-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why I Reject Evolution
- Thread starter Achilles6129
- Start date
SonOfTheWest
Britpack
- Sep 26, 2010
- 1,765
- 66
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Ohhhhhhhhhhh I see I see said the blind man. Thank you for the correction. And yes I could see that. I retract my earlier unnecessary statements lol.
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi Papias,
Very good, but none of that applies from Adam to Abram.
Hi Solarwave,
So let me get this straight. You don't believe the account of the creation is true. You don't believe the geneologies are true. You don't believe (from previous discussions) that the worldwide flood is true. You don't believe the sun standing still in the heavens nearly an entire day is true. Maybe the list would be much shorter if you were to just tell us what you do believe to be true in the Scriptures.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Very good, but none of that applies from Adam to Abram.
Hi Solarwave,
So let me get this straight. You don't believe the account of the creation is true. You don't believe the geneologies are true. You don't believe (from previous discussions) that the worldwide flood is true. You don't believe the sun standing still in the heavens nearly an entire day is true. Maybe the list would be much shorter if you were to just tell us what you do believe to be true in the Scriptures.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
I DO believe the creation account is true, but metaphorically, not scientifically. The genealogies need to be understood in the terms of ancient understanding, which is not necessarily as direct father-son relationships. I once saw an intepretation which considered them a record of itineraries of ancient migrations. An interesting view whose accuracy I can't evaluate. But who knows? No, I don't believe the flood was worldwide, nor do I believe the text of scripture requires that interpretation. No, I don't believe the sun stood still in the sky, because I know the sun doesn't actually move through the sky so there is no way it could stop a non-existent motion. No doubt there was an actual event whose reality is reflected in the story. IOW, I don't think the story is untrue, just that the record as it stands cannot be scientifically accurate. I don't doubt the original witnesses believed the sun was standing still. But there is no way to determine now what the actual reality of the situation was.
Would the list be shorter if it was a list of positive beliefs? Quite likely, but those beliefs would be much more fundamental and crucial--beliefs at the heart of Christian faith. The Nicene Creed is an example. Or the Apostles' Creed which is even shorter.
I wonder why anyone does not find them sufficient. Why do people feel they need more?
Upvote
0
J
Jazer
Guest
Usually they are talking about the calender or the clock they are using. It could be that they have a sun dial that works 365 days a year, but one day a year it will act different from the way it usually does. A lot of people going back to stonehedge had monuments set up so they could keep track of the days and the seasons.
Upvote
0
S
solarwave
Guest
I don't know if the earth stopped going round the sun but it would seem that it could potentially mess up the earth if that happened. God could have made it appear as if the sun/earth had stopped moving.
I believe things that don't go against science, history or logic.
Upvote
0
miamited wrote:
Well, the skipped people are not in the section from Adam to Abram, but that's not my point. My point is that the fact that the Gospel writer was instructed by the Holy Spirit to remove names must have had a reason, and that reason seems to clearly be to say to us that these geneologies, which you can see go back to Adam, are simply figurative, not literal. If they were literally true, then the removing names from them would be lying, and the Gospels would be lying to us.
It is because we know the Gospels are real that we know those geneologies are figurative - so of course it is in error to try to establish the date of Adam using them - unless you instead think the Gospels are simply human documents.
Papias
Well, the skipped people are not in the section from Adam to Abram, but that's not my point. My point is that the fact that the Gospel writer was instructed by the Holy Spirit to remove names must have had a reason, and that reason seems to clearly be to say to us that these geneologies, which you can see go back to Adam, are simply figurative, not literal. If they were literally true, then the removing names from them would be lying, and the Gospels would be lying to us.
It is because we know the Gospels are real that we know those geneologies are figurative - so of course it is in error to try to establish the date of Adam using them - unless you instead think the Gospels are simply human documents.
Papias
Upvote
0
Well, let's start here.
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also note that this is not the Eve of the bible. Mitochondrial Eve would be one of Eve's descendants.
Upvote
0
tyronem
Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings
Ahh the African Eve, A woman of no importance
Born in 1987 as evolutions attempt to provide a politically correct non-racist human evolution model.
This African eve has no relationship to the biblical Eve of Genesis 2 and 3
The theory postulates there were many migrations out of Africa prior to the African Eve. (Being more primitive humans)
Unlike the Biblical Eve, this imaginary Eve was not the first woman living, she was (in the evolutionist camp) one of a population of a bout 10,000 living at the time having evolved from an earlier Homo Erectus population. It is just postulated that her mtDNA is in all of us.
These modern humans then migrated out of Africa about 100k-150k y ago eliminating all (Mass murder and genocide) other humans including Homo Erectus.
While the African Eve model seemed to be rather brilliantly conceived the Berkley Chemists made reasonable but unprovable assumptions.
They first assumed no mixing from generation to generation, - unchanged Chromosomes of Mitochondria from mother to offspring (This assumption has recently experienced a serious challenge and may in fact be false)
They then assumed that all changes in the mtDNA were the result of mutation over time at a constant rate.
On the basis of these assumptions the researchers believed they had access to a "molecular clock".
Unfortunately there was a serpent stalking this Eve, as there was in the original
The researchers used a computer program designed to reveal a maximum parsimony phylogeny based on the assumption that evolution would have taken the most direct and efficient path - a rather strange assumption even for an evolutionist .They did not know that the result of their single computer run was biased by the order in which the data were entered, others have determinined that with thousands of computer runs and with the data entered in different random orders an African origin for modern humans is not preferred.
Henry Gee from the editorial staff of Nature describes the results of the mtDNA study as "garbage" He states that considering the number of items involved (136 mtDNA sequences) the number of maximally parsimonious trees exceeds one billion.
Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledges that the African Eve has been invalidated
In short African Eve is a dud
Upvote
0
Ahh the African Eve, A woman of no importance
Born in 1987 as evolutions attempt to provide a politically correct non-racist human evolution model.
This African eve has no relationship to the biblical Eve of Genesis 2 and 3
As I said, so I am glad that is clear. But then I wonder about your original question.
Right, but many of those other human lines are extinct or at least not represented in all modern humans (possibly in some, but not in all).
Why do you assume mass murder and genocide? Those are not needed for the extinction of other species. It is true, as a matter of history, that humans have committed mass murder and genocide, but it is not in any way necessary to evolution and ought not to be assumed without evidence.
That's interesting. What mechanism is proposed for mixing one woman's mitochondria with another so that a child gets a mixed heritage of mitochondrial DNA?
I have heard of some questioning of the molecular clock. However, it doesn't change the basic premise---only the actual placement in time of Mitochondrial Eve.
Unfortunately there was a serpent stalking this Eve, as there was in the original
I don't think that is an assumption. But it is a matter of scientific preference to give greater weight to a more parsimonious tree. After all, if one evolutionary transition is deemed improbable, the likelihood that it happened more than once is even more improbable as the necessary factors combining again to produce it is highly improbable.
But sometimes the most parsimonious tree may not be the correct one. That issue is raised, for example, by Ardipithecus. If Ardipithecus is a common ancestor of Australopithecus and Pan (chimpanzee), then chimpanzees must have evolved knuckle-walking separately from gorillas instead of both inheriting this trait from the same common ancestor.
Invalidated in what sense? That there is no Mitochondrial Eve? That Mitochondrial Eve is not African? Or that the data does not give a valid reference point as to when she lived?
Upvote
0
tyronem
Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings
That was why I asked it To challenge the proposed evolutionary model within acceptable scripture that makes it quite clear there was an Eve and she was the first woman who is the mother of us all.
hmm, I agree somewhat, Inherited Neandertal DNA being found in some humans, interbreeding, Homo Erectus morphology found in individuals found in chain mail armor would lead to the logical conclusion that rather than extinct, I would say bred into / out of existance
A number of reasons really, The way proposed natural selection by evolutionists requires that the wolf catches the sheep with short legs, the more advanced takes advantage over the less advantaged and kills them off in order to improve their survival rate.
A more advanced hominid encountering less advanced hominids and competing for food etc would result in wars where the more advanced killed off the less advanced.
To prevent mixing of DNA (men breeding with lower hominid woman) thus utterly destroying the mtEve model all the while passing on more advanced hominid genes because Eve was after the previous Hominid distributions according to the model, advanced hominid populations had to kill off less advanced without interbreeding. A peaceable accord between advanced and sub hominid populations would have inevitably resulted in interbreeding.
The abundance of food could not have caused environmental starvation of older hominid populations when newer ones came through.
New Disease could account for some older hominid deaths but not all
If older hominid are allowed to continue along the evolutionary path one could rightfully assume they would be around today in some hominid form.
Unless of course they were all wiped out by a catastrophe like a global flood
I said no mixing was a reasonable but not a proveable hypothesis. However
As above, if modern hominid male bred with woman lower hominid thus introducing the lower woman hominid mtDNA into the upper hominid population and this was then transmitted through populations at what point this could have happened no-one knows so for all the theory postulates it could have happened at any point in history thus negating the mtEve model.
Paleoanthropologist models for human descent completely contradict mtEve models as they use a regional model and not the out of Africa model, arguing rate of change in the mtDNA is much slower than postulated by the mtEve theory.
The mtDNA study of African Eve, as well as other aspects of molecular genetics, deals with mutations in the DNA nucleotides. Perhaps we could be forgiven for asking: "When an evolutionist looks at human DNA nucleotides, how does he know which ones are the result of mutations and which ones have remained unchanged?" Obviously, to answer that question he must know what the original or ancient sequences were. Since only God is omniscient, how does the evolutionist get the information regarding those sequences which he believes existed millions of years ago? He uses as his guide the DNA of the chimpanzee. In other words, the studies that seek to prove that human DNA evolved from chimp DNA start with the assumption that chimp DNA represents the original condition (or close to it) from which human DNA diverged. That is circularity with a vengeance!
Provided that the circular reasoning (logical fallacy) in the assumption of the model is correct.
I respect what you are saying however with over a Billion options I think that the model is far to ambiguous to prove anything.
[/QUOTE]
I respect that both evolutionists and creationists could have a mtEve, I understand the model that is proposed and that creationists much earlier than evolutionists could have this ancestoral mtEve, however given that it is a circular reference point where assumed evolution is used as the yard stick for assumed evolution this invalidates both the reference point and original "out of Africa" postulations. The real mtEve in fact could be any time in history given scientists in reality don't know what she started with as mtDNA, they just assume it was Ape and as such analogous of today.
I also understand that the model presents that African mtDNA is more mutated than non African mtDNA, however this is still based on circular reasoning where by they are using Ape mtDNA as the reference point. This means she could have come from anywhere.
Where else in science is it an allowable procedure to assume your conclusions in order to backup your conclusions and in fact model your entire model upon these assumed conclusions? ie evolutionists conclude we are apes, then model the data to fit upon that conclusion. Effectively taking an unproven conclusion and working the data backwards to fit that unproven conclusion, thereby the data then is worked forward and proves the conclusion.
Not only that all ancient samples of DNA are missing because DNA cannot last that long which therefore means that the meat is missing from the sandwich and again we see the bottom branches, precluded by assumed data that then meets up at the already concluded data peak. This means that the entire theory of the African eve is possible but utterly irrelevant.
This alongside the mtEve model contradicting the fossil record, it does beg the question, what is reliable, DNA or fossils, if it's DNA the fossil recored is all up the tree
if it's fossils DNA as a model is all up the tree or if it's neither as the creation position is then the flood and the fall is the only plausible model for dispersed buried fossils alongside the confusing results of mtDNA based on Chimps because we never evolved from chimps.
Upvote
0
This alongside the mtEve model contradicting the fossil record, it does beg the question, what is reliable, DNA or fossils, if it's DNA the fossil recored is all up the tree
False dichotomy. It's not an either/or choice. Understanding changes, yes, but that doesn't mean everything is thrown out.
Upvote
0
tyronem
Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings
I was not presenting only 2 choices as viable, what I was saying was that they don't know which is reliable and they are the two best options they have for evolutionary ancestry of humans how could they rely on either of them, and if they can't rely on either of them evolution falls away as a plausible theory.
As you have called it a false dichotomy can you please present the other options other than DNA and Fossils for determining ancestry.
Chur
T
Upvote
0
Well, what makes MtEve the mother of us all, wherever or whenever she existed, is that her genes have been inherited by all of us. Why would the same answer not work for the original Eve?
Several problems with this. First, the wolf-sheep scenario only works when there is a predator-prey relationship. But in a predator-prey relationship, usually the predator and prey are of different species. Humans have hunted some prey to extinction or near extinction (mammoths, moas), but except in some instances of cannabalism, they have not systematically preyed on other humans. Also the wolf is not competing with the sheep, but with other predators, especially other wolves. But he doesn't attack other wolves to do that.
Further, predator-prey is not the only relationship among species. In fact, it is largely limited to animals, but evolution applies to all forms of life. Militant interactions are not features of the evolution of trees or yeasts. So they are not necessary to phasing out one species in favour of another. It is true that competition over food might cause violent conflict, but extinction does not imply that a species was starved out.
The basic misconception here is that the replacement of one species by another requires some sort of conflict and suffering inflicted on one by the other. It does not. The transition need not involve any violence or suffering at all.
Did you get the "trees not ladders" diagram I posted earlier? The whole concept of "higher" "lower" "more or less advanced" "sub-human" etc. just has no place in evolutionary thinking.
In any case, H. sapiens men breeding with other hominid females would not destroy the MtEve model. Since, by definition, she is not the first woman, she could still be a woman in Africa about 60,000 years ago. (or any other time and place the evidence supports).
You are still assuming that evolutionary competition and extinction require some sort of violence, and that is not the case, even with a species as prone to violence as humans.
True, but we don't need to call on either starvation or disease to account for the extinction of other hominid species. They may have been factors in some instances, but they need not have been factors at all.
If older hominid are allowed to continue along the evolutionary path one could rightfully assume they would be around today in some hominid form.
Unless of course they were all wiped out by a catastrophe like a global flood
Again, you are assuming extinction requires some sort of violence, if not of one species against another, of nature against the species. No, extinction does not require violence or suffering imposed on the species dying out.
If we were talking about nuclear DNA that might be correct (except for the nonsense about "lower" hominids), but we are talking about mitochondrial DNA. mtDNA is passed on uniquely through the female line. So if an H.sapiens man had children by a non-sapiens woman, all her children would have her non-sapiens mtDNA. None of it would be mixed with his. Her sons would not pass it on to any of their children; their children would get their mtDNA from their mates. Her daughters would pass it on to all their children. So you would be able in every generation to distinguish the non-sapiens mtDNA from the sapiens DNA.
Now, all the evidence for interbreeding among sapiens and non-sapiens hominids (sapiens and neanderthalensis) that I have heard of involves only nuclear DNA. When studies were made of mtDNA the sapiens and neanderthal mtDNA were different enough that for a while it was thought there had never been interbreeding between the two species. We do not have, so far as is known, any human mtDNA lineage derived from non-sapiens sources.
And the mtEve model is based only on mtDNA lineages, not the complete human genome.
