Was Y-Chromosomal Adam a monkey?

[USincognito]

But, when it’s all said and done most of them: 1) Believe Darwin over the Bible,

Actually ZERO science advocates here "believe Darwin". If one feels compelled to say we "believe" anything, it would be the evidence.

2) Because they can see things happening in the short-term (micro evolution) they also surmise it happened in the long-term (macro evolution).

Actually it's because the science advocates here realize that scientific observations are not limited to before our eyes and in real time. It's the Creationists who have a hard time understanding that.

without conclusive proof mind you (always relying on the fallback that science doesn’t prove anything

At some point this moves from confusion to dishonesty. It has been explained numerous times that proof is only found in logic and math. Everything in science, including that an apple falls from a tree instead of floating up must be subject to future, potential observations that falsify it. And if it can potentially be falsified in the future, then cannot be said to be proven.

 

[New Birth]

The difference is that "proof" is a philosophical or mathematical concept, not a scientific one.

Evolution''s evidence demonstrates that it is true beyond all reasonable doubt, but it could still be demonstrated to be flawed or false if new evidence that falsified it was discovered.

Im not sure ive have seen any evidence of evolution that shows its true beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[joinfree]

Is one of the most insipid questions one can ask. Creation Ministries International tells Creationists not to use it because it's such a bad argument.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com
So doesn't Answers In Genesis.
If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?

But why there is only one kind of human on the planet in 2019AC? Why other animals are not developed a human-like life?

 

[USincognito]

But why there is only one kind of human on the planet in 2019AC?

Why are there no dinosaurs or woolly mammoths? Why are there no trilobites or thylacines? Why are there no amonites or marine giant sloths?

 

[New Birth]

Jumping right in with an insult? I have a feeling this will not go well for you.



Is one of the most insipid questions one can ask. Creation Ministries International tells Creationists not to use it because it's such a bad argument.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com
So doesn't Answers In Genesis.
If Humans Evolved from Apes, Why Do Apes Exist Today?



Try reading what I wrote again.
>> Y Adam lived in a population of other humans that evolved from earlier Homo species.
He just happened to be the last male from which every other male on earth is descended. <<
{bold for emphasis)

This is pretty simple population genetics. Not every man who lives will have children and of those who do have children some will only have daughters who will not pass on his Y Chromosome (since daughters get XX instead of XY). Over time all the descendants of all the other men living at the time of Y Adam will end because they won't have children or they will only have daughters. I have several examples in my own recent family. My mother's mother's father had two daughters and a son. The son died before he had any children so his Y chromosome went extinct. My dad two sons and neither of us have any children so his Y chromosome has and our Y chromosome will go extinct.



I do. But do you?

No insult, but take it how you want, this is a non issue with me so the statement "I have a feeling this want go well with you" is meaningless. but why are their still monkeys if you say human ancestors are monkeys? I think its a legit question.

 

[Speedwell]

It is violation of Aristotle Law of Logic, isn't it?

No more than saying oranges are fruit. Does that violate "Aristotle's Law of Logic? If you want to bring Aristotle into it, read Categories first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Typical Darwinist. So the age old question "Why are there still monkeys?"

For the same reason that there are still Europeans while Americans are descendents from Europeans.

You first say there is no Adam then you say Adam "just happened to be the last male from which every other male on earth descended". That is the position of the creationist

It is not. The "last common male ancestor" is not the same as "the first human".
That "last common male ancestor" was himself part of a population of humans. And it wasn't the "first generation" of humans either (there's no such thing - read the other posts above yours for an explanation on that)

, yet not only males but all of mankind.

Which is not the case at all.

"No offspring is so different from the population that it would be a different species." Now you get it!

He does. You, not so much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well - when we get to the end you can ask Him yourself.

How convenient.

Off course, it's just a silly cop-out synonymous with "I got nothing - but I'll just stick to my dogmatic beliefs anyway"

 

[New Birth]

Why are there no dinosaurs or woolly mammoths? Why are there no trilobites or thylacines? Why are there no amonites or marine giant sloths?

I think most died off in the flood in Noah's day and the rest may have been killed for food.

 

[joinfree]

Why are there no dinosaurs or woolly mammoths? Why are there no trilobites or thylacines? Why are there no amonites or marine giant sloths?

