I read the full paper and I’m not qualified to evaluate the validity of the model being proposed but I find the idea that the population was
about 1000 individuals, which persisted for about 100,000 years
rather implausible. Implausible things sometimes turn out to be true but models frequently turn out to be wrong so if I were to get, I would bet on the latter.
Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 week ago
There's other recent research that counters this idea. It's still uncertain. Humans have dipped low before though, just probably not levels rivals animals like the cheetah, otherwise we'd show the same genetic issues they have due to the inbreeding of the survivors.
arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
From my understanding of the subject the current consensus is the bottleneck did happen. There’s been fluctuations in the exact number, but under 5,000 is what is most widely supported.
The only debate I’m aware of is the exact timing and cause of the bottle neck. It was widely believed a volcano eruption was responsible, but that has become more discredited. It appears the population decline occurred before the eruption and took a significant amount of time to climb after the eruption.
Rhaedas@fedia.io 1 week ago
If I recall right (and it may not be right lol) it was timing as well as how many other populations there were. I think the initial discovery and research made some assumptions that what they found was the only people around and that it was a sudden disaster. Just like now we think that the dinosaurs were already suffering for various reasons and the asteroid was just a final push towards extinction over time.