Well, the actual question the geneticist poses is "in which lineage did the mutation occur?" Since they are working on the assumption that the species being studied did have a common ancestor, any difference between the two species is mutation. But since mutations have been accumulating in both groups, it is not immediately obvious which is the original and which is the changed sequence. If one finds a stretch of DNA in one lineage which does not exist in the other, does that mean it was added to one genome or lost from the other? As you say, we don't actually have the original ancestral genome to compare them with.
So it is an interesting puzzle, but not a hopeless one. In some ways it is like the puzzles in linguistics as linguists try to determine what the common roots of a language family are and how they were changed in different areas, even though many of these changes occurred before there were any written records.
No, that is incorrect. It is understood that chimp DNA has also been changing since the time of the common ancestor and is no more like that of the common ancestor than human DNA is. In fact, I recently saw a news report that said there may have been more changes in DNA of the chimp lineage since the last common ancestor than in DNA in the human lineage. It is definitely not the case that any study is seeking to prove that human DNA evolved from chimp DNA. (Trees, not ladders, remember).
One of the interesting things about mtEve is that she is not necessarily the same person from one generation to another.
Let me give a brief illustration with a smaller group. When I was a child, I once met one of my great-aunts, sister to my grandmother. Later I learned my grandmother also had another living sister and both of her sisters had children (my mother's first cousins). Their children, if they had any would be my second cousins. If we were to identify the last common ancestor of all these women, myself, my mother, my grandmother, my grandmother's sisters and their children down to my generation, it would be my great grandmother--the one woman would was the ancestor of all the children in this extended family in my generation. But suppose on of my great-aunts had never married. So she had no children in my generation. Still my great-grandmother would be the last common ancestor of myself, my siblings, my first cousins and the grandchildren of the one great-aunt that did marry.
Ah, but now suppose that even though she married and had two children, she had no grandchildren. Now the only descendants of my great-grandmother in my generation are my grandmother's children. One line petered out when one great-aunt had no children, the other a generation later when the other great-aunt had no grandchildren. But now my great-grandmother is no longer the most recent common ancestor in the family. She is still an ancestor of course, but not the most recent common ancestor. That title now goes to my grandmother. She is likely to hold that for some time as she had nine children and only one of them died without issue. But if, at some time in the future, seven of the remaining lines died out, then the most recent common ancestor of the remaining line would be whichever sibling in my mother's generation still has living descendants.
On a large-scale, the same applies to mtEve. She is the one woman of her generation who is an ancestor of all living humans. But in every generation some lineages die out. Suppose she had five or six children. If at some point the lineage from one of them dies out, then all living humans are descended from only four or five people instead of five or six. And if eventually, all but one of those lineages disappear, then it will be one of her children or even great-grandchildren who will then be the mtEve of all living human beings.
No, this is also incorrect. They are not comparing human DNA to non-human DNA here. What they are doing is considering how many different alleles of a gene exist at one locus on a chromosome. Over time, in any stable population, genes can come to exist in many variant forms. Some genes have hundreds of slightly different forms called alleles. They all do the same thing, but they have somewhat different sequences. (It is rather like British and American English having the same word but with different spellings like "tire" and "tyre" or "color" and "colour". Even when there are hundreds of these different alleles for one locus in the population, each individual can only have two of them. So, if a small group breaks off from the main population and goes its separate way (like a group leaving Africa and heading along the coast down to India), it carries only a small sample of all the alleles in the population left behind. In time it acquires (through mutation) new alleles of its own. But the population it left behind is also still acquiring new alleles of its own. So the older population will usually have more genetic variation than a new separated population even after many generations. This can go on many times over the generations. A tiny group that settled on Pitcairn Island only two centuries ago has very few genetic differences. There hasn't been enough time for many new alleles to appear.
So there is no need to bring in any comparison with non-human hominids. What the geneticists have learned is that there is far more natural variation in African populations than in non-African populations. Also the further away from Africa, the less the variation. This suggests that Africa has the oldest continuing human population, with others being founded at later times. And one doesn't need to draw non-humans into the comparison at all.
