Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The fact that all Humans are descended from one man and one woman is supportive of Adam and Eve (as the common Father and Mother of Mankind) and it also supports the genetic bottleneck in the human population that occurred after Noah's Flood ... which could also have resulted in a reduction in Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA diversity that could have resulted a only a single surviving male and female common ancestor for all of Mankind, other than Adam or Eve.Wishful thinking. I 'could' win the Euromillions next week, but the chances of doing so (while much better than your theory) - are very slim. While it is true that the 'estimated' age of our most recent common ancestor may deviate as we gain a better understanding, and as science progresses - that does not build a case for both of them coming from a single couple, or 2 people from the biblical tale of the ark.
But hey - if that's the lengths you are willing to go to, to try and convince yourself that the bible is true - then be my guest. But you're not fooling anyone in this thread except yourself.
Either way, a single Man and a single woman who were the common ancestors of all of Mankind doesn't support the Evolutionist idea that we are descended from Apes ... which would have resulted in the earliest common ancestor of ALL mankind being an Ape ... or even something further back ... because the first 'men' would have had multiple male and female lineages extending back into their Ape ancestry ... and therefore no common single male or female Human ancestor.
Equally, if the two earliest common ancestors didn't live as a couple, as Evolutionists claim ... then the only way that there could be a single male and a single female common ancestor (that weren't a couple) is if there was a worldwide mass-extinction event that resulted in a very small number of closely related people (like Noah's family) surviving, so that the 'bottleneck effect' would be so severe, that they would have one common male ancestor and one common female ancestor. If there was no worldwide Flood or if thousands of people survived all over the Earth, there could be no single common male or common female ancestor for all of Mankind, as again, there would be multiple surviving male and female lineages running in parallel and extending back to the Apes.
6 - 0
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
The reason for the big difference in 'ages' between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam is because of the assumed rates of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome mutagenesis.
Just like many other genetic analyses, assumptions ... in this case, evolutionary assumptions, play a crucial role. Researcher Dr Krzysztof Cyran of the Silesian University of Technology explains the process as follows:
“You have to translate the differences between gene sequences into how they evolved in time. And how they evolved in time depends upon the model of evolution that you use. So, for instance, what is the rate of genetic mutation, and is that rate of change uniform in time? And what about the process of random loss of genetic variants, which we call genetic drift?”...
... "Each model has its own assumptions, and each assumption has mathematical implications. To further complicate matters, some of the assumptions are not valid for human populations. For example, some models assume that population size never changes. That is not true for humans, whose population has grown exponentially for at least several thousand generations. Other models assume perfect mixing of genes, meaning that any two humans anywhere in the world have an equal chance of producing offspring."
You can read more about this here:-
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=14646
Creation Scientists don't argue now that Mitochondrial Eve was Eve of the Bible ... although she could have been, she could also be the most recent common female ancestor of the immediate descendents of the people on the Ark (if this woman wasn't Eve). The same applies to Y-chromosome Adam ... he may be the Adam who was Created by God ... or the most recent common male ancestor of Noah and his family (if this man wasn't Adam). With two genetic bottlenecks in the Human population (at Creation and at the Flood) this creates the possibility that Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve may not be Adam and Eve ... but they could be!!!
I'll let AIG take it from here on the difference between Mitochondrial / Y-Chromosome and Nuclear DNA:-
Quote:-
When we examine people’s mitochondrial DNA today, we find very little diversity. Generally, mitochondrial genes are very similar. That also implies that there has been little time for mutations to occur. The ancestor of our mitochondrial genes, the woman from whom humans inherited their mitochondria, must have lived relatively recently (just how recently is a matter of debate). ...
... The story is different when we examine genes in the nucleus, which are passed down from both males and females. We have found a lot of diversity in nuclear genes, and these genes appear to be from men and women who are older than the ancestor of modern mitochondrial genes. Thus, the diversity in our nuclear genes probably came from people who lived before the Flood and passed their diversity down through several different humans on the Ark.
How can different genes in the same person come from different sources? Remember that eight people were on the Ark but only four were women, whom we will assume were not closely related. Right after the Flood, a total of four types of mitochondrial DNA were present among the women of the human population. There were even more types of nuclear DNA among both the males and females. Now imagine how quickly the types of mitochondrial DNA could be lost. If Japheth had one daughter and this daughter did not have any daughters, then the mitochondria of Japheth’s wife would have been lost, but Japheth’s nuclear genes would survive through his sons. In this way, mitochondrial diversity can be lost quickly during a genetic bottleneck, while nuclear diversity can be preserved. I actually don't have a clue how science works, or what I'm talking about.
Fixed that for you.0 -
The fact that all Humans are descended from one man and one woman is supportive of Adam and Eve (as the common Father and Mother of Mankind) and it also supports the genetic bottleneck in the human population that occurred after Noah's Flood ... which could also have resulted in a reduction in Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA diversity that could have resulted a only a single surviving male and female common ancestor for all of Mankind, other than Adam or Eve.
Either way, a single Man and a single woman who were the common ancestors of all of Mankind doesn't support the Evolutionist idea that we are descended from Apes ... which would have resulted in the earliest common ancestor of ALL mankind being an Ape ... or even something further back ... because the first 'men' would have had multiple male and female lineages extending back into their Ape ancestry ... and therefore no common single male or female Human ancestor.
Equally, if the two earliest common ancestors didn't live as a couple, as Evolutionists claim ... then the only way that there could be a single male and a single female common ancestor (that weren't a couple) is if there was a worldwide mass-extinction event that resulted in a very small number of closely related people (like Noah's family) surviving, so that the 'bottleneck effect' would be so severe, that they would have one common male ancestor and one common female ancestor. If there was no worldwide Flood or if thousands of people survived all over the Earth, there could be no single common male or common female ancestor for all of Mankind, as again, there would be multiple surviving male and female lineages running in parallel and extending back to the Apes.
6 - 0
This post proves you don't even come close to understanding that wikipedia entry you posted.
Edit - And its 27,543,456,338 - 6 Now, just because.0 -
-
... so you have no answer then ... and all you can do is to go into denial ... and to strike through what I have said!!!Doctor Jimbob wrote: »Fixed that for you.
7 - 0 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
A situation that Evolutionists commonly find themselves in ... when it comes to origins issues!!!:)Doctor Jimbob wrote: »I have no answer?
8 - 0 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement