The Common Ancestor?

ut the Y-chromosome is always passed down to males through that line of ascent that trails back to just those men who also had that exact same chromosome. Only to the most recent search person through the appropriate line. It's highly unlikely that this would link through to the first man.

...to the first man, 7 million years ago...????
Of course no geneticist is saying that.

They are going back only as far as Moidern man who appeared about 142,000 years ago.

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal "Adam," (which is a misnomer by science people who would have done better to have associated this common ancestor with Noah), is the name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended through the male lines of their family tree. Up to now, DNA studies had estimated that Y-chromosomal Adam lived between 60,000 and 142,000 years ago.

Scientist who have tried promote interest in their research associated the link to a common ancestor with Adam, but that indicates their ignorance of Genesis, since the common ancestor for us all living today would be Noah.
The "flood' exterminated all other species except the three racial stocks that populated the whole world after that flood.

What is important here is that this FACT suppports the assumption that genesis was really saying Noah appeared about 40 THOUSAND years ago, not 40 "days", as I have been maintaing in my explanation of Genesis.

They are going back only as far as Moidern [sic] man who appeared about 142,000 years ago.

From Wiki:

The term anatomically modern humans (AMH, also AMHS for "anatomically modern Homo sapiens") in paleoanthropology refers to individuals of Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans.

Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens that includes all modern humans. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains, which date to 195,000 (±5,000) years ago and include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones.

The Omo skulls:

What is important here is that this FACT suppports the assumption that genesis was really saying Noah appeared about 40 THOUSAND years ago, not 40 "days", as I have been maintaing in my explanation of Genesis.[

Wrong. The remarks about going back to the first man apply equally well to going back to Noah. If the story were true, it is likely that we are all related to a distance descendant of Noah. It is highly unlikely that Noah is the most recent such person.

And let's be careful about the word "supports". Support is not generally used to mean, "not inconsistent with" some hypothesis I hold. Support means "provides evidence for" a hypothesis such that the evidence provides more support for your hypothesis than the accepted explanation.

And 40,000 years is NOT within the range of dates given for the genetic MRCA. So even with your bogus definition of support, your off quite a bit.

So I guess I will pose this question to everyone.

Since special creation also predicts that many organisms would share similar features, what evidence is there for common ancestory that does not rely on the similarity argument? In other words, since both schools of thought predict similarity among many organisms, then similarity can not be used to prove one above the other. So what evidence is there for common ancestory that does NOT depend on the similarities in the phenotype or genetic information?

"Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago."

So you can read yourself that modern humans evolved ABOUT 200,000 years ago, but only we living today avoided extinction because our Y-chromosome is linked to just one man, presumably Noah, who lived 142,000 years ago.

?

And 40,000 years is NOT within the range of dates given for the genetic MRCA. So even with your bogus definition of support, your off quite a bit. .

You are off...

The 40,000 years refers NOT to the appearance of Noah, nor does it date the evolution of the three racial stocks which Genesis calls Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Those three sources of all men living today were born to Noah 100,000 years before the extinction process of 40,000 years began.

Check Gen 5:31 and Gen 7 to see that these Modern Homo sapiens were bor overn 140,000 years ago

So I guess I will pose this question to everyone. Since special creation also predicts that many organisms would share similar features, what evidence is there for common ancestory that does not rely on the similarity argument? In other words, since both schools of thought predict similarity among many organisms, then similarity can not be used to prove one above the other. So what evidence is there for common ancestory that does NOT depend on the similarities in the phenotype or genetic information?

The first humanoid appeared when an ape surrogate mother with 24 Chromosomes experienced an Act-of-God by which two chromosomes fused together, creating a new creature in God with only 23 Chromosomes.
From that point, intelligence was the resulting feature of the mutation which after 22 links to modern man clearly distinguishes us from Apes.

The 40,000 years refers NOT to the appearance of Noah, nor does it date the evolution of the three racial stocks which Genesis calls Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Those three sources of all men living today were born to Noah 100,000 years before the extinction process of 40,000 years began.

Hmm, I wonder where I got the impression that you were claiming that Noah appeared 40,000 years ago. Oh hey, here is you saying exactly that:

From Message 211

What is important here is that this FACT suppports the assumption that genesis was really saying Noah appeared about 40 THOUSAND years ago, not 40 "days", as I have been maintaing in my explanation of Genesis.

