evidence please.
We can track genotypes in the human population, and they trace back to Africa.
Upvote
0
evidence please.
interesting..........
back to an originally fully human breeding pair not so long ago ?
an Adam and Eve ?
Nope.
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,
how are you dating these genotypes ?
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.
Reminds me of connect-the-dots.We can track genotypes in the human population, and they trace back to Africa.
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.
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.
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
According to science's map, YES.We all came from Africa ...
According to science's map, YES.
According to God's Map, NO.
Science is myopic, isn't it?I can't see God's map though AV, it exists in your imagination.
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.
Actually, based on the rivers stated to be by Eden, yes, even the bible implies pretty darn near Africa, if not in it.According to science's map, YES.
According to God's Map, NO.
Well, for the record, I believe the garden was in China -- but I assume very few are of that persuasion.Actually, based on the rivers stated to be by Eden, yes, even the bible implies pretty darn near Africa, if not in it.
Why China?Well, for the record, I believe the garden was in China -- but I assume very few are of that persuasion.
Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.Why China?