Interestingly, this has a parallel in human language. A recent news report (I'll try to find this one) tells of the discovery that African languages have more phonemes (units of sound, like a single vowel or consonant) than most non-African languages. Also, the further away a population is from Africa, the more phonemes have disappeared from their language. Hawaiian apparently has the fewest phonemes of modern human languages. So in this instance cultural evolution has paralleled biological evolution in humans.
Everywhere. It is basic scientific method to:
a) draw up a hypothetical explanation of some observations
b) assume provisionally that it is true
c) deduce what the consequences must be if it is true
d) set up an experiment or series of observations to see if the consequences exist in reality.
If the consequences do exist, then the hypothesis is tentatively accepted as true; but is still subject to further testing.
This alongside the mtEve model contradicting the fossil record, it does beg the question, what is reliable, DNA or fossils, if it's DNA the fossil recored is all up the tree
Ah, one of the most fascinating phylogenetic questions of our time. However, it is not a matter of either being "all up the tree". There is sufficient consistency between the two to convince scientists that current anomalies are mostly a matter of insufficient data. And molecular data have solved many questions that could not be solved from fossils alone.
Right, we did not. We only share a common ancestor with them. We evolved from that ancestor (as did many other species).
Upvote
0
tyronem
Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings
Sorry I had to reply in 2 posts, It was too long
Yes but who is she, I can tell you she was the first woman created, the wife of Adam the first man and as such it makes perfect sense she is the mother of us all. From a creation perspective Eve was a real person, defined in the Bible, from an evolutionist point of view, even though the Bible defines eve as an actual person the evolutionist is yet to say, it was this woman... To verify the Eve in the Bible is to verify creation, to deny Eve is to deny the word of God, the creationist knows literally who she is / was, the evolutionist however cannot pin her down .
Interesting, so in a world abundant with food, where people become resistant to disease, without using conflict or natural disaster what is your hypothesis for how pre-descendants of mtEve were wiped out without intermixing?
---Quote---
To prevent mixing of DNA (men breeding with lower hominid woman) thus utterly destroying the mtEve model all the while passing on more advanced hominid genes because Eve was after the previous Hominid distributions according to the model, advanced hominid populations had to kill off less advanced without interbreeding. A peaceable accord between advanced and sub hominid populations would have inevitably resulted in interbreeding.
---End Quote---
I don't think I saw that one, will have to thread hunt for it.
I understand you view evolution as a process and not a unit but How then do you then seperate them out? - I've heard many evolutionists use the term "less evolved" or "simpler" or "lower" or "less complex"
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
If son A bred "in house"
and son B bred "out house"
you now have two lineages whereby the mtDNA of son B is left on the cutting room floor and mtDNA of son A is carried on because he bred "in house"
While A and B may eventually breed out one strand how would we ever know if mtEve was strand A or B and at what point in history she existed? Also given that there might be (to pick an arbitary number) 5000 strands I don't see a reliable methodology for breeding out all strands.
Therein lies a major flaw, in the mtEve theory. What constitutes ancient Sapien mtDNA and how is this even measured given that it is not possible to recover ancient DNA?
Interesting, not that the entire population has been sampled. Also that could give rise if they did interbreed why was it only the Neandertal males mating sapien females, seems a stretch of the imagination. Unless of course the Neandertal mtDNA found was just a mutated sapien mtDNA that through mutation in subsequent offspring has become unrecognizable.
Not having the original would mean they would have no idea what the original looks like so could not possibly pinpoint a date or an original or what a mutation is...
That is one of the many mainstream scientific attacks for the mtDNA theory though.
Very interesting puzzle.
---End Quote---
Well, what makes MtEve the mother of us all, wherever or whenever she existed, is that her genes have been inherited by all of us. Why would the same answer not work for the original Eve?