Most clean human uses toilet paper. No animal uses it. Thus, human is not animal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You were going strong there for a minute but then you agreed that "Scientific theories never deal in "conclusive proof". I guess you could post a evolutionary textbook and your own statement would shred it.

That statement goes for every single scientific theory. Be it evolution or gravity, atoms, plate tectonics, germs, relativity,................................ etc etc.

Perhaps you should read up a bit on how science is done before attempting to attack it out of ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where are bacteria in the bible? Where is Uranus in the bible?

Or in short: where is anything in the bible that didn't exist within a 500-mile radius of those that wrote it?

 

[New Birth]

For the same reason that there are still Europeans while Americans are descendents from Europeans.




It is not. The "last common male ancestor" is not the same as "the first human".
That "last common male ancestor" was himself part of a population of humans. And it wasn't the "first generation" of humans either (there's no such thing - read the other posts above yours for an explanation on that)




Which is not the case at all.



He does. You, not so much.

so you also believe humans evolved from non human ancestors?

 

[Shemjaza]

Im not sure ive have seen any evidence of evolution that shows its true beyond all reasonable doubt.

Firstly, we have repeated experiments to demonstrate how new traits can form, become fixed in a population and eventually lead to speciation.

Then, we have pattern of genetic markers in our own and other animals that exactly match a branching tree of relatedness with positive, negative and neutral traits lining up into families.

Finally we have fossils of extinct species that match up to the genetic evidence and show us specifics of the ancestry of modern species.

In addition the techniques for discovering and identifying both the modern genetic evidence and the ancient paleontological evidence have very real practical applications in the real world. DNA and paternity tests; vaccines annual developments; finding oil fields; nuclear power; GPS satellites... and many others.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Im not sure ive have seen any evidence of evolution that shows its true beyond all reasonable doubt.

Considering you have access to the internet, there are only 2 reasonable explanations for this:
1. you simply haven't been looking
2. you get your (mis)information from creationist propaganda.


In the 21st century, aka "the information age", and with open access to the internet, you really are without excuse.

 

[New Birth]

That statement goes for every single scientific theory. Be it evolution or gravity, atoms, plate tectonics, germs, relativity,................................ etc etc.

Perhaps you should read up a bit on how science is done before attempting to attack it out of ignorance.

evolution is just a theory right? has it been demonstrated that one species evolves into another species? Was this observed? Did it happen in a controlled environment?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But why there is only one kind of human on the planet in 2019AC?

The others (like Neanderthals) are extinct.
They existed in the past. We know they did.

Why other animals are not developed a human-like life?

Because they are on their own evolutionary path.
Why aren't dogs like cats?

It's a stupid question.

 

[New Birth]

Firstly, we have repeated experiments to demonstrate how new traits can form, become fixed in a population and eventually lead to speciation.

Then, we have pattern of genetic markers in our own and other animals that exactly match a branching tree of relatedness with positive, negative and neutral traits lining up into families.

Finally we have fossils of extinct species that match up to the genetic evidence and show us specifics of the ancestry of modern species.

In addition the techniques for discovering and identifying both the modern genetic evidence and the ancient paleontological evidence have very real practical applications in the real world. DNA and paternity tests; vaccines annual developments; finding oil fields; nuclear power; GPS satellites... and many others.

so your not going to actually present evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No insult, but take it how you want, this is a non issue with me so the statement "I have a feeling this want go well with you" is meaningless. but why are their still monkeys if you say human ancestors are monkeys? I think its a legit question.

Here's a professor in evolutionary biology answering that PRATT

 

[Speedwell]

Prepare yourself for more accusations of being ‘uneducated’ coupled with descriptives like ‘ignorance’ and ‘false dichotomy’ (that evolution doesn’t try to disprove a creator). But, when it’s all said and done most of them: 1) Believe Darwin over the Bible, and 2) Because they can see things happening in the short-term (micro evolution) they also surmise it happened in the long-term (macro evolution). Many will use that hypothesis, some deliberately (atheists) and some unaware (theistic evolution Christians), without conclusive proof mind you (always relying on the fallback that science doesn’t prove anything and yet any intelligent person would see it their way), to discredit the Bible and promote non-supernatural spontaeous generation, biogenesis, or some form of natural means only.

You are not being quite accurate here. No one is trying to discredit the Bible. We just don't give credit to your particular interpretation of the Bible.