Abiogenesis and Evolution

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
evidence please.


We can track genotypes in the human population, and they trace back to Africa.

human%20mtDNA%20markers.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
interesting..........

back to an originally fully human breeding pair not so long ago ?

an Adam and Eve ?

Nope.

mitochondrialdna2.gif


As an example, we can use your great-great grandparents as an example. In total, you have 16 great-great grandparents. Of those 16 ancestors, only one of them is responsible for your mitochondrial DNA, your mother's mother's mother's mother. Your Y chromosome (if you are a guy) came from the unbroken parternal line, your dad's dad's dad's dad. All 16 of those great-great grandparents lived at the same time, were part of the same population, all of them contributed equally to the rest of your genome (on average), but only 2 of them were responsible for your Y chromosome and your mitochondrial DNA. Also, the two grandparents responsible for those two genetic markers probably never met each other, much less founded your entire family.

You appear to be getting the genetics wrong.
 
Upvote 0

: D

Active Member
Nov 12, 2015
183
17
south coast UK
✟7,965.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Nope.

mitochondrialdna2.gif


As an example, we can use your great-great grandparents as an example. In total, you have 16 great-great grandparents. Of those 16 ancestors, only one of them is responsible for your mitochondrial DNA, your mother's mother's mother's mother. Your Y chromosome (if you are a guy) came from the unbroken parternal line, your dad's dad's dad's dad. All 16 of those great-great grandparents lived at the same time, were part of the same population, all of them contributed equally to the rest of your genome (on average), but only 2 of them were responsible for your Y chromosome and your mitochondrial DNA. Also, the two grandparents responsible for those two genetic markers probably never met each other, much less founded your entire family.

You appear to be getting the genetics wrong.

uh hu......

when you said "we can track genotypes" I thought you meant in a pro evolution kind of way,
not a rough guess at a continent,

evidence.

how are you dating these genotypes ?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
uh hu......

when you said "we can track genotypes" I thought you meant in a pro evolution kind of way,
not a rough guess at a continent,

A pro-evolution kind of way is finding the common ancestor of populations, which is exactly what that graphic shows.

how are you dating these genotypes ?

Genetic distance and coalescence is used to determine where the common ancestor of these genotypes came from.

"Coalescent theory is a retrospective stochastic model of population genetics that relates genetic diversity in a sample to demographic history of the population from which it was taken. That is, it is a model of the effect of genetic drift, viewed backwards in time, on the genealogy of antecedents.[1] It comprises a probabilistic assessment of variation in time to common ancestry of alleles in a relatively small sample of individuals, from a much larger population."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescent_theory
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
I know you've been told before but - 'Asians' are descendants of Africans, there's plenty of evidence, your argument is nonsense.

No - accept the observational evidence - quit ignoring it. Asians are the descendants of African's and another infraspecific taxa. Stop ignoring observations of how life propagates and variation happens in a species. Stop pretending Africans became anything but Africans. African and Asian or any race mate and produce a new infraspecific taxa - at no time does the African or Asian or whatever evolve into the Afro-Asian or whatever you want to call all of them. You can't support your Fairie Dust except with more Fairie Dust.

Right before your eyes you observe the African only producing Africans. Asians only producing Asians. Hispanics only producing Hispanics. And so you can throw racist claims in too..... Husky producing only Husky. Mastiff producing only Mastiff. White tail deer producing only white tail deer. Blue whales producing only blue whales. This is all you or anyone has ever observed. And only when those infraspecific taxa within a species mate has variation ever been observed within the species.

Don't try to trick people into thinking African's magically became Africans and Asians - because just like observation has shown you it took (two) count them (two) separate infraspecific taxa to create the Asians. Just like it takes (two) count them (two) in every single change in any species you have ever observed. Don't mislead people with pseudo-science.

Accept the observational evidence that is the only thing you have ever observed. EVER.

Only people that must ignore the observational evidence to sledgehammer their theory into place would claim the opposite of what we observe. Your excuses for ignoring the observational evidence just shows how desperate you have become. A true theory would fall in line with what we observe - not try to twist the data to fit the theory - but fit the theory to the data. And all the observational data that we have says you ignore half of the equation. The other "race" that mated with Africans to produce Asians. Or more properly the "races" that Africans and Asians and all races today stem from.

