Turns out all of humanity is related to a single couple

[Grokmaster]

Errmmm

Errrmmm...the OPINIONS of the researchers DO NOT ALTER THE FACTS...facts they were desperate, by their own admission, to NOT FIND, and/or DISPROVE...nut facts are tricky things. The researchers ADMOT THEIR OWN BIAS AGAINST THESE FACTS:



'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'


ALL HUMANS FROM A SINGLE COUPLE...OBLITERATES DARWINIST HUMANIST EVOLUTION....regardless of one's explanation for it.

 

[Tim the plumber]

What do you think Adam and Eve is? I'm sure your concept of the story does not at all match the OP's conception of it. I would be surprised if that were the case.

My concept of the story is that about the garden of Eden and all the rest as per the bible.

I consider it obviously fiction and not good fiction as well.

I think that the christians I meet on forum such as this really want anything to confirm any part of the bible and are willing to overlook any wrong bits.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Errrmmm...the OPINIONS of the researchers DO NOT ALTER THE FACTS...facts they were desperate, by their own admission, to NOT FIND, and/or DISPROVE...nut facts are tricky things. The researchers ADMOT THEIR OWN BIAS AGAINST THESE FACTS:



'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'


ALL HUMANS FROM A SINGLE COUPLE...OBLITERATES DARWINIST HUMANIST EVOLUTION....regardless of one's explanation for it.

No.

There is not one single couple which has given rise to all of us. That we all have the same couple in our ancestry is different.

We, at least if you are of European heritage, have Neanderthal DNA in us. That happened after this point in history. There were lots of other humans who have passed on their DNA from the same time as this couple but they are not the ancestors of all of us. Just some.

It does not at all disprove evolution much as you wish it did.

 

[Grokmaster]

My concept of the story is that about the garden of Eden and all the rest as per the bible.

I consider it obviously fiction and not good fiction as well.

I think that the christians I meet on forum such as this really want anything to confirm any part of the bible and are willing to overlook any wrong bits.

And I enjoy the hilarious acrobatics the anti-religion crowd goes through as the FACTS continue to OBLITERATE their Precious Darwinist Evolution....

 

[Tim the plumber]

And I enjoy the hilarious acrobatics the anti-religion crowd goes through as the FACTS continue to OBLITERATE their Precious Darwinist Evolution....

Which bit do you think shows any problem with the theory of evolution?

 

[Grokmaster]

Which bit do you think shows any problem with the theory of evolution?

It absolutely OBLITERATES the premise that a group of apes in Africa..."became humans"...and the researchers themselves realize that, and DESPERATELY TRIED TO NOT REACH THE CONCLUSION that the FACTS FORCED THEM TO:


'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'


A SINGLE COUPLE parented Mankind.

Create your own explanation, but the current Darwinist one does not work, as it would have to be a GROUP of apes evolving in the same circumstances to work...and that didn't happen, apparently.


Hilarious.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It absolutely OBLITERATES the premise that a group of apes in Africa..."became humans"...and the researchers themselves realize that, and DESPERATELY TRIED TO NOT REACH THE CONCLUSION that the FACTS FORCED THEM TO:


'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'


A SINGLE COUPLE parented Mankind.

Create your own explanation, but the current Darwinist one does not work, as it would have to be a GROUP of apes evolving in the same circumstances to work...and that didn't happen, apparently.


Hilarious.

It was not that a single couple parented 100% of mankind but that this single couple is represented in all of humanity's ancestry. Different idea. A bit complex for you but try harder.

And how does that change much? So the human population was frigtening small, or at least those that have passed on their DNA was very small. There were definately others.

The reseacher did not want to have to report the surprising claim that there is a single couple in everybody's ancestry because it is a large claim and he would prefer to keep it smooth.

I think you do not understand how evolution works. No apes became human. We, a species of ape, have been bred, selected by nature, out of a chain of populations of apes that have slowly been selected away from the hairy Chimpansees and into the naked upright walking big brained hyper social and hyper adaptable species of ape we are today.

 

[JustHanging]

AS PREDICTED: Anything to pretend this doesn't BLOW THE LID off of Darwinist theory.

LOL, no need to pretend. Anyone who took science at a grade 8 level, at least in Canada, knows this is nonsense.

I focused on the SCIENTIFIC FACTS, not the OPINION you cited.

