Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

cupid dave · Dec 9, 2011

Blayz said:
Tsk tsk Z, haven't we had the conversation about you posting on topics you don't understand? Gibbon's work, from 1998 (and only someone ignorant of science would look at human sequence literature prior to the advent of high throughput whole genome sequencing) is based on the fundamentally flawed assumption that the mtDNA control region mutation rate is representative of the whole, and that heteroplasmy mutations can be included.

heck, this PRATT is nicely rebutted here
CB621.1: Young mitochondrial Eve

and more in full here
Mitochondrial Eve

You have to remember Z, that not everyone sets in the stone of ultimate truth some book written along time ago. Most of us like to look at more recent data generated with more advanced techniques.

Anyway, a nice little goalpost shuffle there Z. One wonders what irrelevant-to-the-original-argument topic you'll sneak in next.

yet the work that concludes we are all related to one woman who lived 150,000 years ago is the same thing stated in gen 5:30-31.

it says noah had three sons 100,000 years before the flood out of Africa, which lasted 40,000 years.

Loudmouth · Dec 9, 2011

cupid dave said:
yet the work that concludes we are all related to one woman who lived 150,000 years ago is the same thing stated in gen 5:30-31.

The work does not conclude that the entire human population was founded by a single woman as stated in Genesis. If we were to do the same studies with different mutations in different genes the would coalesce to different humans at different times. Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman who was living at the time, and was not the only female ancestor of everyone living today. The same for Y-Adam.

it says noah had three sons 100,000 years before the flood out of Africa, which lasted 40,000 years.

No, it doesn't.

cupid dave · Dec 9, 2011

Loudmouth said:
The work does not conclude that the entire human population was founded by a single woman as stated in Genesis. If we were to do the same studies with different mutations in different genes the would coalesce to different humans at different times. Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman who was living at the time, and was not the only female ancestor of everyone living today. The same for Y-Adam.

No, it doesn't.

The scientist misnamed this "eve" who would have lived 7 million years ago if she had actually been Adam's mate.

The evidence these scientists have pieced together for one common mother for all of the three Racial Stocks living today would be the mother of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The recent article in US NEWS (Darwin) also has discovered that the Y-chromosone links one common father to us all, a man, presumably Noah, who lived @40,000 years ago, just before the gigantic population explosion Out-of-Africa.

Loudmouth · Dec 9, 2011

cupid dave said:
The evidence these scientists have pieced together for one common mother for all of the three Racial Stocks living today would be the mother of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

No, it wouldn't. We are the descendants of a population of women, not a single woman. One of those women from that population is the common ancestor of our mitDNA, but other genes in our genomes come from those other women who were contemporaries of mitDNA Eve. If you travelled back in time to meet mitDNA Eve she would be no different than any other woman in her culture or population.

The recent article in US NEWS (Darwin) also has discovered that the Y-chromosone links one common father to us all, a man, presumably Noah, who lived @40,000 years ago, just before the gigantic population explosion Out-of-Africa.

Click to expand...

The paragraph above applies here as well. You are contorting the science well beyond what it actually shows. Just like we carry genes from women who were mitDNA Eve's contemporaries, so to do we carry DNA from men who were contemporaries with Y-Adam. You are focusing on just two genetic markers and extrapolating that to the rest of the genome. This is a HUGE mistake.

Naraoia · Dec 9, 2011

Cupid, you don't understand how ancestors work.

Mt-Eve and Y-Adam are a trivial consequence of the fact that everyone has a mother and father. Mt-Eve is just the mother of everyone's mother's mother's mother's... you get it. This is only one of the myriad lines of descent that connect us. For example, I could choose to follow my ancestry through alternating male and female ancestors (mother's father's mother's father...) until I find an ancestor you and I share, or indeed pick any arbitrary path along my family tree. Every such line would coalesce in a single ancestor. And every one of them would be a different individual.

Female (or male) lines are just easier to trace genetically because mitochondria (or Y chromosomes) are inherited in an unbroken line through them. That's the only thing that is special about them.

Loudmouth · Dec 9, 2011

Naraoia said:
Cupid, you don't understand how ancestors work.

Mt-Eve and Y-Adam are a trivial consequence of the fact that everyone has a mother and father. Mt-Eve is just the mother of everyone's mother's mother's mother's... you get it. This is only one of the myriad lines of descent that connect us. For example, I could choose to follow my ancestry through alternating male and female ancestors (mother's father's mother's father...) until I find an ancestor you and I share, or indeed pick any arbitrary path along my family tree. Every such line would coalesce in a single ancestor. And every one of them would be a different individual.

