Does evolution have a chance?

[Edx]

I find it ironic how evolutionists accept a single common ancestory for all life yet are so quick to reject a single common ancestory for humans.

Who does that?

 

[ebia]

Yes, I know it is a silly claim and an impossibility but none the less this is exactly what would have had to happen for us to have a common ancestor with the chimpanzee.

You miss the point. Three times the size (volume) and three times the mass is the SAME density, not three times the density as you demanded:

.. triple in size weight and density.

is self-contradictory.

 

[Mathematician]

Ed, Tom,

Do you both believe we descended from one man and one woman?

 

[Tomk80]

Ed, Tom,

Do you both believe we descended from one man and one woman?

No. As soon as you can show me evidence of a genetic bottleneck of one man and one woman at the same time period, I'll be happy to reconsider.

However, common ancestry talks about populations, not about single organisms.

 

[Edx]

Ed, Tom,

Do you both believe we descended from one man and one woman?

Thats not what you said, you said "evolutionists are...so quick to reject a single common ancestory for humans".

Ed

 

[Mathematician]

No. As soon as you can show me evidence of a genetic bottleneck of one man and one woman at the same time period, I'll be happy to reconsider.

However, common ancestry talks about populations, not about single organisms.

What about mitochondrial Eve, the proposed common ancestor to all humans who is estimated to have lived 150,000 years ago? Do you think she might have had a husband?

What about Y-chromosomal Adam, another proposed common ancestor to all humans? He lived some 60,000 years ago. Hugh Ross (the biggest name OEC) calls this guy Noah.

 

[Praxiteles]

Perhaps you missed the bit where he said "at the same time period".

But those two are considered to be our most recent common ancestor for a female and a male. No one disputes that.

 

[Mathematician]

Perhaps you missed the bit where he said "at the same time period".

But those two are considered to be our most recent common ancestor for a female and a male. No one disputes that.

I didn't miss it. That's why I had the comment about Eve's husband.

We've had a lot of people disputing bottlenecks on this forum. One was just a few posts before mine.

Except for the dating issue, YECs and evolutionists agree that all people had a common female ancestor "Eve" at some point in the past and some common male ancestor "Noah" more recently. Why the denials from evolutionists that these people existed?

Don't you find it interesting that some book written thousands of years ago agrees with the latest science? (The Babylonian redactors were just lucky I guess.)

 

[Praxiteles]

I didn't miss it. That's why I had the comment about Eve's husband.

Uh huh. Except Eve's husband is not our most recent common ancestor in the male line. So no bottleneck.

We've had a lot of people disputing bottlenecks on this forum. One was just a few posts before mine.

Except for the dating issue, YECs and evolutionists agree that all people had a common female ancestor "Eve" at some point in the past and some common male ancestor "Noah" more recently. Why the denials from evolutionists that these people existed?

Don't you find it interesting that some book written thousands of years ago agrees with the latest science? (The Babylonian redactors were just lucky I guess.)

Most recent common ancestor =/= genetic bottleneck. I think that that is the source of your confusion.

 

[Deamiter]

Uh huh. Except Eve's husband is not our most recent common ancestor in the male line. So no bottleneck.



Most recent common ancestor =/= genetic bottleneck. I think that that is the source of your confusion.

Indeed, if I recall correctly, the common male ancestor of all humans is many thousands of years further back than the common female ancestor. The reason it's not so widely mentioned is that finding a common male ancestor is not nearly as precise as finding a common female ancestor. This is because midochondrial DNA mutates at a MUCH slower rate than cellular DNA, and thus is much more accurate for approximate dating...

And now I'm WAY over my head, so forgive me if I've gotten something basic wrong. I DO know, however, that our common male ancestor was much further back (and is dated much less precisely) than our common female ancestor.

 

[Mathematician]

Uh huh. Except Eve's husband is not our most recent common ancestor in the male line. So no bottleneck.

Most recent common ancestor =/= genetic bottleneck. I think that that is the source of your confusion.

No YEC has ever said that Eve's husband was the most recent common ancestor in the male line. They've all said that some more recent male, Noah, was.

As for my not understanding bottlenecks, please go read what Aron-Ra wrote. That provides the context for Mark's and ultimately my comments.

 

[Praxiteles]

Indeed, if I recall correctly, the common male ancestor of all humans is many thousands of years further back than the common female ancestor. The reason it's not so widely mentioned is that finding a common male ancestor is not nearly as precise as finding a common female ancestor. This is because midochondrial DNA mutates at a MUCH slower rate than cellular DNA, and thus is much more accurate for approximate dating...

And now I'm WAY over my head, so forgive me if I've gotten something basic wrong. I DO know, however, that our common male ancestor was much further back (and is dated much less precisely) than our common female ancestor.

I think it's the other way around. I know Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best source, but they had this to say.