Nope, you focused on a crazy narrative because you have an almost certainly imaginary friend, and you want to try and justify your belief in your imaginary friend, because let's face it, a grown man believing in imaginary friends is pretty silly.

I have as much evidence that Santa created the human race as you do that it was Yahweh.

"Stoeckle and Thaler, the scientists who headed the study, concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.
'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'

That's what science does, constantly improve our understanding of the world around us through self correction. The only thing that has ever corrected science is...(are you ready?)... more science!

 

[JustHanging]

It absolutely OBLITERATES the premise that a group of apes in Africa..."became humans"...and the researchers themselves realize that, and DESPERATELY TRIED TO NOT REACH THE CONCLUSION that the FACTS FORCED THEM TO:


'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'


A SINGLE COUPLE parented Mankind.

Create your own explanation, but the current Darwinist one does not work, as it would have to be a GROUP of apes evolving in the same circumstances to work...and that didn't happen, apparently.


Hilarious.

You know, no matter how large you make the font, you are still wrong. You obviously don't understand a lick of science, and you're having a lot of problems with English comprehension. Is the American education system that bad, teaching you the bigger the font, the better the argument?

 

[DarkWizard12]

My concept of the story is that about the garden of Eden and all the rest as per the bible.

I consider it obviously fiction and not good fiction as well.

I think that the christians I meet on forum such as this really want anything to confirm any part of the bible and are willing to overlook any wrong bits.

That's like saying Ayn Rand's fountainhead is about 2 architects and a ****ty romance. It's a lot more in depth than that. The generations of Adam to noah cover 1000 years of history, all in under 100 sentences. Now, to me, it's a ridiculous notion that a thousands years of history can be accurately summarized in less than 100 sentances, and indeed, even the bible treats as much more indepth and serious than this. The answer is that genesis is less concerned about being a historical account, and more concerned about being a moral account.

Perhaps OP thinks the same way, but then, maybe not...he didn't really share. Regardless, I find your interpretation of genesis to be quite childish and unserious. There are many secular, atheist even, archeaologists and historians who have a much more academic and thorough appreciation of the text than this, and indeed, i find even their positions superior to yours.

 

[JustHanging]

Errrmmm...the OPINIONS of the researchers DO NOT ALTER THE FACTS...facts they were desperate, by their own admission, to NOT FIND, and/or DISPROVE...nut facts are tricky things. The researchers ADMOT THEIR OWN BIAS AGAINST THESE FACTS:

Any good scientist is biased against their findings. That's their job. It's people who want to believe fairy tales, like Santa Claus created mankind, that are biased for their findings.

Christ, at least learn the most fundamental things about science before declaring it wrong. SMH.

 

[JustHanging]

That's like saying Ayn Rand's fountainhead is about 2 architects and a ****ty romance. It's a lot more in depth than that. The generations of Adam to noah cover 1000 years of history, all in under 100 sentences. Now, to me, it's a ridiculous notion that a thousands years of history can be accurately summarized in less than 100 sentances, and indeed, even the bible treats as much more indepth and serious than this. The answer is that genesis is less concerned about being a historical account, and more concerned about being a moral account.

Perhaps OP thinks the same way, but then, maybe not...he didn't really share. Regardless, I find your interpretation of genesis to be quite childish and unserious. There are many secular, atheist even, archeaologists and historians who have a much more academic and thorough appreciation of the text than this, and indeed, i find even their positions superior to yours.

All he said was that story about the garden of Eden is fiction. What archaeologists disagree with that?

As for the rest of the bible, of course there is some truth in it. There is also lots of truth in a Spiderman comic. Cars exist, skyscrapers exist, police exist, but that does not mean Spiderman exists. There is no evidence other than testimony that any of the supernatural events claimed in the bible happened, and there are plenty of people alive today who can provide testimony about the time they were abducted by aliens, including anal probing.

 

[Tim the plumber]

That's like saying Ayn Rand's fountainhead is about 2 architects and a ****ty romance. It's a lot more in depth than that. The generations of Adam to noah cover 1000 years of history, all in under 100 sentences. Now, to me, it's a ridiculous notion that a thousands years of history can be accurately summarized in less than 100 sentances, and indeed, even the bible treats as much more indepth and serious than this. The answer is that genesis is less concerned about being a historical account, and more concerned about being a moral account.

Perhaps OP thinks the same way, but then, maybe not...he didn't really share. Regardless, I find your interpretation of genesis to be quite childish and unserious. There are many secular, atheist even, archeaologists and historians who have a much more academic and thorough appreciation of the text than this, and indeed, i find even their positions superior to yours.