Only in your mind does one thing become two. Neither Asians nor Africans evolve into an Afro-Asian. The Asian remains an Asian and the African an African. You are confused by the Fairie Dust into believing you can ignore the observational evidence. That's not science, that's blinding oneself to the truth you see all around you - because it does not conform to your theory. Re-interpreting the data to the theory - instead of the theory to the data.

I've no need of your false religion of evolution to explain variation within the species - I simply need look around me and accept the observational data of how variation within the species occurs instead of ignoring it for Fairie Dust.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No - accept the observational evidence - quit ignoring it. Asians are the descendants of African's and another infraspecific taxa. Stop ignoring observations of how life propagates and variation happens in a species. Stop pretending Africans became anything but Africans. African and Asian or any race mate and produce a new infraspecific taxa - at no time does the African or Asian or whatever evolve into the Afro-Asian or whatever you want to call all of them. You can't support your Fairie Dust except with more Fairie Dust.

Right before your eyes you observe the African only producing Africans. Asians only producing Asians. Hispanics only producing Hispanics. And so you can throw racist claims in too..... Husky producing only Husky. Mastiff producing only Mastiff. White tail deer producing only white tail deer. Blue whales producing only blue whales. This is all you or anyone has ever observed. And only when those infraspecific taxa within a species mate has variation ever been observed within the species.

Don't try to trick people into thinking African's magically became Africans and Asians - because just like observation has shown you it took (two) count them (two) separate infraspecific taxa to create the Asians. Just like it takes (two) count them (two) in every single change in any species you have ever observed. Don't mislead people with pseudo-science.

Accept the observational evidence that is the only thing you have ever observed. EVER.


What on Earth are you talking about? If I observe two Africans 'mating' and producing an African baby it falsifies evolution?

Did you bother looking at Loudmouth's map? We all came from Africa and there's plenty of evidence to show how we developed into different peoples.

A true theory would fall in line with what we observe - not try to twist the data to fit the theory - but fit the theory to the data. And all the observational data that we have says you ignore half of the equation. The other "race" that mated with Africans to produce Asians. Or more properly the "races" that Africans and Asians and all races today stem from.

You've lost me a bit here, who is this other "race" that mated with the Africans to produce Asians?

(BTW, I've never accused you of racism nor do I think your arguments are racist )
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

: D

Active Member
Nov 12, 2015
183
17
south coast UK
✟7,965.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A pro-evolution kind of way is finding the common ancestor of populations, which is exactly what that graphic shows.



Genetic distance and coalescence is used to determine where the common ancestor of these genotypes came from.

"Coalescent theory is a retrospective stochastic model of population genetics that relates genetic diversity in a sample to demographic history of the population from which it was taken. That is, it is a model of the effect of genetic drift, viewed backwards in time, on the genealogy of antecedents.[1] It comprises a probabilistic assessment of variation in time to common ancestry of alleles in a relatively small sample of individuals, from a much larger population."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescent_theory

so you have found humanities "common ancestor", yet claim to have not found humanities "common ancestor", which you also claim is supported by arrows on a "graphic",

your "coalescent theory" proves that you are not dating genotypes (which i suspect you knew all along),
genotypes are simply identified and then placed into a "probabilistic assessment of variation in time" model.

lets at least have some honesty. : )
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
so you have found humanities "common ancestor", yet claim to have not found humanities "common ancestor", which you also claim is supported by arrows on a "graphic",

You asked for evidence showing that Asians were descended from Africans. That's what I showed you. Now you are just moving the goal posts.

your "coalescent theory" proves that you are not dating genotypes (which i suspect you knew all along),
genotypes are simply identified and then placed into a "probabilistic assessment of variation in time" model.

Please explain how coalescent theory does not date genotypes.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, based on the rivers stated to be by Eden, yes, even the bible implies pretty darn near Africa, if not in it.
Well, for the record, I believe the garden was in China -- but I assume very few are of that persuasion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why China?
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

If Eden is Pangaea, then eastward in Eden would be toward China.
 
Upvote 0