Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Woot Evolution!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 20>
Author
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 2:17pm

What I find interesting is that FE's post actually contradicts itself if he feels all the things he says are true. The evidence that he is trying to use as support for his beliefs, actually disputes them. If you believe in the genetic mutation/degradation and interbreeding as destroying humanity. Wouldn't we all be 6 toed inbreds that would have died off within a few generations if we all came from a single pair of parents? Using your arguments, only a diverse genetic core population would have resulted in the prolongation of our species as well as its continued physical diversity.

Edited because it wasn't relative.

Oh, and it's drivel, not dribble.

 



Edited by oldpbnoob - 12 January 2009 at 3:26pm
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 2:31pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Simple question then.

 

Did we all come from eve?

I will translate your question to mean "was there a single first Homo Sapiens" from which we are all descended?"

My understanding is that this is an issue under much discussion. 

Using studies of mitochondrial DNA it appears fairly certain that all non-African Homo Sapiens descend from a small group (roughly 4,000) that left Africa a ways back.

I am not aware that the mitochondrial DNA has shown any further limiting than that.  I believe the current state of research is that there were likely a number of individuals that "became" Homo Sapiens more or less at the same time.  Certainly a small group, but a single point seems relatively unlikely.



In regards to this question, a lot of people assume that it is impossible for slightly different animals to breed. Considering that the populations of the first Hominids were related, there's also a chance that Homo Sapiens emerged on a large scale because it takes quite a large genetic discrepancy between individuals to make them incapable of mating.

That doesn't mean a horse can mate with a cat and put out some strange hybrid. That means that a brown horse with pointed hooves can mate with a spotted horse with round hooves and put out something that can mate with the rest of the horse population. Species don't start at a single mother. There was no single original Homo Sapien. Even the first Homo Sapiens have evolved over time, we just haven't changed species yet.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:07pm

Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

Please, please don't think me idiotic enough to have posted seriously.

I didn't.  But enough people ask the question that I figured I would answer anyway.

:)

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

What I find interesting is that FE's post actually contradicts itself if he feels all the things he says are true. The evidence that he is trying to use as support for his beliefs, actually disputes them. If you believe in the genetic mutation/degradation and interbreeding as destroying humanity. Wouldn't we all be 6 toed inbreds that would have died off within a few generations if we all came from a single pair of parents? Using your arguments, only a diverse genetic population would have resulted in the prolongation of our species as well as its continued physical diversity.

FE's point is common among certain apologists.  This allows them to reconcile their view of evolution with Biblical theory.  Basically, God is perfect.  He created Adam and Eve in his image, therefore they were pretty much perfect.  We have gradually been falling away from God, therefore we are less perfect now than before.  Similarly, if evolution worked the way FE describes, we would be on the same slow path to genetic hell.

Of course, it is based in a completely incorrect understanding of science and evolution.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Mr.Awesome View Drop Down
Member
Member

(not as Awesome as he thinks)

Joined: 12 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mr.Awesome Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:22pm

Bruce Banner, Free_Enterprise, Oldpbnoob and Eville

are you guys Pro Evolution or Pro Creation??

Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:28pm

Actually, let me speak for myself instead of assuming you know what I am going to say...

 

Science tells us that we all come from a common ancestor.

The Bible states this as well. And as Bruce stated, God Created them to be like him. Perfect in every way.

Then Adam sinned and brought death and destruction into the world. The first animals died to cloth them. And a new standard was born. Sin brought death, and destruction.

Although back then as the world was so perfect, it took longer for the death to occur. Look at how long Adam and Eve lived.

 

Science believes that we all came from this common ancestor as well. But, the problem with the science theory (remember the world view is to eliminate God). Therefore the first man/woman, should be similar to us... Except if that were true, then the issues of intermarriage (gene degredation) that we see (I posted examples) would have happened a long time ago, and none of us would be here... As mutations bring death.

 

Another question.

 

Can miracles happen?

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
cdacda13 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Yes, spelled secual.

Joined: 12 September 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cdacda13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:30pm
I must say Bruce, you sound just like my Human Evolution professor. I'm quite impressed.
Regrading this:
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

If we evolved from monkeys.....how come there are still monkeys?


To be nitpicky, we did not evolve from monkeys.  We share a recent common ancestor with today's great apes - gorillas and chimpanzees.  Chimps are our cousins, not our grandparents.  Technically, we ARE apes, just like them.

So we evolved from earlier apes.  There are three large groups of apes today:  Gorillas, chimps, and humans.  The earlier apes from which we descended are extinct.

This is not necessarily always the case, however.  There are plenty of instances where a new subspecies evolves while the "parent" species lives on.

Speciation usually involves geographic separation.  Say a bunch of birds fly off to a different island.  This new island has a different environment than the old island, so the birds undergo rapid evolution to adapt.  The result may be a new species.  In the meantime, the birds on the old island have been evolving slowly (since there was no changed environment), and are therefore still basically the same species that they were before.

This can be (and has been) easily replicated in a lab with various fast-growing microorganisms.


That sounds like it came out of my Evo textbook. I'm not saying you stole it, I'm just commenting on how accurate your information is. Again, I'm extremely impress. Keep up the good work.

Time for my question:
Did  the neanderthals go extinct, or interbreed with H. sapiens?
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:34pm
Originally posted by Mr.Awesome Mr.Awesome wrote:

Bruce Banner, Free_Enterprise, Oldpbnoob and Eville

are you guys Pro Evolution or Pro Creation??

I don't understand the question.

I am not for or against anything - I am just discussing a scientific theory.  You might as well ask if I am for or against blue.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:38pm

Personally, I am anti everything(lol), but do believe evolution as a viable explanation of how we came to be. IMO there is too much fossil evidence to ignore that life has evolved and that there was life for millions of years before Man came onto the scene. With that said, it doesn't mean I don't believe in the existence of a higher being whether it be God or something we aren't evolved enough to comprehend yet. I also don't know for certain that this higher existence wasn't the "spark" that created not only the universe, but the first signs of life that eventually evolved to become what the world is today. I have too many questions to be led by faith and haven't heard enough answers to believe science is a smart as it thinks it is.

 

"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:41pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Science tells us that we all come from a common ancestor.

...

Science believes that we all came from this common ancestor as well. But, the problem with the science theory (remember the world view is to eliminate God). Therefore the first man/woman, should be similar to us...

Except that the common ancestor was not human.  Probably not even a single-celled organism, but free-flowing DNA.  Or, if some current theories are right (and depending on how you define "ancestor"), not even DNA, but RNA or just a bunch of proteins or nucleotides.  Nothing like us at all, except for the DNA or near-DNA.

Quote Except if that were true, then the issues of intermarriage (gene degredation) that we see (I posted examples) would have happened a long time ago, and none of us would be here... As mutations bring death.

Mutations do not bring death.  This is patently and obviously false.  You really ought to stop saying that.  Moreover, inbreeding does not lead to mutation, it simply allows recessive genes more play.  You aren't suddenly going to be a bleeder just because your parents are siblings if they aren't carriers.

Quote Can miracles happen?

While this is a vaguely interesting question, I do not see how it is relevant to a discussion about evolution.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:45pm
FE, the bible says we come from a common ancestor, meaning single person.  One entity.  Science tells us we come from a common ancestor, but in this sense it is talking about an entire species.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:47pm
Originally posted by Hysteria Hysteria wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Simple question then.

Did we all come from eve?

I don't know and neither do you. 

According to science and the study of DNA, actually we do know. You too have "eve's" dna in your body. So even though you don't know about it, or don't believe it. It is still a scientific fact...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

When the scientific world agreed that Eve was the common point of Humans, it put the evolutionary "theory" over the edge, it is now not a theory anymore but a belief system. That must be obeyed regardless if it is proven wrong.

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:51pm

FYI, from your own article:

Originally posted by Article that FE cites Article that FE cites wrote:


That's Ridiculous How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet?

And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today.



Edited by oldpbnoob - 12 January 2009 at 3:54pm
"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:53pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Science tells us that we all come from a common ancestor.

...

Science believes that we all came from this common ancestor as well. But, the problem with the science theory (remember the world view is to eliminate God). Therefore the first man/woman, should be similar to us...

Except that the common ancestor was not human.  Probably not even a single-celled organism, but free-flowing DNA.  Or, if some current theories are right (and depending on how you define "ancestor"), not even DNA, but RNA or just a bunch of proteins or nucleotides.  Nothing like us at all, except for the DNA or near-DNA.

Quote Except if that were true, then the issues of intermarriage (gene degredation) that we see (I posted examples) would have happened a long time ago, and none of us would be here... As mutations bring death.

Mutations do not bring death.  This is patently and obviously false.  You really ought to stop saying that.  Moreover, inbreeding does not lead to mutation, it simply allows recessive genes more play.  You aren't suddenly going to be a bleeder just because your parents are siblings if they aren't carriers.

 

Ok, Here is a list of mutations... My contention is that mutations are bad, eventually resulting in death (after it evolves), based on the amount of negative mutations listed. Show me the evidence from this list of all the "positive" mutations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

 

Quote Can miracles happen?

While this is a vaguely interesting question, I do not see how it is relevant to a discussion about evolution.

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:57pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

FYI, from your own article:

Originally posted by Article that FE cites Article that FE cites wrote:


That's Ridiculous How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet?

And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today.

Obviously you felt it was tldr...

But, if you had read right below the headline you posted...

That's Ridiculous How Could a Single Being Populate a Planet?

"And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today.

She didn't live alone she would have lived within a community. She didn't just pump babies out, either. There is no reason to suppose that she had more than one female child. But there is reason to suppose that whatever female children she had, they contained specific advantages for survival over the rest of the population."

 

So, actually, like I said, Christians and Science agree.

 

We all came from Eve. Unless you choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore DNA...

Evolution on the other hand, that is where the problems exist.

Why don't the evolution supporters show us evidence of species changing from one species into another... Not at the cell level but actual changes, a new species. There are thousands on the earth. I'm sure that there must be that obvious evidence, since it is taught in schools as fact...



