- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Messages
- 40,805
- Reaction score
- 54,567
- Location
- Houston Area, TX
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Agreed. [emoji106] [emoji106]Deuce is just kicking the hell out of this thread.
Agreed. [emoji106] [emoji106]Deuce is just kicking the hell out of this thread.
Can anyone decipher this ?
The first Eves were lesbian? Instead, maybe they were lonely?I read a study a couple of years back that seemed well enough scientific to remember that dated the Eve to about 120.000 year ago and Adam to something like 50.000 years later.
I'm asking you to prove when, where and how the closest relative to man, the chimp, started turning human. You don't even have to go back millions of years. Wouldn't the evolution process be ongoing? Where's a current-day example of the missing link like, for example, the yeti?
This post is far less rhetorical than your post I quoted. I don't think you want a rational discussion on this subject.
I am not advocating for or against the lady... only identifying the fact that she did not do what you said she did, magically converting one number into another.She referenced that timeframe, not me. And human fossils have been found older than that even.
And we haven't even started on all the other problems with M Eve: she wasn't the only woman, isn't a fixed individual in the first place, and Y-chromosomal Adam wasn't her sexual partner. Oops.
I am not advocating for or against the lady... only identifying the fact that she did not do what you said she did, magically converting one number into another.
She only referenced the carbon dating and then went on to tell her story of relative dating to the molecular clock, how fast actual change occurs, etc. Clarification perhaps, as opposed to the lesser tools of accusation/obfuscation.
No, your obfuscation. You saying she was trying to magically convert numbers, carbon dating to mitochondrial, when she was only referencing the one dating form and then allowing for another, alternative measure for this specific maternal ancestor.So, her referencing radioisotope dating was just obfuscation?
No, your obfuscation. You saying she was trying to magically convert numbers, carbon dating to mitochondrial, when she was only referencing the one dating form and then allowing for another, alternative measure for this specific maternal ancestor.
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? How did that common ancestor originate?Chimps never started turning human. You fundamentally misunderstand evolution. Here's an image I showed another forums poster who made the same error:
People often get this linear idea of evolution. Often from images like this one:
But it's really more like a tree. The image above just shows one of the branches. Chimps are on a different branch. Branches never reconnect, and chimps will never become humans. Nor will mice turn into birds. It just doesn't work that way.
Yetis are a myth, dude. They never existed. You might as well ask me to show evidence for the existence of werewolves.
That makes more sense, but she's still wrong on her "alternative measure." And her dismissal of that radioisotope timeline is unwarranted. You can't just toss out evidence because you don't like what it says.
Mitochondrial Eve
Furthermore, she's conflating "most recent common ancestor" with "oldest human ever." Funny that she didn't bring up Y-chromosomal "Adam," who is older that M Eve. You know why she didn't? Because that's what creationists do when they're trying to twist science to fit their belief. You can only do that with cherry picking.
She thinks one study supposedly showing a 6000 year old eve is "a problem for [evolutionists]" when even that isn't actually supported by her own source.
Yes. Flawed. Just as evolution theory is flawed.
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? How did that common ancestor originate?
Some wee sleekit, cow'rin', tim'rous beastie that had hair and gave live birth and survived the catastrophe that killed most of the dinosaurs was the common ancestor of all us mammals.
First, prove your assertion, please, on where she is wrong on "her "alternative measure."". Secondly, if you can, while I do not think she liked radioisotopic, she did not just toss it out, she disagreed, potentially, with its reference points and how it related in human genome history. Show us where she just tosses it out.
As to the other, have you seen more than the 4 plus minutes offered on youtube? Maybe she offers an explanation later, maybe she does not. You cast aspersions but didn't quite explain why she actually would not. as a creationist, bring up Y-c Adam...except in the most offputting, nonsensical way. There must be a better explanation than that, surely?
Also, explain those last statements, as they do not prove themselves.
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? How did that common ancestor originate?
So....that means we have to invite rats to family reunions?
From my perspective, the lady in the video made no such allusions to M Eve being the Eve of the Bible. In fact she said she was not.Y-c Adam is older than M Eve. Which means they weren't sexual partners.
This is a problem for people who think M Eve is Biblical Eve.
Radioisotope dating puts human fossils far older than 6000 years. That's enough right there.
From my perspective, the lady in the video made no such allusions to M Eve being the Eve of the Bible. In fact she said she was not.
Are you talking neanderthal-ish or cro magnon-ish humans?
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? How did that common ancestor originate?
Can anyone decipher this ?
If the most current model of the species, the one that we actually come from, based on the molecular clock is only 6000 years back... then I will let you figure it out from there.If M Eve isn't Biblical Eve, what "problem" was she referring to when she claimed a 6000 year old M Eve was a problem for "them?"
If the most current model of the species, the one that we actually come from, based on the molecular clock is only 6000 years back... then I will let you figure it out from there.
As a sidenote to the Neanderthal-ish and cro magnon-ish human ancestors of man, of which Neanderthals actually interbred with humans with little success Neanderthal-Human Sex Rarely Produced Kids, Study Suggests | Neanderthal & Human Interbreeding | Neanderthal Genome & Human Genome , who were ancestors of cro magnons and neanderthals? Who or what were the ancestors of hominids (the non-scientific term for original humanoids) and so on and so on...? Show me instances that don't disprove your hypothesis, evolution-theory lovers. Not you, Gaugingcatenate, you aren't an evolution-theory lover.From my perspective, the lady in the video made no such allusions to M Eve being the Eve of the Bible. In fact she said she was not.
Are you talking neanderthal-ish or cro magnon-ish humans?
As a sidenote to the Neanderthal-ish and cro magnon-ish human ancestors of man, of which Neanderthals actually interbred with humans with little success Neanderthal-Human Sex Rarely Produced Kids, Study Suggests | Neanderthal & Human Interbreeding | Neanderthal Genome & Human Genome , who were ancestors of cro magnons and neanderthals? Who or what were the ancestors of hominids (the non-scientific term for original humanoids) and so on and so on...? Show me instances that don't disprove your hypothesis, evolution-theory lovers. Not you, Gaugingcatenate, you aren't an evolution-theory lover.
Sidenote: From where did your id originate, Gaugingcatenate? Do you link something?