily--though, greater than any negative number. What size was the human population on, say, creation day three?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Correct. But you're cheating by having reference to the answers key.

:chuckle:

Correct, again.



Very good!



Well, what's the smallest size of human population there's been since the flood?

Eight!

And, what's the smallest size of human population there was prior to the flood?

Non-zero integers?

One

Including zero?

Zero.

Not necessarily--though, greater than any negative number. What size was the human population on, say, creation day three?

Zero.

 

[Alate_One]

False.

Consider for a moment (assuming your position for a moment) a species that originally just had legs, but today (or just later) has wings. Wings are complex in the extreme, and you need a working wing before selection will "choose" it.

Not at all true. Wings are just modified arms (vertebrate wings anyway) and thus they have a function long before they become useful for flight. (or even after) See Ostriches.

Ostrich wingbones.

Which means that every part of a wing must be present not only physically, but genetically, before it will function the way it should.

Again not at all true. We see innumerable examples of feathered dinosaurs with tiny "wings" on animals that clearly couldn't fly.

You will ALWAYS have a bad leg before you have a good wing. Which means that the species is far more likely to be eaten or killed because of it's bad legs.

Wings are arms, not legs. And once arms are off the ground they can be used for lots of different things, or nothing at all. Some flightless birds use them for gliding or display, others have lost them almost completely (Cassowary).

Question for you:

Have you ever considered what happens to a caterpillar when it turns into a butterfly? Serious question. I expect an answer.

Yes. Probably far more than you have. Caterpillars have their wing buds forming under their skin before they even undergo their last molt. Oddly enough, insects that undergo complete metamorphosis actually have smaller genomes than those that don't.

 

[Alate_One]

what's the smallest size there's ever been of a human population?
Could a population have ever gotten into the 10-digit numbers without having first gotten to 1 or 2 individuals?

There is a way to estimate population size based on the genomic content of the population. Based on that data, the current scientific consensus is humans never got below a population of about 10,000 individuals.

https://biologos.org/articles/serie...uments/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not done

 

[6days]

https://biologos.org/articles/serie...uments/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics

Venema who wrote the article is heretical, as is Biologos. Venema seems to REFUSE to consider research from Christian scientists... and even from secular geneticists who disagree with him. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/d...-human-pair-geneticist-richard-buggs-says-no/

Biologos is a web site no Christian should trust. Biologos is an organization that encourages Christians to accept evolutionism, and reject the foundation of the Gospel. They claim "BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation". However... many of their articles and contributors are heretical and encourage Christians to reject the clear teaching of Scripture. Heresy is a subversive modification of doctrine that often leads to unbelief. And so much of what Biologos prints seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the gospel. They deny the inerrancy of scripture and put a higher value on mans opinions than Gods Word. They print articles claiming Jesus made mistakes. And, Biologos denies the doctrine of imputation... they deny that "first Adam" referred to in the New Testament is a person. Biologos has little to distinguish it from a Muslim or Jewish organization.

Christian doctrine does hinge on our understanding of the creation account. The doctrine of sin, death, salvation, impunity and more are founded in Genesis. Because Biologos rejects the six day creation account, they then reject the inerrancy of scripture...reject doctrine of impunity.... compromise on other doctrines all resulting in a ineffectual gospel. I like how this author explains compromise in Genesis destroys the gospel... Patricia Williams, "Liberal theologians who treat Adam's story as a myth ruin Paul's neat equations. Adam and Eve's mythological disobedience cannot be atoned by Jesus' historical actions, nor can Adam and Eve's mythological sin be responsible for our sinful nature or our death…if Adam and Eve are not historical, the historical Jesus has no work to do under existing atonement theories that treat the atonement as a deed" (Doing without Adam and Eve: Sociobiology and Original Sin)

Examples of how Biologos promotes rejection of Scripture
Biologos claims the Bible is wrong
“Most Christians understand that, even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong. And that is perfectly fine "

Biologos claims mans opinions trump God's Word
"If our steadily improving scientific understanding can fully explain events, how can we say that God was involved in those events? "

Biologos claims Jesus made mistakes
“If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons.”

It is interesting / sad that atheists understand the illogical beliefs of Biologos, yet many Christians are being deceived. An atheist on Jerry Coynes website sums up the illogical stance of Biologos. "Thus BioLogos has no actual principle to stand on when they oppose a literal reading of Genesis but support a literal reading of a story of a virgin birth."
Someone else makes the comment
"… Do you ever get tired of tying yourself into a pretzel trying to ignore obvious logical implications, and to keep others from noting them?" https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/biologos-gets-in-bed-with-the-fundies/

Karl Gilberson one of the developers / contributors to Biologos has made statements that should concern Christians... For example in a book he stated “…my belief in God is tinged with doubts and, in my more reflective moments, I sometimes wonder if I am perhaps simply continuing along the trajectory of a childhood faith that should be abandoned. As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to his faith.”
(He had a job at a Christian college which he later lost)

Albert Mohler wrote an open letter to Gilberson in which he said
“You are straightforward in your celebration of evolution, and you utterly fail to demonstrate how an embrace of evolution can be reconciled with biblical Christianity. Your rejection of an historical Adam and Eve is one precise point at which the Gospel of Christ is undermined, and your proposed ‘new and better way to understand the origins of sin’ is incompatible with the Bible’s clear teaching.”

Another example of how Biologos is heretical...
Keep in mind that their motto in part is to get Christians to "see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation." But they do this by being dogmatic about evolutionisn, and compromising on God's Word. They accept articles from non believers such as Michael Ruse, who urges Christians to compromise.
https://biologos.org/files/modules/ruse_scholarly_essay.pdf

Every Christian should be concerned when an organization claiming to be Christian, publishes articles by a wolf in sheeps clothing. Ruse (Mentioned above) has written things such as..."Even the miracle of the Resurrection can be treated this way. The real miracle was not some reversal of life-death processes, but that, on the third day, the disciples who were downcast and lonely suddenly felt a great lift and that life was meaningful for them..."
From his book 'Darwinism and Its Discontents' p.280

Perhaps the heresy and faith destroying belief system of Biologos is best exposed in the words of their frequent contributor Karl Gilberson. He explained how evolution changed him..."It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to these stories—the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam’, the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred."
From Gilbersons (heretical) book Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution


Gilberson in an article titled "The Modern Creation Story"quotes a verse then corrupts God's Word with his story ...In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
The quarks, with electrical charges of 2/3 and –1/3, combine under the influence of the strong nuclear force, and soon they are all gathered into protons and neutrons, which have electrical charges of 1 and 0....


And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.”
These complex materials grow ever more varied until one particular arrangement actually starts duplicating itself. ...

Then God said “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, Andover the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
As complexity increased the need to process more and more information from the external world increased also, and a remarkable central processing unit of enormous power and sophistication emerged. These*brains, as they would one day be called, endowed their possessors with a growing capacity ...

Upon reading Biologos articles you find very little science and lots of scientism. You wont find understanding Gods Word is any concern of Biologos other than promoting compromise and heresy. You won't find even one Biologos article that explains the gospel message of Last Adam redeeming us from the curse (death, pain, suffering, thorns) of first Adam? Biologos ‘reinterpretations’ of Scripture look nothing like what Moses, Jesus, and Paul actually said. If a historical Adam doesn’t matter, then the whole doctrine of salvation, as presented by the Apostle Paul, falls to pieces. As our Lord Jesus said...“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46–47)

 

[Gary K]

6days,

Excellent analysis that exposes the evil behind biologos. They are nothing more than rationalists attacking God, His word, and faith in God. They are direct descendants of the French revolution and it's deifying of the goddess of reason and extolling hatred of God.