Edited by FreeEnterprise - 12 January 2009 at 4:08pm
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 3:59pm

Do miracles happen?

mir⋅a⋅cle

1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.


Edited by FreeEnterprise - 12 January 2009 at 4:00pm
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Mr.Awesome View Drop Down
Member
Member

(not as Awesome as he thinks)

Joined: 12 October 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 74
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mr.Awesome Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 4:02pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Originally posted by Mr.Awesome Mr.Awesome wrote:

Bruce Banner, Free_Enterprise, Oldpbnoob and Eville

are you guys Pro Evolution or Pro Creation??

I don't understand the question.

I am not for or against anything - I am just discussing a scientific theory.  You might as well ask if I am for or against blue.

you answered it

Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 4:05pm

Um, no, I read the article and you simply seem not to be grasping what it is saying. Here is some additional info from your Wikipedia cite that may help you out:

Originally posted by FE's cited Wikipedia FE's cited Wikipedia wrote:

[edit] Matrilineal descent

To find the Mitochondrial Eve of all living humans, one can start by tracing a line from every individual to his/her mother, then continue those lines from each of those mothers to their mothers and so on, effectively tracing a family tree backward in time based purely on mitochondrial lineages. Going back through time these mitochondrial lineages will converge when two or more women have the same mother. The further back in time one goes, the fewer mitochondrial ancestors of living humans there will be. Eventually only one is left, and this one is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all humans alive today, i.e. Mitochondrial Eve.

It is possible to draw the same matrilineal tree forward in time by starting with all human female contemporaries of Mitochondrial Eve. Some of these women may have died childless. Others left only male children. For the rest who became mothers with at least one daughter, one can trace a line forward in time connecting them to their daughter(s). As the forward lineages progress in time, more and more lineage lines become extinct, as the last female in a line dies childless or leaves no female children. Eventually, only one single lineage remains, which includes all mothers, and in the next generation, all people, and hence all people alive today.

[edit] Misconceptions

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the MRCA of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. According to probabilistic studies,[1] Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago. On the arbitrary assumption that people mate with a random individual drawn from the whole of the global population, the "theoretical" MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago.[2]

Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[3] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck.

Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women are not as common as the MRCA, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.[4]

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.[1][5]

"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 4:12pm

Originally posted by cdacda13 cdacda13 wrote:

That sounds like it came out of my Evo textbook. I'm not saying you stole it, I'm just commenting on how accurate your information is.

Very possible I stole it.  My textbook was Futuyma's, which I believe is still the leading evolution textbook in the US.   :)

Quote
Time for my question:
Did  the neanderthals go extinct, or interbreed with H. sapiens?

Again, far too intelligent of a question for me.  The best I can do is regurgitate the current state of research.  I am not a researcher myself to where I would be able to have an intelligent opinion on this subject.  And my understanding is that Neanderthal interbreeding is very controversial, and very much under ongoing discussion.

My personal and entirely unscientific theory is that humans like to, uh, breed, and given that some humans find sheep close enough for breeding, I find it most likely that humans would not pass on breeding with Neanderthals - at least in West Virginia and New Zealand.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4785
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 January 2009 at 4:13pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Um, no, I read the article and you simply seem not to be grasping what it is saying. Here is some additional info from your Wikipedia cite that may help you out:

Originally posted by FE's cited Wikipedia FE's cited Wikipedia wrote:

[edit] Matrilineal descent

To find the Mitochondrial Eve of all living humans, one can start by tracing a line from every individual to his/her mother, then continue those lines from each of those mothers to their mothers and so on, effectively tracing a family tree backward in time based purely on mitochondrial lineages. Going back through time these mitochondrial lineages will converge when two or more women have the same mother. The further back in time one goes, the fewer mitochondrial ancestors of living humans there will be. Eventually only one is left, and this one is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all humans alive today, i.e. Mitochondrial Eve.

It is possible to draw the same matrilineal tree forward in time by starting with all human female contemporaries of Mitochondrial Eve. Some of these women may have died childless. Others left only male children. For the rest who became mothers with at least one daughter, one can trace a line forward in time connecting them to their daughter(s). As the forward lineages progress in time, more and more lineage lines become extinct, as the last female in a line dies childless or leaves no female children. Eventually, only one single lineage remains, which includes all mothers, and in the next generation, all people, and hence all people alive today.

[edit] Misconceptions

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the MRCA of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. According to probabilistic studies,[1] Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago. On the arbitrary assumption that people mate with a random individual drawn from the whole of the global population, the "theoretical" MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago.[2]

Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve[3] after Eve of the Genesis creation story has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck.

Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women are not as common as the MRCA, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.[4]

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.[1][5]

 

actually... I have read it.

It does say that all of us, come from a single ancestors dna.

Science has to put in others, to pacify the secular humanists, *cough* excuse me, Evolutionists.

The Bible already explained it in Chapter 1 of Genesis.

King James Version: Genesis Chapter 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 20>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.