Female (or male) lines are just easier to trace genetically because mitochondria (or Y chromosomes) are inherited in an unbroken line through them. That's the only thing that is special about them.

Very well put. Just to help drive this point home further since many creationists keep making the same mistake, we can look at our own family tree for examples.

We are going to use your grandparents as the example. You have two sets of grandparents, your paternal and maternal grandparents. Your mitochondrial DNA comes from your maternal grandmother (your mother's mother). Your paternal grandmother did not contribute to your mitDNA. Does this mean that your paternal grandmother is not your ancestor? Of course not. Your paternal grandmother is your ancestor, is contemperaneous with your maternal grandmother, and provided you with 1/4 of your genome (assuming even distribution during meiosis). Your maternal and paternal grandmothers are both equally important when it comes to the DNA you inherited, with your maternal grandmother making an additional contribution to your mitochondria.

The same applies to your Y-chromosome (if you are a dude). You inherited your Y-chromosome from your paternal grandfather. You did not inherit your Y-chromosome from your maternal grandfather (your mother's father). Does this mean that your maternal grandfather is not your ancestor? Of course not. He shares the same importance that your paternal grandmother shares. Other than the Y-chromosome, your maternal grandfather contributed 1/4 of your genome.

So do creationists understand this or not? Do you see why it is so foolish to state that mitDNA Eve and Y-chromosome Adam are single founders of a population?

Zaius137 · Dec 10, 2011

(cupid dave)…

“The scientist misnamed this "eve" who would have lived 7 million years ago if she had actually been Adam's mate.

The evidence these scientists have pieced together for one common mother for all of the three Racial Stocks living today would be the mother of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.’

Don’t believe anything an evolutionist has to say about the mitochondrial eve. There entire argument in this area stems from the circular reasoning of the evolution fairytale. The actual observed evidence says our species is young. We do have a very recent ancestor.

How the calculation was done….

“DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this gives an age of about 6000 years.”

Too many silent mutations are detrimental to fitness (Scientific American June 2009) yet we see today mutations happening 1.8 times faster in the control region than in silent sites in the mitochondrial DNA; if our race was too old overall fitness would be below what we actually observe in or species today. Another conformation of humanity being recent is the Y-chromosome. See the following:

“Another piece of data indicating a young humanity is the striking uniformity among human males in the Y chromosome. (See Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W. 1995. Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268 (26 May 1995):1183-1185.) This has been used to give an age estimate of about 40,000 years or less for the human race. (L. Simon Whitfield, John E. Sulston, and Peter N. Goodfellow, "Sequence Variation of the Human Y Chromosome," Nature 378 (1995), pp. 379-380.) It is now known that mutations accumulate much faster in males than in females. This means that the Y chromosome will tend to mutate twice as fast as other chromosomes, since it is always in the male line, which might reduce this estimate of about 40,000 years to about 20,000 years. A more recent discussion may be found in Gibbons, Ann, "Y Chromosome Shows that Adam Was an African," Science, Volume 278, Number 5339 (31 October, 1997), pp. 804 - 805, which gives older ages.”

Another poor response from the evolutionist…

Loudmouth · Dec 12, 2011

Zaius137 said:
Dont believe anything an evolutionist has to say about the mitochondrial eve.

Careful Zaius, your bias is showing.

The actual observed evidence says our species is young.

The ERV's shared with other apes says that we share a common ancestor with other apes.

cupid dave · Dec 13, 2011

Loudmouth said:
The work does not conclude that the entire human population was founded by a single woman as stated in Genesis. If we were to do the same studies with different mutations in different genes the would coalesce to different humans at different times. Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman who was living at the time, and was not the only female ancestor of everyone living today. The same for Y-Adam.

quote]

I am referring to the most recnt science studies hich were reported in US News just last Feb, explaining that all Modern Homo sapiens are related to just one man who lived about 40,000 years ago, ie. Noah.

They used the Y-chromosome for those studies.

Check out the article under Darwin:

cupid dave · Dec 13, 2011

Naraoia said:
Cupid, you don't understand how ancestors work.