 

[Caino]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)


So here's a piece of evidence here:

A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

The creation story of Genesis was a creation of the Israelite priesthood which was finalized in Babylon. The Hebrew writers and editors appropriated ancient Mesopotamian lore in the construction of the story of origins for the scattered Israelite people who had lost their nation, their sacred temple and cultural identity. In reaction the Hebrew priesthood fell victim to religious and nationalist pride. They undertook the complete recasting of their history, going from an ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction. It is there that the Jews remain marooned today having totally lost sight of their spiritual mission on earth particularly after rejecting the Son of God when he stood before them.

The development of Christianity was contaminated by sewing the new garment (the religion of Jesus) onto the old evolved and historically untruthful religion of the discredited Israelites.


The creation, evolution and (fostering) of progressive life from an ancient, singular creation event, is a fact revealed in the stratified layers of the Old Earth.

"Evolutionary religion is sentimental, not logical. It is man's reaction to belief in a hypothetical ghost-spirit world—the human belief-reflex, excited by the realization and fear of the unknown. Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities. Evolutionary religion pictures the circuitous gropings of humanity in quest of truth; revelatory religion is that very truth." UB 1955

 

[chair]

At what number of humans would you say did the human population start? What was the original human population number? Did the human population begin with 1 human? 2 humans? More than 2 humans? How many? Bear in mind that I was told by one of your colleagues that



I asked chair



Surprise, surprise: chair never got back to me with an answer to that elementary question. But then, I don't know that he advertised himself as one having a PhD. But, I've heard it said that you have a PhD.--and that your PhD. happens to be in talking about populations--so perhaps you could answer the question that chair failed to answer. What is the goldfish population of a fishbowl in which one, and only one, goldfish lives?



Is a population of 10,000 - 100,000 individuals a relatively small-sized population in comparison with a population of 1 - 2 individuals? If you have a PhD. in talking about populations, should it not seem quaint, an eagerness on your part to talk all day long about population numbers of 5-, 6-, 7-, and 8-digits, while running away from questions about population numbers of, say, less than 10 individuals?

So, again, what's the smallest size there's ever been of a human population?
Could a population have ever gotten into the 10-digit numbers without having first gotten to 1 or 2 individuals?

I got tired of your silly semantic games, and won't bother answering them. My PhD is in Physical Chemistry.

 

[ok doser]

I got tired of your silly semantic games, and won't bother answering them. My PhD is in Physical Chemistry.

Masters in Clinical/Analytical Chem here, worked for years in toxicology


what did/do you do with your P Chem?

 

[7djengo7]

I got tired of your silly semantic games, and won't bother answering them. My PhD is in Physical Chemistry.

They actually gave a PhD to someone who is confused enough to be able, in all seriousness, to say that "1 animal is not a population"? That goes to show how worthless your "credentials" are.

 

[7djengo7]

There is a way to estimate population size based on the genomic content of the population. Based on that data, the current scientific consensus is humans never got below a population of about 10,000 individuals.

https://biologos.org/articles/serie...uments/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics

What you've just told me is that, according to you and the nonsense you call "scientific consensus", there went from being 0 humans to instantaneously being "about 10,000" (or more) humans. Or actually, since you say that humans "never got below" a population of 10,000, I guess you must think that there was never, in all eternity, a time when there were 0 humans--that, for all eternity, there has never been less than 10,000 humans. And, of course, if humans have always existed (since (say you) there's always been "about 10,000" (or more) of 'em hanging around) then so much for your fairy tale of humans coming into existence through evolution.

It's astonishing that you're terrified of saying (and thus, you refuse to say) that there was a time when there was just one human, and no others (as the Bible says), and that there was a time when there were just two humans, and no others (as the Bible says).

Can you drive a car at 88 mph without ever having first driven it at 2 mph, 1 mph, and 0 mph? Perhaps you'd like to say that it is "current scientific consensus" that no car ever drove below, say, 50 mph?