Hope you enjoyed that.

Personally I don't really care about Adam and Eve.

That the OP wants this bit of new science to say that there was such a couple and we are all decended just from them is the subject of this thread. But whatever, we are on page nine so feel free to go direct to insults over nothing.

 

[OlNate]

No, the bible folks teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old. So, your own OP isn't consistent with the bible narrative since they remark that the couple lived between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

You could simply say the infallible bible is fallible, or just deny some more. Up to you.

The bible folks teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, not the Bible. And not even all the folks:

Can You Be a Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?

Haven't thoroughly vetted the site, as I found it for this debate, wanting to provide a link to support the fact that not all, or even the majority, of Christians believe in a 6000 year old world. So, be warned...lol...there are some crazy religious websites out there, but this one, at least, confirms that science and religion can coexist, and that not all of us consider creation, evolution, and a 4.5 billion year old Earth to be mutually exclusive concepts.

Sorry, bud, you're gonna have to burn us in a different direction.

Not jumping into this debate with both feet, as I find that scientific explanation of faith based issues almost always backfires, and is unnecessary for faith anyway, since faith is belief with absence of proof... But I figured, given your typical posting quality, you'd like to know if you veered a little too far from being accurate.

 

[calamity]

Hmm....where have I read that before.... :mrgreen:


Getting popcorn for impending deluge of Darwinist/atheist hysteria...who will now perform tremendous acrobatics and dance moves to try to pretend this fits the narrative they have been spewing for about 100 years.

If Darwinism is correct...GROUPS of humans in the same area would have evolved at or near the same time...and GENETIC SCIENTISTS JUST DEBUnKED THAT, USING DNA form over 5,000,000 humans..WORLDWIDE.



Turns out all of humanity is related to a single couple


It really is all relative.

A new study revealed that all humans are descendants of the same man and woman who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Our communal mom and dad got together after a “catastrophic event” almost wiped out the human race, the Daily Mail reported of the study.
The researchers studied the DNA of five million animals, including humans, to come to their conclusions. .

.






https://nypost.com/2018/11/24/turns-out-all-of-humanity-is-related-to-a-single-couple/

That doesn't quite say what you think it does.

 

[Deuce]

Errrmmm...the OPINIONS of the researchers DO NOT ALTER THE FACTS...facts they were desperate, by their own admission, to NOT FIND, and/or DISPROVE...nut facts are tricky things. The researchers ADMOT THEIR OWN BIAS AGAINST THESE FACTS:



'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'


ALL HUMANS FROM A SINGLE COUPLE...OBLITERATES DARWINIST HUMANIST EVOLUTION....regardless of one's explanation for it.

It doesn't obliterate evolutionary theory, though. That's your opinion and it's based on a wildly incomplete understanding of the research behind this. "Youngest common ancestor" is a pretty basic concept in evolution. It's necessary to have such an ancestor.

And you're declaring that this disproves evolution.

 

[Sweden]

Hmm....where have I read that before.... :mrgreen:


Getting popcorn for impending deluge of Darwinist/atheist hysteria...who will now perform tremendous acrobatics and dance moves to try to pretend this fits the narrative they have been spewing for about 100 years.

If Darwinism is correct...GROUPS of humans in the same area would have evolved at or near the same time...and GENETIC SCIENTISTS JUST DEBUnKED THAT, USING DNA form over 5,000,000 humans..WORLDWIDE.



Turns out all of humanity is related to a single couple


It really is all relative.

A new study revealed that all humans are descendants of the same man and woman who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Our communal mom and dad got together after a “catastrophic event” almost wiped out the human race, the Daily Mail reported of the study.
The researchers studied the DNA of five million animals, including humans, to come to their conclusions. .

.






https://nypost.com/2018/11/24/turns-out-all-of-humanity-is-related-to-a-single-couple/

I'm an atheist and I've been saying over and over again on DP that we homo sapiens are all closely related - and especially that the whole 'race' thing is a misconception. This study has no bearing on evolution. HS had already evolved a couple of million years before the period covered in this report.

 

[DarkWizard12]

All he said was that story about the garden of Eden is fiction. What archaeologists disagree with that?