If you are really dropping the tie between 40,000 years and 40 days, then you are distancing yourself from even this pathetically tenuous tie to Genesis.

When the genetic studies show that all Jewish priests living today are related to just one man, presumaby Aaron, who lived in 1362BC...

There are no such genetic studies. You are making things up.

Thomas, et al. dated the origin of the shared DNA to approximately 3,000 years ago (with variance arising from different generation lengths).

From the same wiki:

"The original scientific research was based on the discovery that a majority of present-day Jewish Kohanim either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, which researchers named the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). However it subsequently became clear that this six marker pattern was widespread in many communities where men had Y chromosomes which fell into Haplogroup J; the six-marker CMH was not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews, but was a survival from the origins of Haplogroup J, about 30,000 years ago."

presumably Noah...

Why do you keep saying this?

There is no reason to suppose that this is the case.

"Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago." So you can read yourself that modern humans evolved ABOUT 200,000 years ago, but only we living today avoided extinction because our Y-chromosome is linked to just one man, presumably Noah, who lived 142,000 years ago. ?

What nonsense!

Noah didn't live some 142,000 years ago. Written human history is some 5+ thousand years old, and the bible is more recent than that. The flood is generally agreed by biblical scholars to have occurred some 4,350 years ago. Your estimate is just plain nuts!

The y-chromosome MRCA is something totally unrelated.

You are letting religious myths overcome both common sense and firmly established data to the point that your arguments are total nonsense. You do neither yourself nor your claims any good by posting such easily-refuted gibberish.

JBR writes: So I guess I will pose this question to everyone. Since special creation also predicts that many organisms would share similar features, what evidence is there for common ancestory that does not rely on the similarity argument? In other words, since both schools of thought predict similarity among many organisms, then similarity can not be used to prove one above the other. So what evidence is there for common ancestory that does NOT depend on the similarities in the phenotype or genetic information?

Special creation doesn't predict anything at all - it just says that God created everything as we see it today 6,000 years ago. There's no prediction about things being similar or otherwise. God could have made animals with wheels and three legs and plants with pink chlorophyl if he'd wanted to.

As we can't know the mind of god, we can't make any prediction about what he might or might not have done.

But why should we just accept something as a "matter of fact" when we haven't ever been shown a logical trail that leads to the stated conclusions?

The entire field of biology and most of modern medicine operate on the premise that the way the Theory of Evolution explains the history of life is the correct interpretation of the evidence.

You believe they are absolutely wrong, everyone who is in these two fields throughout the entire world?

You don't have to accept anything as a matter of fact, like, you could still believe the Earth is flat. But I wouldn't let other people know you believe that.

I'll be nice and not ask since this isn't the thread for that discussion.

Oh I've been here long enough to know you think those who study geology are wrong and have the dates wrong because their dating methods are off.

So you conclude that you are right and all of biology, most of modern medicine and the field of geology are wrong throughout the entire world.

Man, it must be hard being that smart.

I'll be nice and not ask since this isn't the thread for that discussion.

You asked if there was 40,000 year old DNA to comare to modern humans. Well, there is. So now you know the two can be compared. If you want to learn about how the chromosomes fused just research it further. I won't do it for you because I feel anything I post you'll disregard.

- Oni

But why should we just accept something as a "matter of fact" when we haven't ever been shown a logical trail that leads to the stated conclusions? The entire field of biology and most of modern medicine operate on the premise that the way the Theory of Evolution explains the history of life is the correct interpretation of the evidence. You believe they are absolutely wrong, everyone who is in these two fields throughout the entire world? You don't have to accept anything as a matter of fact, like, you could still believe the Earth is flat. But I wouldn't let other people know you believe that. I'll be nice and not ask since this isn't the thread for that discussion. Oh I've been here long enough to know you think those who study geology are wrong and have the dates wrong because their dating methods are off. So you conclude that you are right and all of biology, most of modern medicine and the field of geology are wrong throughout the entire world. Man, it must be hard being that smart. I'll be nice and not ask since this isn't the thread for that discussion. You asked if there was 40,000 year old DNA to comare to modern humans. Well, there is. So now you know the two can be compared. If you want to learn about how the chromosomes fused just research it further. I won't do it for you because I feel anything I post you'll disregard.

...basically... two times that above response.

2X