DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

  • funkyderek
    Even the supposed evolutionary date of 200,000 years ago for Mitochondrial Eve forces her to be a homo-sapian (human). Homo hablis was supposedly much, much, older.

    No problem with that. My point was that at some time in the distant past, that would not have been the case.

    Mitochondrial and other studies do seem to indicate that all of us decended from one woman and one man. (Forcing evolutionists to speculate that there were others who hypothetically existed but who left no living decendants.)

    No, no, no! Have you read any of this thread or any of the posted links? Please read this very carefully:

    Mitochondrial Eve was most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent.

    She was not our first common ancestor. She was not the only woman alive at the time, and she was not the only woman to leave descendants or even the most recent woman to be an ancestor of everyone alive today. She was exactly what is printed above in bold, no more, no less.

    The same applies to "Y-chromosome Adam" with the genders reversed.

    That those people existed is a certainty. That is not what the studies discovered. When and where they existed is what is of interest. Please read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html until you understand it.

    There are no direct studies which can positively take us back to ape-like creatures, let alone rodents. This must be extrapolated based on evolutionary theory.

    Correct, the same way as history must be extrapolated from eyewitness accounts and archeological artifacts.

    Why shouldn't a creator use very similar DNA for creatures with very similar morphologies? It worked didn't it ..I mean Cindy Crawford seemed to come-out just fine !

    It seems reasonable but then why so much waste? Why keep the vestigial DNA which can occasionally be switched on by a small mutation causing horrific birth defects? And why create and destroy again and again and again? And why in some cases use completely different genes for the same effect? Why use modified land mammal genes in dolphins and whales when fish genes would be much more useful?

    If there was a creator, he was either a very shoddy worker, or a practical joker.

    or one could juat as easily say:

    "DNA evidence has simply confirmed beyond all shadow of a doubt what has been known for a century and a half, that all life on earth is related and that humans and apes were created by a common designer."

    One could, but one would be wrong.
  • Abaddon

    funky; there's easier ways of getting the same affect as an arguement with hoob than actually bothering to have an arguement with hoob. Try head-butting a brick wall, with a ten-yard run-up... except head-butting a brick wall is probably a little more fun.

    If someone makes a point based on fact a, and fact a is shown not to actually prove the point, a failure to respond makes it pointless even trying to enage in debate with someone. If someone advances theory a, and the validity of theory a is called into question by citing evidences x, y and z, and the person advancing the theory fails to respond to this, it makes it pointless even trying to enage in debate with that person.

    Unless it's fun...


    There are no studies which can positively prove the existence of the Ark/Eden/Jesus, let alone studies that prove the Flood/Creation/God. They must be extrapolated based on Biblical theory.

  • hooberus

    Abaddon, the title of this thread is "Re: DNA and Man's origin"

    Posting Guidelines
    To ensure all users feel safe and keen to participate, please avoid:

    1. Insulting, threatening or provoking language
    2. Inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality or other personal characteristic.
    3. Swearing, using hate-speech or making obscene or vulgar comments.
    4. Breaking the law
      This includes libel, condoning illegal activity and contempt of court (comments which might affect the outcome of an approaching court case). You may post a small amount of third party material, but please help us to avoid breaching copyright by naming its author and publication. We are unable to investigate all third party material, so where possible, please provide a link instead.
    5. Spamming
      Please don't add the same comment to more than one forum.
    6. Advertising
      You can mention relevant, non-commercial websites as long as they support your comment.
    7. Impersonating or falsely claiming to represent a person or organisation.
      Please don't mislead other users by abusing our registration procedure.
    8. Posting in a language other than English.
    9. Invading people's privacy
      Please don't post private addresses or phone numbers, including your own. You may post email addresses so long as you make it clear who they belong to.
    10. Posting an off-topic comment.

    Forums may be moderated to make sure they stay friendly and welcoming, legal and relevant. We reserve the right to edit or delete posts at own discretion and without notice, which we consider to be unacceptable. If you repeatedly break these rules, you may be prevented from posting.

  • hooberus

    funkyderek I have read some of the talk-origins arcticle you linked. I'll try to read more of it in depth when I get the time. Here is a portion of it.

    talkorigins arcticle: The term Mitochondrial Eve itself is a title given retroactively to a woman. Often (and as is certainly the case with the ME that we are discussing) the conferring of the title occurs many hundreds of thousands of years after the death of the woman in question.

    when I said this earlier:

    Mitochondrial and other studies do seem to indicate that all of us decended from one woman and one man. (Forcing evolutionists to speculate that there were others who hypothetically existed but who left no living decendants.)

    I was simply stating the fact that all of us (living humans) decended from one woman. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "living humans" in my statement.

    I know that evolutionists theorize that that there were other women living at the same time as this woman, as well as that there were other women who lived before her, whom we also decended from. This things are discussed in the arcticle that you linked.

    However, theories are theories, and facts are facts, and the fact is that all of us living humans seem (based on mitochondrial DNA evidence) to have decended recently from a single female.

  • funkyderek

    Abaddon, it seems you're absolutely right. I thought maybe that time I'd got it. (Was I not clear enough?)


    Derek of the "going off to head-butt a brick wall" class

  • hooberus

    derek, I feel that my responses on this thread have been intelligent, and to the point. Thus your last comment was unwarranted.

  • funkyderek
    derek, I feel that my responses on this thread have been intelligent, and to the point. Thus your last comment was unwarranted.

    You may feel that way. However, I think you're wrong. You seem unwilling or unable to grasp the concept of Mitochondrial Eve. I - and others -explained it several times, and provided a link to an excellent easy to understand article which addressed the common misconceptions about Mitochondrial Eve incuding the ones you seem to be stubbornly adhering to. If you don't get it, OK, that's not your fault. Some people just don't have the head for such ideas. But it is utterly futile to have a debate on human origins with someone who can't grasp such an essential and fundamental concept.

    I recommend reading River Out Of Eden by Richard Dawkins, which contains an excellent treatment of the subject, and is a very good introduction to evolutionary biology. Maybe that will make it clearer than we've been able to.

  • crinklestein

    What I find kind of funny about how some people refer to the "Days" that it took to create the universe and how they think those days are literal is this: Days are relative depending on what planet you are on. A day on Pluto is a completely different ammount of time that it is on earth. But it IS a day if you were from Pluto. Our days last 24 hours. A day is just the amount of time it takes for your planet to complete one full rotation. And every planet spins at a different speed. If one planet take 10 of our years for it to complete one revolution, that's still ONE DAY, TO THEM. So it's relative.

    Not only that, but a few of those first "Days" were actually before there were any planets created! So the universal concept of a day didn't even exist at that point. Without any planets spinning you are without a basis for reference to be able to calculate an actual day. So these days of creation must be figurative. Either that or it's a day according to the timeline of Heaven. The dimension that Heaven is located in may have their own days and they may be of a different length of time than our days. But, as I said, it's relative. And it really doesn't matter anyway. Why is there so much arguement over it anyway? It's insignificant and has nothing to do with anything regarding faith.

  • crinklestein

    Not to mention the fact that a day can be of different lengths depending on where you are on the Earth! A day can last months in Antarctica while it can last a few hours in the North Pole.

  • Satanus


    Isn't it always daytime in heaven? I mean, there is no nighttime, right? Is there any change in heaven, like growing, living dying, getting tired, getting sick, or sleeping? If not, then time is not really needed there, and a useless concept to be applied to that dimension.


Share this