• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitochondrial Eve

Can anyone decipher this ?



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 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. :)
The first Eves were lesbian? Instead, maybe they were lonely?
 
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.

Chimps never started turning human. You fundamentally misunderstand evolution. Here's an image I showed another forums poster who made the same error:

bQ7CyfJ.png


People often get this linear idea of evolution. Often from images like this one:
evolution.jpg


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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
This is messed up, I thought everyone was descended from Noah's family.:mrgreen:
Seriously, some of her basic math is off, If the researcher expected the ticking of a
12,000 year clock to reach a number between 100,000 and 200,000 years, then he was expecting
between 9 and 17 mutations (I don't know much about such things, but a non integer mutation seems off. )
The 800 year to 6000 year mutation is 8 (again 7.5 mutations does not sound possible)
So not only in the result low, it is below the range of the earlier stated expectation mutation rate.
Besides that we have structures with artwork in stone at Göbekli Tepe that is 12,000 years old.
 
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.

So, her referencing radioisotope dating was just obfuscation?
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Chimps never started turning human. You fundamentally misunderstand evolution. Here's an image I showed another forums poster who made the same error:

bQ7CyfJ.png


People often get this linear idea of evolution. Often from images like this one:
evolution.jpg


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.
What is the common ancestor of chimps and humans? How did that common ancestor originate?
 
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.

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?

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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?

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?"
 
Can anyone decipher this ?



Okay, here's what's up with her.

For men, the "Y" chromosome is how we trace you to your father's father's father... okay?

Women cannot trace the "Y" chromosome because they don't possess it. Both men and women can trace their mother through - mitochondrial DNA.

"Eve" is theorized to be the first "modern human woman" from which all modern women sprang: she is not the Biblical Eve.

A mutation in a gene - is a change: blue eyes, blond hair, brown eyes, skin tone etc etc. The mitochondrial clock is the distance - in time between changes / mutations. (That's the easiest way to explain the clock).

The scientific "Eve" dates to about 200,000 years ago and there have been many changes, up to and including mixing with Neanderthal as well. What this woman is trying to claim is that 6,000 years ago, "thee" modern woman sprang that suddenly fits the Biblical story line.

She's BSing.
 
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.
 
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.

Except it's not. She's singling out a d-loop mutation rate and ignoring everything else.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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?

Wait. Are you under the impression that this link disproves...something? Can you elaborate on what this supposedly disproves?
 
Back
Top Bottom