Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?

[Jazer]

I don't actually believe in that Adam and Eve garbage.

You do believe in Jewish people right? You do believe in Arab people right? Do believe they had a common ancestor? Do you accept the science that tells us that a Jewish common ancestor lived 6,000 years ago in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent? Actually science confirms the Bible that they were three common ancestors in the last 6,000 years. The Hebrews are the most recent. All the other common ancestors go back 18,000 or more years.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

According to science Adam did have a belly button. Eve did not because she came from Adams rib. The only MtDNA that Adam had to give to Eve he would have gotten from his mother. That is in every cell of our body. The Mitochondrial is the power house of the cell. It looks very much like bacteria. Even some people think it is bacteria that got trapped in the cell. The Mitochondrial breaks down the food and converts it into energy to be used by the cell. For the people who say I know nothing about science take a Jay Leno on the street survey and ask the people what a Mitochondrial is. Perhaps 99% will have no idea what your talking about. But you say I know NOTHING about science.

Count me in that 99%

http://www.christianforums.com/t7535835-2/#post56755519
Help needed on Mitochondrial Eve

I need help understanding about Mitochondrial Eve, so here are my questions, or what i am stuck/confused about below.

* Mitochondrial Eve apparently was the woman from whom all living humans today descend ??? However i then research this (i.e on wikipedia) and it says:

 

[brinny]

yes, cuz they'd look weird without one

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

yes, cuz they'd look weird without one

And they wouldn't be able to have fancy piercings w/o one

 

[brinny]

And they wouldn't be able to have fancy piercings w/o one

ouch!

 

[FaithPrevails]

Belly button piercings do hurt, but I sure do miss mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did Adam and Eve have a belly button...

No -- a belly button is a scar, and God's direct creation was not scarred.

... (umbilicus for you scientific types)?

What's an 'umbilicus' ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by RomanSoldier Did Adam and Eve have a belly button...

No -- a belly button is a scar, and God's direct creation was not scarred.

What's an 'umbilicus' ?

Never thought of it like that....mine is so far into my pot belly, I could use it as a small cup

 

[Split Rock]

Science has no business dating the past. That the job of Writers.

How is a writer supposed to date 3 billion year old igneous rock from Greenland?

 

[Split Rock]

No -- a belly button is a scar, and God's direct creation was not scarred.

Absolutely. If it were scared, he wouldn't have declared it to be "very good."

 

[SkyWriting]

How is a writer supposed to date 3 billion year old igneous rock from Greenland?

The same way we date mummy's in a museum. With big question marks.
You should see it. Of the 25 I'd say 5 had a firm date. And that was because the history was written down.

Check out the Wikki on the dead sea scrolls. Of the two tests, one was set aside because it was 300%
larger than the date they were looking for.

 

[SkyWriting]

I need help understanding about Mitochondrial Eve, so here are my questions, or what i am stuck/confused about below.

* Mitochondrial Eve apparently was the woman from whom all living humans today descend ?

Not believed by anyone to be the Biblical Eve, but yes, all humanity seems to have DNA from one female ancestor.

 

[SkyWriting]

According to science Adam did have a belly button. Eve did not because she came from Adams rib.

Again, Science has nothing to say bout the past that cannot be recreated and retested.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

 

[Split Rock]

The same way we date mummy's in a museum. With big question marks.
You should see it. Of the 25 I'd say 5 had a firm date. And that was because the history was written down.

Check out the Wikki on the dead sea scrolls. Of the two tests, one was set aside because it was 300%
larger than the date they were looking for.

There are always uncertianties associated with any numerical determination/ measurement. That is life. The number you refered to was probably thrown out because the uncertainty or "error" was exceedingly high... not because it was not "the date they were looking for." That is the way creationists work, so I guess it is not surprising that you would think we do it the same way.

 

[Split Rock]

Again, Science has nothing to say bout the past that cannot be recreated and retested.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

You just don't listen. Keep your mind closed tight, and keep repeating the mantra: "Science has nothing to say bout the past that cannot be recreated and retested." Then if you ever are a candidate to jury a murder trial, make sure to tell that to the judge, so you can get off of doing jury duty.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You just don't listen. Keep your mind closed tight, and keep repeating the mantra: "Science has nothing to say bout the past that cannot be recreated and retested." Then if you ever are a candidate to jury a murder trial, make sure to tell that to the judge, so you can get off of doing jury duty.

I have been on jury 1 time in almost 30 yrs.
I generally tell da judge they are guilty until proven innocent, in which case they say "throw that heretic out!"

John 18:38 Pilate is saying to Him "What is Truth"?
And this saying, again he came out to the Judeans and is saying to them "I not yet am finding fault in Him".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7461092-9/#post54554117
Order in the court!!!!

Shorty Long 1968 - "Here Comes The Judge" MOTOWN-121 - YouTube

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, Science has nothing to say bout the past that cannot be recreated and retested.

Those requirements only apply to the results of experiments, not the actual event in history.

As it applies to dating rocks, science only requires that other scientists be able to measure the same isotopes in the same rocks and arrive at similar results. You would know this if you actually understood how the scientific method works.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Decay of isotopes, and capture of the parent and daughter products within igneous rocks.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

Rocks from Greenland are very old.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Rocks from Greenland should contain ratios of parent and daughter products consistent with billions of years of radioactive decay.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Multiple scientists measure the ratio of several parent/daughter pairs in igneous rocks from Greenland.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

As it turns out, the ratio of parent/daughter products in igneous rocks are consistent with billions of years of radioactive decay. Therefore, the hypothesis passes the test.

Care to show where I did not adhere to the scientific method?

 

[AV1611VET]

Never thought of it like that....mine is so far into my pot belly, I could use it as a small cup

-- ewww!

 

[Jazer]

all humanity seems to have DNA from one female ancestor.

Not all humanity, all women.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not believed by anyone to be the Biblical Eve, but yes, all humanity seems to have DNA from one female ancestor.

Isn't there a view that mankind originated from Africa?

Eve, the mother of all mankind?

A little more than 10 years ago molecular biologists believed that they had found evidence in human genes that all people share a common female ancestor, dubbed Eve, who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. The claim has seemingly been challenged on both genetic and fossil evidence, and it had been supported by a repetition of the same kind of analysis. There is an argument that one would expect all current humans to have one common ancestor based on sampling statistics alone.

Confidence in genetic approaches to this problem should also be tempered by another report. Three British geneticists, led by L. Simon Whitfield, carried out analysis of both mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA from the same people. The mitochondrial data yielded a time of origin of modern humans between 120,000 and 474,000 years ago. The Y chromosome data indicated the origin was probably between 37,000 and 49,000 years ago. And two more Y chromosome studies using newer techniques and larger sample sizes were reported in "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000)": report numbers 7354-59 and 7360-65 and they add more evidence for the younger dates. They both support a 50,000 year ago origin for humanity. They also seem to point to a rapid population expansion around 28,000 years ago.

"However, the 50,000 year time may be too long, and the true time may be about 36,525 years, which rounds off to 40,000 years, because it has been shown by Awadalla, Eyre-Walker, and Smith, in Science 286 (24 December 1999) 2524-2525, that "... The assumption that human mitochondrial DNA is inherited from one parent only and therefore does not recombine is questionable. Linkage disequilibrium in human and chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA declines as a function of the distance between sites. This pattern can be attributed to one mechanism only: recombination. ...