Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
131 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 129 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,414 Year: 1,060/14,102 Month: 52/411 Week: 73/168 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 195 of 341 (693353)
03-14-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by kofh2u
03-14-2013 2:00 PM


Re: MRCAs of all stripes
What they call "mitochondrial Eve" ought correspond with the mother of the three racial stocks called Ham, Shem, and Japeth in Gen 5:31, which says these three "sons" evolved 100 (thousand?) years before Noah went in to the ark.

That isn't science. There is no genetic hypothesis of races, let alone one that suggests 3 races evolved from mitochondrial eve.

Stop claiming that your fan-fiction is science.

Y-chromosome "Adam" corresponds better to Noah, who would have been dated at the time of the mass extinction of Neanderthals around forty (40) thousand years ago.

1) Y chromosome Adam is dated to 140,000 years ago, not 40,000 years ago

2) There was no mass extinction of Neanderthal. Neanderthals existed with dwindling populations until about 25,000 years ago.

Neither of these have anything to do with 40,000 years ago so there is no correspondence. And just because things happen in the same timeframe doesn't mean they are intrinsically connected.

I got a promotion in the same year that a new pope was elected. I guess, according to your bad logic, there is some sort of correspondence between myself and the new pope because our circumstances are relevant to the same timeframe.

You are quite wrong. Stop making up things like "neanderthals underwent a mass extinction" or "Y chromosome Adam is dated to 40,000 years ago."

We can easily prove that your fact pattern is wrong because your data is wrong. You can't make a valid argument by using counterfeit data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 2:00 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 197 of 341 (693378)
03-14-2013 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by kofh2u
03-14-2013 6:17 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actuallytelling lies...

Some people try to say Y-chromosomal Adam lived 142,000 years ago by ignoring that estimate is alway a range,.e.; Y-Chromosome Adam lived between 60,000 and 142,000 years ago.
"DNA studies had estimated that Y-chromosomal Adam lived between 60,000 and 142,000 years ago."

40,000 years ago does not fall within that range. It isn't even remotely near one of the extremes. You are correct in that making up half truths is actually telling lies. Even more is when you outright claim that y chromosome Adam lived 40,000 years ago, which is in no estimate or approximation whatsoever.

Everything else you claimed was a non sequitor. You claimed Y-Adam lived 40,000 years ago. You were corrected. Stop claiming it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 6:17 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 9:46 PM Eli has responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(1)
Message 204 of 341 (693439)
03-15-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by kofh2u
03-14-2013 9:46 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...
1) Noah and this mitochondria "eve," lived 100 thousand years before the forty thousand year flood started. That would identify that common ancestor who we genetic think lived 142,000 years ago with Noah, and hence us.

Y-Adam and Mito Eve were not contempoaries. They were seperated by tens of thousands of years. There is no aspect of their relationship that would justify you referring to them as husband and wife.

More like great great great great great great great great great grandma.

And again, there was no "40,000 year flood."

2) The forty thousand year flood or duration of extinctions, ended and the agricultural Age of 10,000 years ago began,
This again supports the range for a common ancestor hypothesized by Science and mentioned by Genesis:

No, there was no 40,000 year flood. Even if there were a "40,000 year flood" it would speak nothing of genetics specifically, let alone point to a common ancestor.

Are you aware that every conclusion you draw is a complete non sequitor from the data, even when it is false data that you make up, it still does not lead to the conclusion that you arrive at?

3) Verse 19 above is supported by the findings of science in that during that 40 thousand years modern man of three racial stocks poured in the Americas, and every land on the bglobe, to the tops of the mountains.

That isn't a finding of science. You are still making things up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kofh2u, posted 03-14-2013 9:46 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 219 of 341 (693483)
03-16-2013 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 2:27 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 2:27 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 220 of 341 (693484)
03-16-2013 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 7:16 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...
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."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 7:16 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 221 of 341 (693485)
03-16-2013 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by kofh2u
03-15-2013 11:34 PM


Re: ...making up half truths is actually telling lies...
presumably Noah...