Yes but who is she
, I can tell you she was the first woman created, the wife of Adam the first man and as such it makes perfect sense she is the mother of us all. From a creation perspective Eve was a real person, defined in the Bible, from an evolutionist point of view, even though the Bible defines eve as an actual person the evolutionist is yet to say, it was this woman... To verify the Eve in the Bible is to verify creation, to deny Eve is to deny the word of God, the creationist knows literally who she is / was, the evolutionist however cannot pin her down .Interesting, so in a world abundant with food, where people become resistant to disease, without using conflict or natural disaster what is your hypothesis for how pre-descendants of mtEve were wiped out without intermixing?
---Quote---
To prevent mixing of DNA (men breeding with lower hominid woman) thus utterly destroying the mtEve model all the while passing on more advanced hominid genes because Eve was after the previous Hominid distributions according to the model, advanced hominid populations had to kill off less advanced without interbreeding. A peaceable accord between advanced and sub hominid populations would have inevitably resulted in interbreeding.
---End Quote---
I don't think I saw that one, will have to thread hunt for it.
I understand you view evolution as a process and not a unit but How then do you then seperate them out? - I've heard many evolutionists use the term "less evolved" or "simpler" or "lower" or "less complex"
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
If son A bred "in house"
and son B bred "out house"
you now have two lineages whereby the mtDNA of son B is left on the cutting room floor and mtDNA of son A is carried on because he bred "in house"
While A and B may eventually breed out one strand how would we ever know if mtEve was strand A or B and at what point in history she existed? Also given that there might be (to pick an arbitary number) 5000 strands I don't see a reliable methodology for breeding out all strands.
Therein lies a major flaw, in the mtEve theory. What constitutes ancient Sapien mtDNA and how is this even measured given that it is not possible to recover ancient DNA?
Interesting, not that the entire population has been sampled. Also that could give rise if they did interbreed why was it only the Neandertal males mating sapien females, seems a stretch of the imagination. Unless of course the Neandertal mtDNA found was just a mutated sapien mtDNA that through mutation in subsequent offspring has become unrecognizable.
Not having the original would mean they would have no idea what the original looks like so could not possibly pinpoint a date or an original or what a mutation is...
That is one of the many mainstream scientific attacks for the mtDNA theory though.
Very interesting puzzle.
Upvote
0
tyronem
Presbyterian Baptist with Pentecostal leanings
So without a point of reference how could a researcher of mtEve ever arrive at his point of reference and call it a timescale?
---Quote---
The real mtEve in fact could be any time in history given scientists in reality don't know what she started with as mtDNA, they just assume it was Ape and as such analogous of today.
---End Quote---
I understand your example and appreciate where you are coming from. And that as your example shows, Eve can change by that model.
And by your example I can see how this would work if there was one Eve, One mother of us all who was the first woman (Biblical Eve).
However the proposed population bottle neck was 10,000 people by the researchers, that is potentially 5000 lineages, while yes some may die out, I think it is somewhat wishful thinking that all except one would die out / be bred out. (except like china where they now limit your number of children to one and where they also abort females if possible in order to get a son).
However if the population bottle neck was 8 people recovered from an Ark, that is 4 lineages each having their own mutations, of one mtDNA Eve (the biblical original) would that not then give an easy logical rise to a single mtDNA lineage that would also explain why mtDNA in Neandertal is extremely similar to our own but has also been bred out?
Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA
---Quote---
I also understand that the model presents that African mtDNA is more mutated than non African mtDNA, however this is still based on circular reasoning where by they are using Ape mtDNA as the reference point. This means she could have come from anywhere.
---End Quote---
Thankyou for the concise example, As we have no original mtDNA to actually measure what was the original, What happens if we turn that example on it's head and the ones with the least variation are in Africa and the ones with the most variation are elsewhere?
i.e for a really simple example say:
Population Africa was afdwoif900kfk
Population Asia was afdooif909kfk
Population Aus was afwowif909kf5
How would we ever tell (Without knowing population Africa original sequence) that Africa was the most mutated and population Aus was the least mutated could it not also be possible that population Aus is the most mutated and population Africa is the least?
Pitcairn can be measured because there is no doubt data on DNA from people in Britain prior to moving to pitcairn then taking pitcairn data you can see the difference if any so you could build some hypothesis.
You would have to make an unproveable assumption when you are talking world wide population though methinks.
Interesting but irrelevant, given all languages are the same age, just subjected to different influences around the world. As the languages change, they may have added clicks / removed portions etc to the language centuries ago rather than 10's of thousands.
The complexity of a language has no relevance to age and has way more to it than just phenomes.
High english (1600's) was extremely complex, perhaps the most complex and fulfilling the english language has ever been or ever will be, yet as we have dumbed down the vocabulary we have not gotten younger.
Below is an interesting excerpt on language complexity.
Language complexity: typology ... - Google Books
hmm, maybe I didnt quite word the question right.
Most of science is along the lines of, either I'd like to do something - i.e fire a rocket, how would that be possible, or I have fire, how do I actually make fire.
More so, Where in science is it acceptable to assume something is fact without observing it, draw up a model then assert it is fact without observing it.
i.e you could assert that propulsion could be acheived with a rocket system, however if you never actually managed to observe a rocket in motion as a result of your science then while it still may be possible, it would not be called a fact until that rocket was observed in motion.
In the same vein the evolutionist position on mtEve, first asserts that we evolved and during that time evolving we were originally from Africa(unproven), then builds a model on that hypothesis based on data they don't posess - ie mtDNA tree data right to the roots, then asserts the hypothesis is true even though they have no ancient DNA data to test the model on. And they assert that hypothesis as true when it contradicts the data from paleoanthropologists.
They have never observed the proposed migration, and they never will so from a scientific point of view they have presented a model that has unproveable assumptions, which therefore means it is an unproveable model, that is far from scientific fact.
From what I can tell of literature on this - secular and creationist is that the mtEve model is attacked along these lines consistently and effectively.
I do concede that all that has been measured of mtDNA between humans is surprisingly (for evolutionists) similar and that is why they hypothesise that one woman is the mother of all ( but a very very long way back), so while I think that the mtEve model has potential for actually proving creation, I think it is substantially flawed on the assumptions it makes.
---Quote---
This alongside the mtEve model contradicting the fossil record, it does beg the question, what is reliable, DNA or fossils, if it's DNA the fossil recored is all up the tree
---End Quote---
Ah, one of the most fascinating phylogenetic questions of our time. However, it is not a matter of either being "all up the tree". There is sufficient consistency between the two to convince scientists that current anomalies are mostly a matter of insufficient data. And molecular data have solved many questions that could not be solved from fossils alone.
I disagree as paleoanthropologist literature still disagrees with the out of africa model and there is quite a bone - heh - of contention between the two camps
---Quote---
because we never evolved from chimps.
---End Quote---
Right, we did not. We only share a common ancestor with them. We evolved from that ancestor (as did many other species).
[/QUOTE
lol, if you want to be picky
hmm, how about, apes, rats, mice and hamsters are not our cousins, Especially not rats because I'm jealous their Gulo Gene is still active
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It's reality that needs to be changed then....
to fit to your way of thinking:
Programmed genetic instability: a tumor-permissive mechanism for maintaining the evolvability of higher species through methylation-dependent mutation of DNA repair genes in the male germ line.
The blood factors I and i in primates including man, and in lower species.
Photoreactivating enzyme activity of
primitive and advanced species
of Hansenula.
The sera of eight different sub-human primate species were examined by double diffusion in agar and compared to a pool of human serum with rabbit and goat antisera to human complement components Clq, Cls, C4, C2 C3, C5, C6, C8, C9, properdin, factor B (B), and C1 inhibitor.
The form and function of the joint are described in sub-human Primates and the adaptations which characterize the joint in bipedal man are noted.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