That's not all he said. By relegating it to merely fiction, he ignored the historical contexts of the text. I think your average archeaologist would have much more appreciation than what he showed...at least, the archeaologists i know from the Qumran exhibits. Did you know that the characters in the story, adam and eve, follow the same psychological patterns found in individuals? It's as if they are real people, and yet, the entire story teaches us lessons about the nature of the self.

As for the rest of the bible, of course there is some truth in it. There is also lots of truth in a Spiderman comic. Cars exist, skyscrapers exist, police exist, but that does not mean Spiderman exists. There is no evidence other than testimony that any of the supernatural events claimed in the bible happened, and there are plenty of people alive today who can provide testimony about the time they were abducted by aliens, including anal probing.

Spiderman, we can prove doesn't exist. Simply ask stan lee(before he died) if he was a real character. Adam and eve however...that's before anyone's time. Maybe they did exist, but then people took creative licenses? hmmm....

 

[DarkWizard12]

Hope you enjoyed that.

Personally I don't really care about Adam and Eve.

That the OP wants this bit of new science to say that there was such a couple and we are all decended just from them is the subject of this thread. But whatever, we are on page nine so feel free to go direct to insults over nothing.

Isn't it scientists, not the OP, who talk about the primordial adam and eve? Neither you, nor the OP, know who adam and eve were, so whos' to say that this isn't, in fact, Adam and eve? Congratulations, Science has found Adam and Eve!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Isn't it scientists, not the OP, who talk about the primordial adam and eve? Neither you, nor the OP, know who adam and eve were, so whos' to say that this isn't, in fact, Adam and eve? Congratulations, Science has found Adam and Eve!

We are not decended just from this couple.

There were others who have not managed to spread so well.

 

[Grokmaster]

It doesn't obliterate evolutionary theory, though. That's your opinion and it's based on a wildly incomplete understanding of the research behind this. "Youngest common ancestor" is a pretty basic concept in evolution. It's necessary to have such an ancestor.

And you're declaring that this disproves evolution.

Evolutionary theory REQUIRES a GROUP of INDIVIDUALS, in the SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, to DEVELOP ("evolve") the SAME TRAITS.

If you do not see this new GENETICALLY VERIFIED DATA as DAMAGING to that narrative, then you are failing to grasp its relevance.

 

[Grokmaster]

We are not decended just from this couple.

There were others who have not managed to spread so well.

Oh YES WE ARE. Our DNA originates with THESE TWO, so says the GENTICALLY VERIFIED RESEARCH, from people desperately trying to NOT FIND THAT TRUE.


Hilairous. Now , dance some more !!!

 

[JustHanging]

That's not all he said. By relegating it to merely fiction, he ignored the historical contexts of the text. I think your average archeaologist would have much more appreciation than what he showed...at least, the archeaologists i know from the Qumran exhibits.

It's pure fiction. A talking snake? And then a psycho god punishes them for doing something wrong, when they have no concept of right and wrong? It's insanity.

Did you know that the characters in the story, adam and eve, follow the same psychological patterns found in individuals? It's as if they are real people, and yet, the entire story teaches us lessons about the nature of the self.

I would argue that Spiderman comics teach us more about the nature of self than the adam and eve story.

Spiderman, we can prove doesn't exist.

No you can't.

Simply ask stan lee(before he died) if he was a real character.

So Spiderman can only be real if Stan Lee believes in him? Was Stan Lee the arbiter of all that was real? That makes no sense.

Adam and eve however...that's before anyone's time. Maybe they did exist, but then people took creative licenses? hmmm....

Who recorded this information?

 

[Grokmaster]

It's pure fiction. A talking snake? And then a psycho god punishes them for doing something wrong, when they have no concept of right and wrong? It's insanity.



I would argue that Spiderman comics teach us more about the nature of self than the adam and eve story.




No you can't.



So Spiderman can only be real if Stan Lee believes in him? That makes no sense.



Who recorded this information?

And everything just suddenly "created itself" out of nothing.

Which view requires MORE FAITH to BELIEVE?

 

[JustHanging]

And everything just suddenly "created itself" out of nothing.

So it's possible for an all powerful being to suddenly "create itself" out of nothing, or to have always existed, but it's not possible for matter to have done this?

You are obviously making a ridiculous claim.

Which view requires MORE FAITH to BELIEVE?

Obviously yours. You're positing a magical invisible all powerful being into existence. Christ, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.



EDIT: You are essentially asking: Which is more likely, a rock, or Santa Claus? Grok, most six year olds know the answer to that, but apparently you don't. Think about that.