Why do you keep saying this?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by kofh2u, posted 03-15-2013 11:34 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


(1)
Message 262 of 341 (693617)
03-18-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by kofh2u
03-18-2013 11:43 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
ev·i·dence /ˈevədəns/

Noun

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The conclusions that you have drawn do not have any logical connection to what you are calling "evidence." You do not have any evidence for your claims. In fact, the evidence indicates that new species do not emerge from a single generation and especially not from a telemore fusion. Furthermore, "surrogate Ape mother" has no contextual meaning whatsoever. There was no surrogate mother. There was a series of biological mothers, generation after generation, that bridge the gap between less similar subspecies and more similar (recent) subspecies. We are talking millions of years.

Two fused chromosomes is the smoking gun for a relationship between humans and other apes, not that a new species emerged from a single pregnancy.

And your "22 evolutionary changes" doesn't even come close to represented the subject of the book you again mention out of context and drawing ZERO substance from it (since you apparently have never gotten beyond the cover and title)

You have submitted not one iota of evidence in support of these erroneous and easily rebuked claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by kofh2u, posted 03-18-2013 11:43 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 264 of 341 (693643)
03-19-2013 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by kofh2u
03-19-2013 12:51 AM


Re: ... is there an honest person in the room...?
two fused chromosomes appeared 6 million years ago, and certainly suggest one particular mutation in one individual from who all humans today are related

I accept that.

But that is not what you are claiming. You claimed that it means that a new species was created and that this individual's mother was an "ape surrogate."

Basically you are implying a virgin birth scenario and seperating this individual from his mother as a seperate species, which is not the case.

Your links and graphics all point back to your own website. The graphics were made in a photo editing program BY YOU. Your claims are self referential. You are not an authority. You are not reporting on science.

Does anyone here believe that the Book is misleading in supporting that 22 now extinct humans were species linked to the ascent of modern man?

What page does the book claim this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 12:51 AM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 269 of 341 (693649)
03-19-2013 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by foreveryoung
03-19-2013 3:59 AM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
The soul is the part of us that seeks to communicate with and understand its creator.

There are two types of things in this world: That which we can control and/or make reasonable predictions/forsee accurate expectations, and that which we cannot control and that has an unknown nature to us. Whether a blessing or a malediction, the timing is a mystery to us.

Creators often are meant to give reason behind what we cannot control (earthquakes, lightening, and other natural events) and to give a sense of security in an uncertain world.

We try to seek out creators and to know them while they, too, are unknowable. We are compelled to do this out of fear and doubt. The "soul" is an emergence in response to anxiety.

Find me another animal that does not experience anxiety or refuses to seek comfort.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by foreveryoung, posted 03-19-2013 3:59 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 280 of 341 (693706)
03-19-2013 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by kofh2u
03-19-2013 12:52 PM



YES...
A common ancestor to modern man HAS been found, one which is supported in two ways by our scientists:

1) Sahelanthropus tchadensis is suspected to be the oldest and therefore first in the line of our ascent, i.e., the first "man."

On page 32 of "The Last Man: A Guide to 22 Species of Extinct Humans" it claims that determining whether Chad represents an animal that existed before apes and humans split or whether it was post-split is purely speculative at this point.

So to claim that Chad had 23 chromosomes (your limited scope of what contitutes "human") and therefore represents what you call having been fostered by a "surrogate Ape mother" is unsubstantiated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 12:52 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 282 of 341 (693717)
03-19-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by foreveryoung
03-19-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor
How do you know there was no Hanuman?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by foreveryoung, posted 03-19-2013 5:21 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Eli
Member (Idle past 2281 days)
Posts: 274
Joined: 08-24-2012


Message 300 of 341 (693785)
03-19-2013 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by kofh2u
03-19-2013 6:50 PM


Re: ...of course we have scienc evidence...
paleontologists are asserting that in their scheme of things this would be the oresent candidate for the earliest appearance of our branch off from the Apes

No, they are not. They have not even determined if Chad existed before or after our branch off from the other apes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by kofh2u, posted 03-19-2013 6:50 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021