Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 2:49 PM
406 online now:
Chiroptera, Dr Adequate, frako, jar, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, Stile, Tangle, vimesey (10 members, 396 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,559 Year: 10,165/21,208 Month: 3,252/2,674 Week: 668/961 Day: 130/151 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1477 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 46 of 118 (606782)
02-28-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 10:29 AM


the population models are bunk.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? What part of the population models on which recent MRCA estimates are based do you disagree with? That people have 2 parents? That they have 4 grandparents? That in the past the human population of the Earth has been considerably smaller than it is currently?

Whatever models you are talking about they don't seem to be ones having anything to do with common ancestry.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 10:29 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 11:34 AM Wounded King has responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 118 (606786)
02-28-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Wounded King
02-28-2011 11:11 AM


Wounded King writes:

the population models are bunk.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

I am referring to the YEC models that try to claim humans have only been breeding for roughly 6000 years. The OP's claim about being descended from Adam implies the belief that the event described in the Bible occurred.

While it is certainly possible that the human line could be traced wholesale back to around 500AD, the idea that the entirety of humanity is descended from two individuals from such recent a pairing is patently ridiculous.

Wounded King writes:

There might well have been someone around at that time, amidst the thousands of contemporaneous common ancestors,

More like 190 million other humans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Wounded King, posted 02-28-2011 11:11 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 02-28-2011 12:12 PM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 61 by dennis780, posted 03-01-2011 4:03 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

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


Message 48 of 118 (606788)
02-28-2011 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
02-28-2011 11:00 AM


Re: Not a problem
NoNukes writes:

Not so. As long as more than one woman survived the flood, it is not necessary for mitochondrial Eve to be a post-flood woman.

Unless the women were completely separated into four populations (and, ouch, the inbreeding implications of that!) it's mind-boggling unlikely that even if all the women present had different mitochondrial genomes (itself relatively unlikely) all four lines would have survived to the current day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2011 11:00 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1477 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 49 of 118 (606796)
02-28-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 11:34 AM


the idea that the entirety of humanity is descended from two individuals from such recent a pairing is patently ridiculous.

Solely, you need to put 'solely' or 'just' in their somewhere because the entirety of humanity is descended from two individuals from such a recent pairing as well as from another few million other such pairings around the same time.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 11:34 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 12:21 PM Wounded King has responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 118 (606802)
02-28-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Wounded King
02-28-2011 12:12 PM


Wounded King writes:

Solely, you need to put 'solely' or 'just' in their somewhere because the entirety of humanity is descended from two individuals from such a recent pairing as well as from another few million other such pairings around the same time.

OK true, but you wouldn't parse the statement "Humanity is descended from Adam" to mean that there is at least one living human alive today that descended from someone named Adam, and the rest of humanity is composed of offspring from other family lines.

If we are to use such a tortured interpretation then we can conclude that the original statement was technically true but mostly meaningless. (and by most accounts deceptive)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 02-28-2011 12:12 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 02-28-2011 1:56 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 51 of 118 (606806)
02-28-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phage0070
02-27-2011 3:10 PM


Phage
On the contrary, it certainly does contradict such a statement.

You have written a long answer.
But you have not understood my question.

What I said was 'because we have someone like ME, my statement is not false.'

If we do not have ME (or YcA for that matter), it would be hard to argue that we are descendants of a single being.

Whether ME and YcA were of the same generation or not, is irrelevant here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phage0070, posted 02-27-2011 3:10 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 12:53 PM Europa has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1572 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 52 of 118 (606810)
02-28-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NoNukes
02-28-2011 10:09 AM


NoNukes writes:

bluescat48 writes:

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


That's based on dates according to some hyper literal of Genesis. Surely that is not what this thread is about.

The point would be the same if y-Chromosome Adam was used.
It predates the Biblical Adam by thousands of years.


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 42 by NoNukes, posted 02-28-2011 10:09 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Europa, posted 02-28-2011 12:48 PM bluescat48 has responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 53 of 118 (606812)
02-28-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by bluescat48
02-28-2011 12:43 PM


Bluescat
The point would be the same if y-Chromosome Adam was used.
It predates the Biblical Adam by thousands of years.

You missed the point again.
This is also not what this thread is about.

This thread is about a statement. And whther it, as a statement, is true of false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by bluescat48, posted 02-28-2011 12:43 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluescat48, posted 02-28-2011 5:50 PM Europa has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 118 (606813)
02-28-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Europa
02-28-2011 12:42 PM


Europa writes:

What I said was 'because we have someone like ME, my statement is not false.'

No, thats still false. Since that statement only technically talks about ME, and your statement only addresses Adam, they don't mesh at all. ME existed long before YcA ever cropped up, so her descendants would have had many different male lines to mate with.

What you could say is: "Because there is someone like YcA mating with an established ME, my statement was not false assuming terms used within it are redefined to match the biological theory." "Adam" would need to be a placeholder for the unknown YcA, and "humanity" would need to be redefined as only meaning "living humans".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Europa, posted 02-28-2011 12:42 PM Europa has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1477 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 55 of 118 (606827)
02-28-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 12:21 PM


OK true, but you wouldn't parse the statement "Humanity is descended from Adam" to mean that there is at least one living human alive today that descended from someone named Adam, and the rest of humanity is composed of offspring from other family lines.

You still don't seem to get it, everyone alive today is descended from all of that ancestral population, there are no 'other family lines'. There is a historical point where there are 2 populations one consists of people who have no extant modern descendants and the other consists of people all of whom are ancestral to every extant modern human. This is called the identical ancestors point. In fact looking at that I seem to have got the numbers for the MRCA and the IAP mixed up, with the IAP being several thousand years before the MRCA.

If we are to use such a tortured interpretation then we can conclude that the original statement was technically true but mostly meaningless.

Since Europa seems willing to consider a 'hypothetical Adam' that is how I view it.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 12:21 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 2:00 PM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Europa, posted 02-28-2011 11:48 PM Wounded King has responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 118 (606828)
02-28-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Wounded King
02-28-2011 1:56 PM


Wounded King writes:

Since Europa seems willing to consider a 'hypothetical Adam' that is how I view it.

But for the original statement to be true "humanity" must instead be "living humans". So its still not correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 02-28-2011 1:56 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Europa, posted 02-28-2011 11:51 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1572 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 57 of 118 (606864)
02-28-2011 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Europa
02-28-2011 12:48 PM


This thread is about a statement. And whther it, as a statement, is true of false.

Fine if the y-Chromosome Adam, true, if Biblical Adam, false.


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 53 by Europa, posted 02-28-2011 12:48 PM Europa has not yet responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 58 of 118 (606917)
02-28-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Wounded King
02-28-2011 1:56 PM


WK
everyone alive today is descended from all of that ancestral population

If we are descendants of an ancestral population, why do we ALL have the traits that could "trace" our family line to one single being? Why don't we have a mixture of traits that would tell us our great, great, ... great grandmothers were different people?

there are no 'other family lines'.

Could this be because we have not tested for other family lines?
Or could this be because there really aren't other family lines?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Wounded King, posted 02-28-2011 1:56 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Wounded King, posted 03-01-2011 4:07 AM Europa has responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2069 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 59 of 118 (606919)
02-28-2011 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phage0070
02-28-2011 2:00 PM


Phage
But for the original statement to be true "humanity" must instead be "living humans". So its still not correct.

Not that I even understood what you mean by this comment. But ...
Does this also mean that because "humanity" is not only "living humans", ME is false?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 2:00 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Phage0070, posted 03-01-2011 12:34 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 118 (606921)
03-01-2011 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Europa
02-28-2011 11:51 PM


Europa writes:

Not that I even understood what you mean by this comment. But ...
Does this also mean that because "humanity" is not only "living humans", ME is false?

No, ME is a specific individual among the human species from which all living humans descended. Before and even during her time there were humans which were not descended from her line. The ME idea specifically describes this relationship.

The original statement was "All human beings are descendants of Adam." That would seem to mean that if you examined any human they would be a descendant of Adam (or Adam himself). This is in keeping with the set of beliefs that would lead to such a statement in the first place.

I might otherwise be willing to excuse an imprecise colloquial usage of language except that the OP is clearly trying to squeak through on technicalities and redefinitions. If he wants to be technically not disproved then he is going to have to live with being technical with our terms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Europa, posted 02-28-2011 11:51 PM Europa has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017