I've recently read something about this in Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale, and the suspected reason for a more recent male mrca is the increased ability (and likelihood) of a single male to sire many offspring in a single generation.

 

[Mathematician]

No Deamiter,

I DO know, however, that our common male ancestor was much further back (and is dated much less precisely) than our common female ancestor.

Mitochondrial Eve is dated at 150K years back. Y-chomosomal Adam is dated 60K years back. Our common male ancestor is much more recent.

 

[Praxiteles]

No YEC has ever said that Eve's husband was the most recent common ancestor in the male line. They've all said that some more recent male, Noah, was.

As for my not understanding bottlenecks, please go read what Aron-Ra wrote. That provides the context for Mark's and ultimately my comments.

If there was a bottleneck, then Eve couldn't be the female MRCA. It would have been one of the women on the ark - most likely Noah's bit of stuff.

But nevertheless, I was only responding to your use of the MRCA on both male and female lines as evidence of a genetic bottleneck. It is not.

 

[yossarian]

The paper I read some months ago indicated that it resulted in a defective receptor that made it difficult, if not impossible for the virus to attach to the T-Cell. Like the ASPM gene producing a defective spindle resulting in a smaller brain, this is a change in alleles over time but not adaptive evolution. There is no selective advantage from a defective receptor or a malformed spindle.

there clearly is in the case of the AIDs mutation

You do the math Aron-Ra, there are 35 million nucleotide substitutions, five million indels and they had to be fixed genome wide in 6 million years ago. This point has never been refuted or even substantivly addressed.

thats because you have no point, because you've never expained why the mutation rates are incapable of explaining this level of divergence - you haven't ever done the calculations

all you have, all you've ever had, is your own incredulity - and you expect it to convince others somehow

 

[Jet Black]

Indeed, if I recall correctly, the common male ancestor of all humans is many thousands of years further back than the common female ancestor. The reason it's not so widely mentioned is that finding a common male ancestor is not nearly as precise as finding a common female ancestor. This is because midochondrial DNA mutates at a MUCH slower rate than cellular DNA, and thus is much more accurate for approximate dating...

And now I'm WAY over my head, so forgive me if I've gotten something basic wrong. I DO know, however, that our common male ancestor was much further back (and is dated much less precisely) than our common female ancestor.

the common male ancestor is more recent than the female because men can have more children than women, leading to a smaller effective population size for males.

 

[Tomk80]

What about mitochondrial Eve, the proposed common ancestor to all humans who is estimated to have lived 150,000 years ago? Do you think she might have had a husband?

I would figure she had. Kind of hard for human females to reproduce without a male companion. Furhtermore, although MtEve is the only one whose mitochondria have survived to this day, this does not mean she was the only woman at that time. There is no reason to think she wasn't part of a bigger population, including more females.

What about Y-chromosomal Adam, another proposed common ancestor to all humans? He lived some 60,000 years ago. Hugh Ross (the biggest name OEC) calls this guy Noah.

Good for Hugh Ross. I think he is talking BS here. Again, that Y-chromosomal Adam is the only one whose chromosome seems to have preserved to this day(although this is more tentative), this does not mean he was the only male in the population or that the population went through a bottleneck. Furthermore, don't you think it's curious that the two are so far apart, if Noah's flood really happened?

 

[vipertaja]

Furthermore, don't you think it's curious that the two are so far apart, if Noah's flood really happened?

Obviously they had a fight and broke up.

 

[Jet Black]

I find it ironic how evolutionists accept a single common ancestory for all life yet are so quick to reject a single common ancestory for humans.

I don't see why. you see the particular DNA code we have had to start from somewhere, and unlike the genes that comprise an individual, can't mix with other sorts of DNA coding.

As for humans asking for a single common ancestry is actually a remarkably tricky business. you see the ancestry of humans is basically an average over all the ancestries for our particular genes, some of which have a common ancestor older even than the earliest great apes, for example the common ancestor for the genes for blood types A and B predate the great apes. so even if all the alleles of our other genes have a human common ancestor, those genes don't. So some genes or bits of DNA will have a human common ancestor, for example the y chromosome or mitochondria, and some won't have a human common ancestor.

 

[Jet Black]

What about mitochondrial Eve, the proposed common ancestor to all humans who is estimated to have lived 150,000 years ago? Do you think she might have had a husband?

you misunderstand, she is only the most recent common ancestor for all our mitochondria. it's quite possible that not a single one of her other genes has an ancestor today.

What about Y-chromosomal Adam, another proposed common ancestor to all humans? He lived some 60,000 years ago. Hugh Ross (the biggest name OEC) calls this guy Noah.

he is the most recent common ancestor to all the y chromosomes. it's quite possible that not a single one of his other genes has an ancestor today.

Other genes, chromosomes and genetic features have different common ancestors, some younger and some much much older (as I have already pointed out)