Mt-Eve and Y-Adam are a trivial consequence of the fact that everyone has a mother and father. Mt-Eve is just the mother of everyone's mother's mother's mother's... you get it. This is only one of the myriad lines of descent that connect us. For example, I could choose to follow my ancestry through alternating male and female ancestors (mother's father's mother's father...) until I find an ancestor you and I share, or indeed pick any arbitrary path along my family tree. Every such line would coalesce in a single ancestor. And every one of them would be a different individual.

Female (or male) lines are just easier to trace genetically because mitochondria (or Y chromosomes) are inherited in an unbroken line through them. That's the only thing that is special about them.

Interesting way olooking at this, but remember, all other types of man, like Neanderthal man, did disappear or become extinct just as both science and Genesis tell us.

So, tracing backwards, we do find that all Modern Homo sapiens are related to one man who lived @ 40,000 years ago.

I believe the reason we are told and reminded that a day is even a thousand years in the Bible is so we will see that an individual does not live to be 950 years old.

The "flood" was the emergence of Modern Homo sapiens Out-of-Africa as science reports did happen.

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2011

cupid dave said:
I am referring to the most recnt science studies hich were reported in US News just last Feb, explaining that all Modern Homo sapiens are related to just one man who lived about 40,000 years ago, ie. Noah.

This is not what the recent studies show. It shows that all men share a COMMON ancestor, but they also have ancestors that they do not share. I explained this before in my post about grandparents. You still carry DNA from your maternal grandfather even if you don't carry his Y-chromosome. Your maternal grandfather is no less your ancester than your paternal grandfather whom you did receive your Y-chromosome from.

They used the Y-chromosome for those studies.

You do realize that there is more to the genome than just the Y-chromosome, right?

Loudmouth · Dec 13, 2011

cupid dave said:
So, tracing backwards, we do find that all Modern Homo sapiens are related to one man who lived @ 40,000 years ago.

We also find that they are descendants of other men and women who were contemporaries of Y-Adam. You are focusing on just one genetic locus. When you look at all of them it is quite apparent that we are descended from a population of humans, not a single man or woman.

CabVet · Dec 13, 2011

Take a look at the graph below. Replace "Most Recent Common Ancestor" with "mitochondrial Eve" or "Y Adam", that is what you got. Our genetic pool today might coalesce to a single individual 40k years ago, but that by no means indicates there was only 1 individual living 40k years ago (the light gray lines are genetic lineages that went extinct due to drift or selection) or that our species is only 40k years old.

Zaius137 · Dec 14, 2011

Actually tlakorigins (rabid atheist website) does not effectively explain the 6000 year mitochondrial eve… Here is the site I would trust….

http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines. You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor. Hey that is about the population of the earth now…. The math works equally well without the evolution dogma.

Phred · Dec 14, 2011

Zaius137 said:
Actually tlakorigins (rabid atheist website) does not effectively explain the 6000 year mitochondrial eve Here is the site I would trust

URL=http://creation.com/mitochondrial-eve-and-biblical-eve-are-looking-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

Of course you'd trust it. Creation.com tells you what you want to hear. It's ridiculously biased. And of course you'd call talkorigins a "rabid atheist website". It doesn't agree with you at all. And that sums up your positions on all of these issues. "Goddidit".

Why are you unable to be honest about that instead of dancing around with all of these false premises and dishonest rants?

I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines. You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor. Hey that is about the population of the earth now. The math works equally well without the evolution dogma.

I think that you wouldn't know a boulder if it fell on your head without looking at the Bible first to determine what you should think about it. So your interpretation of a graph meant to ILLUSTRATE a topic, not define a topic is sort of irrelevant, don't you think?

Naraoia · Dec 15, 2011

Zaius137 said:
I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines.

Because people never die childless in reality?

You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor.

Taking into account inbreeding, infant mortality, wars, famine, disease and other calamities?

CabVet · Dec 15, 2011

Zaius137 said:
I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines. You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor. Hey that is about the population of the earth now. The math works equally well without the evolution dogma.

Alright, lets do the math, question, what population growth rate did you use to get to 7 billion people in 300 generations? We actually do know what the human population growth was in the past few thousand years very well, lets compare what we know to what you used.

By the way, this is a gene tree, so you cannot blot out the light gray lines, but let's not think of them for now to make things a little simpler.

Zaius137 · Dec 18, 2011

Exponential population growth. Human population that has been observed has always followed the exponential growth curve (except during the plague in Europe). All that you need is a growth constant “r” and you can calculate a population for future or past given present population.

