|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Thanks WK, for the explanation.
Much appreciated. A natural consequence of this is that at some point the ancestral pool for everyone alive today will overlap 100%. This is fine.But, do you think we are assuming that it will overlap 100 percent? Think of the hypothetical scenario where there were 10 Eves (or 10 Adams) that were the fisrt humans. Suppose all 10 of them began the human population. What would be the difference we should expect to see in our population of today? This is a little different question. But would like to know your views on this.Do you think primate to human change was a catapulted change? I mean a macro-mutation sort of a change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
At one time, we were ape-like primates. We lived in the jungle, probably on trees. We became humans. Not overnight. But gradually, over millions of years. This is the accepted scientific theory about how human beings originated. According to this theory, there was no first human being. There was no Adam, nor Eve.
If you accept this to be true, how do you fit Mitochondrial Eve into the scenario? Isn't this an anti-thesis? On the one hand we are saying that there was no first human being. On the other hand we are saying that we are all descendants of a single human being -- Mitochondrial Eve (ME). Presently, ME is explained by saying the human population faced a bottleneck sometime in the past and that is why we have ME. My question is why do we assume that we faced a bottleneck? We know that ME existed, but we do not know anything about the others during her time. So, instead of saying ME had companions, why don't we say we do not know whether ME had companions? I am not saying that ME is the Bilical Eve. But, because we have someone like ME, I think it favours the theory that we are descendants of a single human being. Why then is the theory of bottlenecking more plausible than the theory that we descended from a single human being? I am just trying to make sense of the little I know about evolution of human beings. Any insight into this will be appreciated. Thanks. (PS. Iam pretty new to this forum. So I probably do not know how this forum works. I thought every new idea or new thought should be a new topic. So I thought this should be a new topic too. But from what I understood from what Percy (from Admin) said, I can post this here.) Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Well this is awkward... You do know about the birds and the bees don't you? Well this is embarassing ... No, I do not know about the birds and the bees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
All the grandchildren of your grandmother are descended from your grandmother, right? Does that mean that all your grandchildren have only one grandmother they descended from? Does it mean all your first cousins are descended from a single human being, your grandmother? Dear Son, You are asking me to imagine the scenario at the top of the family tree, where my grandmother has several of her siblings, cousins, etc. I am on the other hand asking what happened at the bottm, where the first branch took place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Thanks King for the clarification and for your patience.
I'm not sure this is really the case, provided we had a clear enough definition of human being then there probably would have been an identifiable first organism to fit that criteria, but it probably wouldn't have been readily distinguishable from all of its contemporaries in the same pre-human hominid population. So, ape-like primate to human being was a slow and gradual transition?There was no single point at which we can mark the orgin of human beings? Also ME doesn't say that we are only descended from 1 single human being.
No it does not. But suppose there was a single human being from which we all descended, will we not have an ME?
the MRCA calculations for various other genetic markers extend back well beyond ME Are these markers also present in everyone alive today?
It really does sound like you just mean the biblical scenario of one original breeding pair alone giving rise to every subsequent person in the whole human race. I think you misinterpreted what i said. Yes I do mean we all descended from a single human being. But I also mean that ME may not necessarily be the BIBLICAL Eve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
For every gene there will be a most recent common ancestor (MRCA), and they will undoubtedly be different MRCA's for many genes. Agreed.If all human beings alive today have a particular gene (marker) and if this can be traced back to a point where it originated, it is only obvious that we all descended from that individual. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Very easily. Mitochondrial Eve would be one of the descendants of the population which included the first human. And she would, herself be part of a larger population. Why is it we don't have the evidence for any of the other members of this population?I mean why is it that we do not have more markers that can be traced to someone who lived during ME's time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
A single original pair would be a very severe bottleneck Yes. But is there any evidence to say it cannot be such a severe bottleneck?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Are you with me so far? Yes.What happened next?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
.
Edited by Europa, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Europa Member (Idle past 4714 days) Posts: 68 Joined: |
Even the most bonkers-in-the-nut creationists generally accept that we are descended from at least two people. I mean, if you were talking about all humans being descended from an ancestral pair that would make a bit more sense. It would still be wrong, but at least it wouldn't be quite so obviously loopy. Wow granny.you do not have a clue of what you are talking about. Do You?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024