Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 10:01 AM
398 online now:
Coyote, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 391 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,997 Year: 16,603/21,208 Month: 2,492/3,593 Week: 605/882 Day: 37/86 Hour: 1/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam
jar
Member
Posts: 29023
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 16 of 118 (606390)
02-25-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:20 AM


Europa writes:

In fact, "Adam" lived somewhere between 50.000 and 80.000 years after "Eve".

Could this not be due to something being wrong with the scientific methodology?

Please, don't be too aggressive.
I am just trying to make a sound argument here.

Almost anything is possible, but it is very, very, very unlikely that Y-Adam and M-Eve lived at the same time.

In addition, the evidence does not mean that either was the only one of their sex at the time.

Finally, all the evidence points to bottleneck events where larger populations were reduced as opposed to founder populations.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:20 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Europa, posted 02-26-2011 9:59 AM jar has responded

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 17 of 118 (606393)
02-25-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Huntard
02-25-2011 9:32 AM


Huntard
... with all the knowledge we have, there is no way "Adam" and "Eve" lived at the same time.

Yes.
But even "all the knowledge we have" today about ME and YcAdam cannot be considered sound knowledge. Isn't the knowldge we have about ME and YcA pretty primitive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 9:32 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:55 AM Europa has responded
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 9:56 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 18 of 118 (606394)
02-25-2011 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:31 AM


Yes. Both use a fundamentally similar methodology.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:31 AM Europa has not yet responded

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 2127 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 19 of 118 (606396)
02-25-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 6:18 AM


Dr Adequate
That's just inevitable. Humans are one species, everyone has a mother, and no-one has more than one mother. Given these facts, one can prove the existence of ME from one's armchair.

Just curious ...
Is it (theoretically) possible to have two MEs even though we are all a single species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 6:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:59 AM Europa has responded
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 02-25-2011 10:47 AM Europa has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 9:06 PM Europa has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 20 of 118 (606397)
02-25-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:47 AM


But even "all the knowledge we have" today about ME and YcAdam cannot be considered sound knowledge. Isn't the knowldge we have about ME and YcA pretty primitive?

No, not really; I mean the calibration could be better, and we could collect more data but what we have is well supported.

One thing that would indicate that our methods are fundamentally flawed is if YcA and ME came out as living at the same time or if YcA lived before ME.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:47 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Europa, posted 02-26-2011 10:01 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 112 by caffeine, posted 08-26-2013 9:45 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2857
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 21 of 118 (606398)
02-25-2011 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:47 AM


Europa writes:

Yes.
But even "all the knowledge we have" today about ME and YcAdam cannot be considered sound knowledge. Isn't the knowldge we have about ME and YcA pretty primitive?


We know absolutely nothing about "Adam" and "Eve". What we do know about are genetics. And everything we know about genetics says they did not live at the same time. If you have data that questions this finding, please present it. Until that time, there is no reason at all to question the outcome. Your preferred belief that they lived at the same time does not replace the data we do have that says they didn't.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:47 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 22 of 118 (606400)
02-25-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:55 AM


No. At most we could share a ME who isn't human. In theory we could trace that ME right back to the dawnings of sexual reproduction but the odds against that are so high as to mean it's practically certain not to be the case.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:55 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Europa, posted 02-26-2011 10:06 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5526
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 23 of 118 (606403)
02-25-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Europa
02-25-2011 2:56 AM


Europa writes:
I may be wrong but my understanding of evolution does not contradict the statement: "All human beings are descendants of Adam."

The Theory of Evolution does not contradict that statement. The evidence of evolution does contradict it.

The Australian Aborigines were already in Australia well before the time of Adam and Eve.

If you read Genesis without prior doctrinal commitment, it comes across quite clearly that the A&E story is a "Just So" story, a kind of fable, and never intended as history.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 2:56 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Europa, posted 02-26-2011 10:10 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 898 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 24 of 118 (606405)
02-25-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:28 AM


No Answer
quote:
My bad.
But you are avoiding the answer
I didn't avoid answering. I deliberately didn't answer the question. As I said, you changed the topic. My position deals with Adam of the Bible. You've eliminated that from your question, so I have nothing to add to this thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:28 AM Europa has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 25 of 118 (606412)
02-25-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:55 AM


Even though I'm not Dr. A.
Is it (theoretically) possible to have two MEs even though we are all a single species?

I'm going to slightly disagree with Mr. Jack here and say that we could but not at the same time. The coalescence for Mitochondrial eve is around ~170,000 years based on the distribution of modern mitochondrial genotypes, if we were able to go in a time machine back a few 10's of thousands of years and do a similar experiment with that population of humans we might identify a different mitochondrial eve at a different coalescence point. Although as Mr. Jack points out, at some point that ancestor is not themselves going to be of the species Homo sapiens sapiens

By definition any given population can only have 1 mitochondrial eve at a time since the whole point is that ME is the common matrilineal ancestor, if there is more than one candidate genome then you haven't gone back far enough and aren't looking at the common ancestor.

The human race could even have a different mitochondrial eve in the future since novel mitochondrial genotypes are being produced all the time and in the right circumstances one of these could reach fixation.

There is a simulation on a site hosted by the North Carolina state university showing how a mixture of maternal mitochondrial genotypes resolve down to one as the result of random sampling.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:55 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 26 of 118 (606513)
02-25-2011 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:55 AM


Is it (theoretically) possible to have two MEs even though we are all a single species?

Mitochondrial Eve is by definition our most recent common ancestor in the female line. There can only be one of those.

This is not to say that you'd have noticed anything special about her at the time. She's unique because she's been carefully defined so as to be unique.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:55 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by sfs, posted 02-25-2011 9:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Europa, posted 02-26-2011 10:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
sfs
Member
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 27 of 118 (606514)
02-25-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 9:06 PM


It's worth noting that every little chunk of our genome has its own most recent common ancestor, not just mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. Most of these ancestors lived much longer ago than ME or Y-Adam -- typically on the order of half a million or a million years ago.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 9:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 28 of 118 (606516)
02-25-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Huntard
02-25-2011 9:32 AM


Huntard writes:

she is just the only woman with an unbroken female line until the present day.

You are overstating the uniqueness of ME. ME is merely the most recently born ancestor of all of us. ME's mother and ME's mother's mother would each be in the same unbroken line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 9:32 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 02-26-2011 5:43 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 29 of 118 (606518)
02-25-2011 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:40 AM


quote:
You are quick to jump into a 'reconciliation' story.

You are right, but not for the reasons you give. ME is not our oldest female common ancestor. She is instead our most recent common ancestor.

Assuming the Bible to be correct regarding the creation of Adam, we would not expect mitochondrial Eve to be the Biblical Adam's mate. ME might have been born any number of generations after Biblical Eve died.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:40 AM Europa has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by bluescat48, posted 02-26-2011 1:31 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 02-26-2011 4:11 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 30 of 118 (606525)
02-26-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NoNukes
02-25-2011 10:44 PM


Except that mitochondrial eve lived at least 70000 years before the so called biblical eve would have lived.

From the Ancestor's Tale:

And indeed, today's best 'molecular clock' estimates for their respective dates are about 140,000 years ago for [mito]Eve and about 60,000 for [y-chrome]Adam.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2011 10:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2011 10:09 AM bluescat48 has responded
 Message 43 by Dr Jack, posted 02-28-2011 10:26 AM bluescat48 has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017