Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Um. No.
From the source you yourself used.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor. Not the first woman. Not the oldest. She had a natural mother and father.
Keep in mind, I'm getting this from YOUR source.
Why even call her "Mitochondrial Eve" when you don't believe in Eve at all? That's like debating about a God you claim doesn't exist. Oh, wait.... that happens all the time.
If the human population never dropped below tens of thousands, then there was always that many humans alive on the earth? Always? I suspect you will probably imply they were here but in different morphological forms?
So if we go back far enough we run into a bottleneck, do we not?
Tens of thousands would leave millions and millions of fossils, no?
Scientists, while claiming God doesn't exist, won't hesitate to use Christian terminology:Why even call her "Mitochondrial Eve" when you don't believe in Eve at all? That's like debating about a God you claim doesn't exist. Oh, wait.... that happens all the time.
Why?? Fossilization is a rather rare process especially in jungle environments.
Yeah, I know. The body has to be buried rather quickly in the ground.
Like how humans bury their dead for instance. Or how a flood would
bury things quickly.
Your statement is not consistent with the facts.
How so? Which facts?
If you do not see other options, that is not saying anything about there being other options only that you appear to be rejecting the possibilities because they do not agree with your religious convictions but there are indeed other options.This involves the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other options.
No, there are not. Removing the six day creation and the first three chapters of Genesis denies several core principles of the Bible INCLUDING one of the Ten Commandments. It is NOT possible for the Bible to be true if its core principles are false. It is NOT possible for man to have evolved if God created him on day six.
Remind me where it says in the Bible that Jesus's flesh was rotting. BTW I was not insulting you just commenting on some of your statements. The comment about failing biology was gratuitous and uncalled for plus being rather petty.No it really doesn't. It tells us that there is, to date, no evidence that this can happen.
You failed biology, I take it. "Once the flesh begins to rot, there's no possibility of resuscitation. A word of clarification, however: flesh can die in areas around the body even on a live person. That's why frostbite turns black. When we talk about decomposition being a sign of death, we are suggesting the entire body has begun to decompose and that the person is not breathing and the heart is not beating."
I have no doubt that Jesus was dead and returned but I cannot support it with objective fact nor do I need to but you appear to have that need. One might ask why?There are however instances of people who are apparently dead that have recovered.
You're begging the question. Being apparently dead is not the same as being dead. Lazarus had begun to decompose. Jesus was also clearly dead. Science cannot account for someone actually BEING DEAD for three days and returning to life.
No but God-did-it leaves us with no way to go very far as studying the world we live in. That God did it is my faith but not necessarily my facts. To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "You have the right to your own faith but not your own facts".No it doesn't. It only tells us that there is, to date, no evidence of this.
Do you really think that something non-physical is going to leave physical evidence?
Oh my, I can see no way for you to back that up except by rejecting the principle of scientific evidence and the *huge* amounts of evidence for biological evolution.
Origin of life is not part of evolution.There is no scientific evidence for origination.I thought you understood that science does not do "proof" and here you are faulting science for not having proof. A tad confusing I would say.There is no proof of evolution.
That is true but where does that leave us? If you wish to study the world around us by scientific methodology, the supernatural must be left out; not rejected, just left out. My question is how do we know that something supernatural is "the correct answer" except by faith. Science cannot touch it so cannot even address the question much less the answer.Science can only offer a natural explanation for things. If something is supernatural, science cannot possibly supply the correct answer.
I am a bit confused here. You start off by saying that science cannot deal with the supernatural then chastise it because it does not deal with the supernatural.
Interesting points but not very consistent.
Dizredux
Fossil facts.
Only 6,000 ancient human fossils? In a million or so years?
And I am not even including animal fossils yet.
6,000?? When I google human fossils, I get this list which looks like maybe 100 or 150 fossils listed. Now, granted, this list probably doesn't include fragment fossils, etc., but only the more substantial specimens.
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, I hope not as I thought we were talking about human evolution.
Scientists, while claiming God doesn't exist, won't hesitate to use Christian terminology:
- God particle
- y-Adam
- mtDNA Eve
- El Niño
- [blasphemy] La Niña [/blasphemy]
Yes, only 6,000 where there should be billions. Your Wiki page mentions thousands in the very first sentence.
Human Fossils | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Why should there be billions? Again, fossilization is rather rare. And, along the same logic, where all the people that died in the flood (not that they would be fossils necessarily)?
In many cultures, human corpses were usually buried in soil. The roots of burial as a practice reach back into the Middle Palaeolithic and coincides with the appearance of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens, in Europe and Africa respectively.
Burial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's like 2.6 million years ago. Tens of thousands of humans as Black Akuma states, would equal a billion graves at very, very extremely conservative calculations. Using just 100,000 years instead of millions.
In many cultures, human corpses were usually buried in soil. The roots of burial as a practice reach back into the Middle Palaeolithic and coincides with the appearance of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens, in Europe and Africa respectively.
Burial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's like 2.6 million years ago. Tens of thousands of humans as Black Akuma states, would equal a billion graves at very, very extremely conservative calculations. Using just 100,000 years instead of millions.
From the Wikipedia article that AV ironically used as a source.
See? It's not the Biblical Eve. It's not one set person anymore than 'World Heavyweight Champion' or 'President of the United States' are. It's a title with specific parameters that can apply to different people as time goes on.
It is not the Biblical Eve. The site you used as a source actually explains this is great detail - you should read the entire article.
This is from another article:
After the initial discovery of the "mitochondrial Eve", Wilson felt uneasy about using the term "Eve" because it caused many to think that she was the only woman living at that time, much like what is written in Genesis of the Bible concerning Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden
This is why the world wide survey was able to determine that all people are related via some original mother which they called the "mitochondrial Eve".
Many suggest that Eve must have had some vast superiority because her offspring are thought to have conquered the whole world without any evidence of any interbreeding.
This would also explain why there is a discrepancy in the fossil record and our own ancestry linked to this one woman 200,000 or so years ago.
It also fits with the findings that are dubbed the "creative explosion" in the fossil record.
Why are you going to another article? What's wrong with the one you had?
I note that your article is devoid of any sources, whatsoever, so I'll have to ask you to provide something to back the claim that this was why Wilson felt 'uneasy'. Presumably, she could have called it whatever she wanted to.
I'm starting to see why you switched sources. This one - completely unsourced, by the way - agrees with you and makes the same mistakes. The last one, which had sources, doesn't. Not very honest, I have to say.
Yeah, your link is a joke. No one ever suggested that. Ever. That's utterly ridiculous, and you will find nothing like it any journal, anywhere. You should take better care of the people you cite.
What discrepancy? Your link never actually explains that or gives any evidence to back it up.
If you're talking about the Cambrian Explosion, it really doesn't. That was much earlier than 200,000 years ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?