Where:
· N0 (initial population) = The population at time t = 0.
· N (future population) = The population at time t.
· r (rate) = The rate of population change as a function of t (a 1% increase is expressed as 0.01).
o This variable is called the Malthusian Parameter.
o In population studies, r is usually taken to mean births minus deaths.
· t (time) = The amount of time required to produce a growth in population proportional to N/N0.
Source: Wolfram Math World: Population Growth

[FONT=MathJax_Math]N=[FONT=MathJax_Math]N[/FONT]0[FONT=MathJax_Math]e[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]rt[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1])[/FONT] (future population)[/FONT]
[FONT=MathJax_Math]t=log[FONT=MathJax_Size2]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]N/N[/FONT]0[FONT=MathJax_Size2])/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]r[/FONT] (time)[/FONT]
[FONT=MathJax_Math]r=log[FONT=MathJax_Size2]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]N/N[/FONT]0[FONT=MathJax_Size2])/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]t[/FONT] (rate)[/FONT]
[FONT=MathJax_Math]N0=[FONT=MathJax_Math]Ne^[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1]([/FONT]−[FONT=MathJax_Math]rt[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1])[/FONT] (present population)[/FONT]

My numbers…

T=4304 years (Noah’s ark)
r= .004784 (delta pop)

This type of calculation is used in determining growth rates in populations. The human race is no different. The matter only gets complicated when evolutionists try and apply there circular reasoning to humans.

CabVet · Dec 19, 2011

Zaius137 said:
Exponential population growth. Human population that has been observed has always followed the exponential growth curve (except during the plague in Europe). All that you need is a growth constant “r” and you can calculate a population for future or past given present population.

Where:
· N0 (initial population) = The population at time t = 0.
· N (future population) = The population at time t.
· r (rate) = The rate of population change as a function of t (a 1% increase is expressed as 0.01).
o This variable is called the Malthusian Parameter.
o In population studies, r is usually taken to mean births minus deaths.
· t (time) = The amount of time required to produce a growth in population proportional to N/N0.
Source: Wolfram Math World: Population Growth

[FONT=MathJax_Math]N=[FONT=MathJax_Math]N[/FONT]0[FONT=MathJax_Math]e[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]rt[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1])[/FONT] (future population)[/FONT]
[FONT=MathJax_Math]t=log[FONT=MathJax_Size2]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]N/N[/FONT]0[FONT=MathJax_Size2])/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]r[/FONT] (time)[/FONT]
[FONT=MathJax_Math]r=log[FONT=MathJax_Size2]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]N/N[/FONT]0[FONT=MathJax_Size2])/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]t[/FONT] (rate)[/FONT]
[FONT=MathJax_Math]N0=[FONT=MathJax_Math]Ne^[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1]([/FONT]−[FONT=MathJax_Math]rt[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size1])[/FONT] (present population)[/FONT]

My numbers…

T=4304 years (Noah’s ark)
r= .004784 (delta pop)

This type of calculation is used in determining growth rates in populations. The human race is no different. The matter only gets complicated when evolutionists try and apply there circular reasoning to humans.

This is not only incorrect, it's downright misleading. In the last one generation alone (yes, the last 20 years) the human population grew from 5 to 7 billion, that's almost 50%, in one generation, you cannot assume a constant 1% per generation growth rate. According to the United States Census Bureau, over the last 100 years (1910 to 2010), the population of the United States of America is exponentially increasing at an average rate of one and a half percent a year (1.5%). That's an average 30% per generation.

The growth rate was much, much lower before modern times. In the year 1,000 AD (that's just 1,000 years ago), the entire human population was 300 million, and that's the total world population today. Growth rate was closer to 0.01% per generation before that due to high mortality (which you ignore in your calculations).

Here is a graph (based on evidence) showing human growth, note that before the modern age growth rate was almost constant:

Zaius137 · Dec 21, 2011

“Here is a graph (based on evidence) showing human growth, note that before the modern age growth rate was almost constant”

I really like the observed evidence with maybe deviation on the earlier dates of 1000 years. Very Biblical.:

Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

cupid dave

Guest

Contributor

cupid dave

Guest

Contributor

Apprentice Biologist

Contributor

Real science and faith are compatible.

Contributor

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

Contributor

Contributor

Question everything

Real science and faith are compatible.

Junior Mint

Apprentice Biologist

Question everything

Real science and faith are compatible.

Question everything

Real science and faith are compatible.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency