Wikipedia article Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup has a world map of distribution of human mtDNA. The arrows and chart are designed to support "out-of-Africa", but it is quite consistent with the fact that every human has mtDNA that can be traced back to one of three women whose haplogroups were L,M,N. Their mtDNA was distributed out of Mesopotamia. They were the three daughters-in-law of Noah.
@BereanBeacon1 I demand you throw out your cell phone, P.C., and stop going to your doctor when your sick because all of them were developed by the same scientific method that genetics and evolutionary theory were.
Go live in a cave and gather your food you jack ass. P.S. Get a real science education.
Your conveniently forgetting the "Y" chromosome source of males about 70,000 years ago. So Eve lived 150,000 years ago and Adam (y- chromosome) lived 70,000. One answer to that- D'OH!!!!!
Let us find Mitochondrial Eve (I'll call her mEve). Taking your family, they all have a common female ancester - your mother. If you include your cousins, then it is your grandmother. If you include in a group a 3rd or 4th cousin, you can still define a CFA, perhaps your great-great-grandmother. Indeed, any given group of humans can trace back up the tree and find a CFA. It is not different if the group is everyone alive today - that CFA is called mEve.
Some things about mEve. Is she your only ancester? No, she is just one of them, but she is unique because she is in a common female line. She is not even your only female ancestor; only the one through the female line all the way down. Her mother is also a CFA, but she is the latest, so she wears the crown, such as it is. It must be that she had at least two female children that lived to bear children.
If all the descendents (thru the female line) of one of those two live on an island, and it is wiped out by a tsunami, then the title of mEve moves down to the female descendant who still has living descendants. So the title is dependent on the group chosen. What is the significance of mEve?
She is significant because mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is only passed down from a mother to all her offspring. The mtDNA of the father (or anyone who has no children) stops with him.
So, our mtDNA - all of our mtDNA - is identical to that of mEve, except for the fact that mtDNA, like out cellular DNA, mutates over time. If a mutation happens in a female's egg cell, and then that egg cell becomes a person, then that mutation becomes permanent in that woman's descendent line. Such mutations are rare, but they tend to happen often enough that we can use the collection of mutations in anyone's mtDNA to tell where their maternal ancestors came from.
You can view a proposed map of some of the known mutations of mtDNA at bradshawfoundation(.)com/journey/ There is an equivalent way to track one's male ancestral line, through the Y chromosome back to a yAdam. Note that there is no necessary connection between mEve and YAdam; they may have lived 1000s of years apart in different places; he is not anyone's only male ancestor, just the one everyone has through their male only line.
Biochemist degrees require no math (excepting statistics) nor physics, where thermodynamics might be discussed. So, the answer is he might be reliable, but with no greater probability than any fairly educated man might be. His degree doesn't inform the area of discussion.
Ah, the 60s, just a mere 50 yrs ago, before the genetic code or genomics, evo devo or sociobiology were fields. But find me a citation where I can read what he really said, not what you think he may have said, then we'll see.
@puncheex really??? so let me guess this straight. a respected professor with a Ph.D in biochemistry is not as reliable? you know, if he was a professor of german or theater, i would be cautious. But, to be a professor with a biochemistry degree means that he is pretty knowledgeabled in genetics and biology itself. He helps develop drugs and stuff. btw, this thing happened in the 60's and has never been debunked. like mike said, you are indeed very funny.
really??? so let me guess this straight. a respected professor with a Ph.D in biochemistry is not as reliable? you know, if he was a professor of german or theater, i would be cautious. But, to be a professor with a biochemistry degree means that he is pretty knowledgeabled in genetics and biology itself. He helps develop drugs and stuff. btw, this thing happened in the 60's and has never been debunked. like mike said, you are indeed very funny. you think that you are smarter than a professor.
@xcode394 Once again the difference between evolution (science fiction) and real science must be pointed out. We are very interested in real science, but when evolutionists do present real science, they use the bait and switch technique as a sleazy salesmen, to slip in science fiction.
@BereanBeacon1 my comment was directed towards puncheex. i mightve accidentally missed the reply button. but it seems like you are against evolution. well so am i. i talked to that professor about evolution and natural selection and he said that its fake too or at least nothing like how evolutionists say it is.
@xcode394: 1. Who is this prof? 2. Is he indeed respected? Dunno, don't know to whom you refer. 3. As reliable as whom? No referent. 4. If he's from the 60s, as you say, then he knew little genetics and no genomics. At all. Certainly not at the time he spoke. 5. Never been debunked, but you can't identify him or the incident. 6. Biochem says very little or nothing about either math or thermodynamics. Sorry, but it doesn't. 7. Do you often repeat yourself this way?
lol you had me going there for a few. creation scientist believe the age is different... belief doesnt exit in actual science. you go where the evidence leads. not i already have absolute knowledge and am only looking for the supporting facts. fuck everything else!
if we came from one woman that's to say that she was created. i was asking for evolutionists that are in the lie, when did humans became a specie and how could be possible all becoming men and women at the same time, having the same dna etc.
@alexrj2: It is patently obvious that not all humans "have the same DNA". If we did we'd all be clones of each other. DNA is not of the essence of speciation; it is the passenger, so to speak. The ancestors of all humans alive today apparently became H. sapiens about 200,000 years ago, give or take 100,000 years. At that point we were no longer commonly interbreeding with any other species, that being the operational definition of a species. It didn't happen at any single point in time.
@puncheex it"s not possible, to create one specie they have to have a common part of the dna.
evolution is not possible mathematically. each specie would have trillions of changes. if you multiply the changes, with the number of species you would have trillions of changes. that's not possible, no time possible. evolution is a lier.
@alexrj2: Sure. Humans are over 99% common in their DNA. There are 3 billion base pairs; 1% leaves some 30 million base pairs to play with. I really believe that you don't know what DNA is or what it has to do with evolution.
@puncheex i know very well. you that don't know how to explain those 3 billions when they were created and the other trillions of changes in billions of specie. of course no time could create that, even trillions years. only God in one same time.
@alexrj2: OK, you got me. I don't know, yet, how those 3 billion base pairs got there originally, but I think we will know, someday soon. But what has that got to do with evolution? There haven't been billions of species. Today there are about 1.8 mil known, and perhaps 10 mil altogether. Over time, perhaps 100 mil. Certainly time could create that; you have no concept of what a billion years represents in terms of evolutionary power. It's things like these that say you don't know biology.
@puncheex yes man, you seem to be intelligent, and intelligent people dont believe in an absurd lie.
not only mathematically it's impossible when you start a think about all changes, all the species, all the changes by species, all the changes by group etc that becomes crazy and you see a very big number,
impossible to be fulfilled... also think about the division between males and females, why females started to reproduce etc. think about very specific qualities in some species etc.
@alexrj2: You haven't yet demonstrated either absurd, or lie. You appear to have this incredulity problem: if I can't keep track of twenty tasks, how can anything do a million of them? For example, humans and chimps separated about 6 mya. In terms of 20 year generations, that's 300,000 generations. One change that happened in that time is that the protruding snout moved back underneath the braincase. That's about three inches, which means it only moved .001" every 300 generations.
... At the same time all the rest of the changes required were happening at the same glacial pace, as seen from our point of view. All evolution proceeded at about that same rate, a little here and a little there. As I said, you have no concept of the time involved, if you think it happened all too fast.
@puncheex actually alexrj2 is right. evolution and natural selection is not mathematically possible. I talked to a professor of human nutritions at my university who has a degree in biochemistry and he told me that in the 60s, a group of evolutionists told a group of top mathematicians to figure out the possibilites of a natural selection and evolution of certain species after a certain amount of time and they all say that it is mathematically impossible.
@xcode394: It's all a lie if you don't have the scientific papers to prove what you are saying. And what you say sounds suspiciously like a rehashed version off Granville Stewart's efforts in proving thermodynamics doesn't work for evolution, which has been debunked by physicists.
Find me a citation, or it's hear-say and it didn't happen.
@puncheex@puncheex Not having "scientific papers" doesn't necessarily mean it's a lie! LOL You're funny... and not logical. Maybe you're funny because you're not logical? Possibly.
@MikeOfKorea: True, but it's much more difficult to lie when a scientific paper is consulted. It's easy to say "a friend of a friend told me", no way to check up on it. It's harder to make the statement above and back it up with real science. "Mathematical impossibility" is a powerful but much-abused phrase. A "group of top mathematicians" is easy to type, but has no meaning. Funny? What does that have to do with a nutritionist holding forth on thermodynamics and math proofs?
@alexrj2 300000 generations. you make me laugh... count how many changes between the two... it's an absurd... not talking about the others absurds... as the huge difference between humans and apes.
why chimps would be changed in man? males chimps becoming men and females chimps becoming women? evolution is a big lie, one of the biggest. a bug absurd!
Stop persecuting scientists who question modern evolutionary beliefs. By silencing certain findings we will never continue to discover. Conventional scientists would not accept the greatest findings of the greatest scientists. Newton, Gallileo, Pascal, Pasteur, Kepler (aka the greats) were all Christians and would all have had their findings quashed if they lived today.
@burnyroy "Newton, Gallileo, Pascal, Pasteur, Kepler (aka the greats) were all Christians and would all have had their findings quashed if they lived today."
Christianity was the one quashing their findings at the time, you dolt! Open a fucking history book.
The question is - is Mitochondrial Eve the biblical Eve, the one who committed that sin? If she is then homo sapiens is going to hell unless we atone for her sin. We know that Mito Eve was around 160,000 years ago and had lots of children you and I are her decedents Adam or y chromosomal male didn't turn up until 50,000 years. No chance of a sin there!. Homo sapiens is not related to the biblical A&E and so we are not guilty. The bible is wrong about this! Why not stop being so silly!
@kellielizabeth1 The Genesis account is a lie. We are not descended from two prototypical ancestors. The science does not support that in the least. In fact, it is physically impossible. Now if you want to believe that a god magically distorted biology, then go right ahead. But otherwise, nature on its own cannot do what is claimed in the Hebrew myth of Genesis.
Well she damn sure isn't very sympathetic. That bitch told me what side of the line to stand on and I'd kick her head off of her shoulders like a football!!!
Many of the scientists at ICR have had peer reviewed papers. But as soon as they are known to be critical of macro-evolution, they are fired or demoted. Isaac Newton; Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, etc. would not be allowed to teach in most Western Universities today. Freedom to share alternative views on the subject of evolution is no longer allowed on most campuses. The Humanists took control years ago just as the Socialists are making a play to control society, as are Bush's Illuminatti pals.
@moabedom I agree with everything you said but don't you think its time to leave Bush behind? Bush IS GONE AND OBAMA IS DOING MORE TO DESTORY FREEDOM THAN BUSH EVER DID.
@thebig1 Don't recall discussing politics. Just probably said they were both non-believers based on what they have said & done. Don't trust either of them.
@thebig1 The agenda has continued uninterupted, but Obama definatly hasn't done more to destroy freedom then bush? I don't know which bush you refer to bush 1....Iran contra (selling crack)...this was to lock people up and limit freedoms. More people were locked up by the bush administrations then all the other presidents combined.
bush 2...Ran Guantanamo and started secret prisons with end rounds the constitution.
Both bush's started unprovoked wars? Is freedom only for Americans?
@CaffeinatedThinking Sure, you know more than John Sanford and many others at the icr site. many who taught biology for years as evolutionists & then saw the lack of evidence for macro-evolution. Am done talking with you. You are obviously not a sincere truth seeker. For those who are : check out the "icr" site and our page.
@CaffeinatedThinking Yes, Have studied biology & opened several biology textbooks. Says PhD in Genetics, John Sanford (inventor of the Gene Gun which is used in nearly all plant clonings & holder of over 25 patents & founder of 2 successful biotech businesses), "...he (Bergman 2004) found 453,372 "mutation" hits, ..but only 186 mentined the word beneficial...He was unable to find a single example of a mutation which..created new information".
I once believed what I was taught, that an incredibly complex code (or language) like I DNA could arise randomly by chance. I now think that's a miracle beyond belief. Every code we know of, just a very simple one, requires intelligence. A code is information. Could "War & peace” arise randomly over time? You have every right to believe that it can arise randomly over time. I now think it's a fairytale. 99.99% of mutations are neutral or deleterious. Mutations never add DNA Information.
What this idiot doesn't tell you is the the "adam" they discovered with DNA from the y chromosome is separated by the mitochondrial eve by thousands of years.
In the past few rears secular evolutionary scientists have given up debating creationist scientists on college campuses because the evolutionists nearly always "lose" in the minds of the students. Many evolutionists are reduced to just calling names; saying "how stupid" Christians are, etc. The evolutionists just won't debate anymore.
@moabedom Scientists have given up debating evolutionists because evolutionists don't have any scientific arguments to put forth, it all comes back to faith in God.
If "evolutionists nearly always "lose" in the minds of the students" (And where did you get that from???) then that would be due to the students already holding supernatural religious beliefs. :shrug: What can you do?
@TheRadicalLiberal There are surveys often taken after the debates. They ask who put "won". Who made the most sense, etc. That's where we get that info. from. Why else would secular scientists stop debating? Interestingly, in most universities today there is an all out attack to destroy student's belief in the Bible being true to all that it discusses, and to destroy students belief in Christ. This is an agenda started in the 1930's - check out "The Humanist Manifesto". See "Expelled" Ben Stein
@moabedom I will if they are trying to get their views taught in science classes or incorporated into the laws of the land. They don't so I am happy to leave them alone. It is only the Christians who feel they have a right to force their beliefs down people's throats.
@TheRadicalLiberal Wrong. Totally the reverse. Most Creationists just want the freedom to point out the inconsistencies & errors in Darwinian belief & favor open discussion with no censorship of ideas. It is the Humanist Manifesto agenda folks who finally gained power, hiring leftist leaning Professors ( Iwas a "leftist" & an agnostic/atheist for many years). Censorship & Tyranny are "in' - Truth is out. see our page "Separation of Church & State ?? film if you are open to Truth.
@moabedom EVery scientific field is open to debate and dissent, that is how it moves forward, that is how it gets closer and closer to the truth. You wouldn't understand that. Creationists are not scientists raising real scientific objections, they are religious fundamentalists trying to re-inforce non-scientific theological FAITH, trying to leave a shred of doubt so that you don't lose even more of the faithful. I am open to the truth, that is why I follow the scientific process.
@TheRadicalLiberal Evolution is demonstrably false on many fronts. 1. Dna is a language, a code. It is information. Codes and languages have only been seen to come from Intelligence. If it has never been seen, and of course can't be replicated in a lab, therefore, it is not science.
2. Darwin's theories of life coming from non-life contradicts a law of science, Pasteur's "law of Biogenesis". 3.Stanley Miller (Urey & M) “All..who study the origin of life find..it is too complex to have evolved
@moabedom Now I know that you don't know what you are talking about. You expect science to be able to do everything right away e.g. make life in the lab, or science must be wrong. You want to have a all the answers at once, never mind we have only had a few years to investigate and if you haven't got all the answers right now to everything from science then science must be wrong.
@TheRadicalLiberal Science is fine. Evolution is just not science. Science demands observation and replication in a lab. Neither have been done for evolution. Creationism is not science either. it just fits the scientific evidence better, unless you are not a truth seeker.
@moabedom actually, evolution has been repeatedly observed, in the lab and in the wild. Evolution is a fact, it happens, the theory of evolution is what tries to explain this phenomenon.
@Strikesnake1994 Actually, no, evolution from one "kind" of creature into another has never been observed, anywhere. Dogs stay dogs & cats stay cats. Selective breeding within a species creating variations within a species was explained by Mendel, prior to Darwin's publication of "Origins..." Evolutionists like to point to that as "evolution". People observed that way before Darwin was born. Tall couples tend to have taller children. Black couples tend to have dark skinned children.
@moabedom If you are interested in the truth read John Sandford's excellent book "Genetic Entropy". John has a PhD in the area of plant genetics and plant breeding. He holds many patents taught for over 25 years at Cornell Univ., and is the inventor of the "Gene Gun" which is used in virtually all plant cloning situations. The concept that man is the product of random mutations and natural selection is most definitely wrong. Mutations will eventually lead to the death of all species.
@moabedom i direct you to many excelent computer simulations, such as stellar alchemy's one, that demonstrate what evolution is. i have heard this genetic deteriation idea before, i must admit i don't know much about it. from my understanding of natural selection, the idea wouldn't work.
btw, plant cloning is actually rather simple, you do it with rooting powder and a cutting.
@Strikesnake1994 Our conversation is over "Strikesnake" . Obviously you are not a sincere truth seeker. Fine. Hopefully you will change someday. Either way you can discuss it with your Creator someday. For anyone interested in scientific Truth, check out the sites for "icr" and "answersingenesis".
@Strikesnake1994 Both sides claim to have debunked the others viewpoints. Sincere truth seekers need to check out the evidence for themselves, as I did when I believed "macro-evolution" and was an agnostic/atheist. Fot he side not spewed out by the bought & paid for mass media, sincere truth seekers should check out the "icr" site and the "answersingenesis" site for scientific evidence. For prophetic evidence check out the site featured on our page - the Truth Seekers Tv program .
@moabedom so, you believe the best places to go for truth are places that were founded with an objective in mind and openly admit that they don't accept evidence that contradicts their pre-determined conclusions. Most people would disagree, and i would be one of them.
@Strikesnake1994 In Evolving: The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution, leading evolutionists Ayala and Valentine ask the question, “What does the future hold?” When I was an evolutionist, I would have expected that chapter to be full of bright prospects: higher IQ’s, greater mathematical and musical genius, faster runners and higher jumpers, the conquest of disease. Instead, Ayala seems despondently concerned with basic survival: how can we save ourselves from mutations?
@moabedom to be honest, it's a pretty rubbish arguement anyway, if it happens to us, it happens to bacteria, so since bacteria reproduce hundreds of times faster then us, the arguement for young earth from genetic decay doesn't work.
@Strikesnake1994 The best answer, I think so far, is that bacteria (b.) have more offspring. This probably is the main ingredient in some bacteria avoiding extinction to this point.
@moabedom erm, not really. bacteria reproduce by various means, but they result in a single parent splitting into two daughter bacteria, sometimes with influence from a second doner parent. so actually, bacteria have two children, and die in the process.
@moabedom changing "kind"(rubbish undefined term) takes many thousands of years, however it is observed in the fossil record. search for whale or horse evolution. And speciation is evolution, and has been repeatedly observed. Evolution happens on scales small and large, small we have seen, large is shown in the fossil record.
if you want a case of human evolution, look at sycle-cell anemia. it's a very interesting condition.
@moabedom Further proof you have no idea what you are talking about - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Darwin never addressed it, it is not part of his theory of natural selection. Pasteur and a lot of other scientists going back to the 1600 were simply saying that life like maggots and fleas didn't come about spontanaously from e.g. rotting meat or sacks of grain. There are many hypothesis of abiogenesis, just look it up on wikipedia. We just aren't there yet.
@TheRadicalLiberal If you don't have an origin for life, you can't have "evolution" following. Ignore the evidence for origin of life at you own peril. You will stand before God someday. Discuss it with Him.
@moabedom nobody understands why particles have matter, or why this matter warps space-time. it's a major part of the LHC. so, nobody knows where gravity comes from or why it works.
does that mean you don't accept the theory of gravity?
hundreds of thousands of people believe that god started life, and then it evolved.
@Strikesnake1994 Sir isaac Newton, who believed that the prophesies proved jesus was the only Messiah, discovered gravity. His genius was recognized even in his day, as way beyond his contemporaries. He was Einsteins favorite scientist. In fact, Einstein listed 2 other scientists behind newton as favorites. Maxwell and Robert Boyle. Both also Christians who also loved to prove & discuss God's existence from prophesy. God created gravity. If you seek truth watch Utube "Priveleged Planet" film.
2. Hippocrates, Pythagorus and Aristotle believed in Zeus, Galen believed in Mars, over the years thousands of brilliant scientists have worshipped thousands of gods, it doesn't make any of them right.
3. the "Privilaged Planet" arguement has been totally debunked, the sheer number of planets means that our planet is remarkably unremarkable.
As i said, abiogenesis is a seperate, but interesting, theory, evolution has nothing to do with it.
@moabedom You are just giving the standard creationist responses that might be good enough for your fellow creationists who don't understand the theory of evolution or even understand what science is. Give it up. Go and peddle your bullshit to someone as ignorant as you are.
@moabedom I'm all in favour of destroying students belief in Christ and all superstitions and religions. If the students think that the creationists won the debate then they just aren't listening or aren't comprehending what they are hearing because there is not a single logical or rational or scientific argument that the creationists have ever made. The US court system understands this when they have to rule on whether or not creationism should be taught - they always rule in the negative.
@TheRadicalLiberal You then favor censorship as students fear to argue back or they'll be given lower grades. The U'S. court system also believed that African Americans were "property" for a while. Starting in 1947, the U.S. Supreme court totally reversed the 87+ Supreme Court precedents stating we are a "CHristian" country. This was the first time a court voted without using prior court precedents. Tyranny by a majority among just 9 Justices ! See our page "Separation Church & State' film.
@moabedom Any truly objective person, who is not afraid of alienating his buddies & who is willing to quit sinning (few there are, unfortunately, that are that way. Even Jesus said so, John 5:44), will see that a DNA coded language could never arise without an Intelligent entity or entities writing the language. Unfortunately, most want to please their friends and also refuse to give up habit patterns that Jesus calls "sin". Sad, since their Creator knows what is best, Satan deception.
@moabedom Evolutionary theory is science. Where it does not have an answer, it says so. Science only ever claims to be the best explanation that fits the available evidence, which in the case of evolution is considerable. All of the objections raised by creationists have been refuted in scientific fashion. Evolution is even accepted as truth by most religions. It is only a small number of fundamentialists who insist the bible is literally true.
@TheRadicalLiberal What you people do is find a little tiny crack and try to drive a wedge into it so that you can say "AH HA! GOTCHA! GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT!" as if that statement isn't a billion times harder to support than the little crack in the science that you think you have found or that is just maybe something that we don't know yet. This is what makes you ridiculous.
What many creationist/christians haven't yet understood is that Adam and Eve could possibly represent, not just one man and woman, but are symbolic of the human race as a whole.
Lets see how far we can twist the scientific facts to fit our bronze age mythology. "Mitochondrial Eve" (an unfortunate moniker) would have lived around 200,000 years ago and lived with many other men and women in her community and had many ancestors before her.
I admit I came on this vidieo for mainly entertainment purposes but the conversaional comments piqued my inteest. It was said that only the egg sex cell cntained mitohondria before fusion. Im not sure but wouldnt the sperm sex cell need even more mitochondria as it excerts much more energy swimming 'upstream' to get to the egg presumibly dodging various antibodies of the female body enountered on the way and hence it should be made mainly of mitochondria as opposed to the drifting egg cell?
Also, one further mistake made in Creationist assumptions is that an ancestral split comes from only one Adam and one Eve of each species. That is NOT true. The DNA in a cell comes from both parents, and every ancestor of those parents. Mitochndria only come from the mother as the egg cell is the only sex cell to still have mitochondria before fusion with the sperm. THAT'S how one woman can be "Mitochondrial Eve". You need at least 500 pairs for good genetic health. 50 for poor. 2? Extinction.
Plus there were times in the past when humans very nearly became extinct... Figures as low as 5,000 individuals have been bandied about...
not too sure about that...just because there is evidence that a DIRECT mtDNA line is present ...that does not nessecitate a low population... just an exceedingly unlucky one for the other members... which is what would happen in the normal course of events anyway..
The 50/500 rule holds true for humans, too. One pair of any species would end in extinction in mammalian lines. 500 humans and you get the great diversity we see today. 150 and you'd have a lot more homegeniety. At 50, we'd be as inbred and unhealthy, genetically, as the Cheetah is. They were bottlenecked to approximately 80 individuals some 20,000 years ago, according to the best genetic drift/clock info available.
A second fact ignored is that not all the DNA the mitochondria need is kept *IN* the mitochondria. Some of that DNA became locked up in the cell nucleus (roughly 60%). This allows for the smaller bit of zDNA in the mitochondria to exist seperately and reduces the lethality of mitochondrial errors. Remember, Mitochondria are the most important symbiotic bactera like organism to make up eukaryotes. So important, some of their DNA was left unassimilated by the nucleus.
Well...seems the cheetah is fucked...another dead end.. didn't know that! An image of two cheetahs on the African plains where one says 'you look like my uncle ted' to which the other replies...'and you look like MY uncle ted too!' sprang into my head there.
mitochondria is a really interesting engine! But whilst we'll both go off and look up mitochondria to entertain ourselves, the average creationist won't they have no interest at all.
Which is why its a 'pastime' of mine to wind them up!
And even if they did go off and look up how a cell actually works...their base education is so low that they can't 'compare' what they are learning to other things they know... so it'd be like climbing a mountain of grease to them!
But they sure are funny people. I used to give people the 'benefit of doubt' in the general intelligence arena but creationists reason really badly!
Its unlikely that they really are stupid y'know.. theres something else at work there?!?!
Mitochondrial DNA measures GENERATIONS, the amount of PEOPLE who came before the sample taken. It does not measure TIME... just generations.
This quantity of generations to mitochondrial eve is at the very least. 4,000.
To allow mitochondrial eve to have existed 6,000 years ago... or even 20k years ago... every human on the planet would have a lifespan of just 5 years!
Since we all know this is not true, this video is bearing false witness.... and we all know what the punishment for that is!
Bravo! An embarrassing new monument to religious ignorance, dishonesty and stone age thinking... why not share the thoughts of the scientists who carried out the science and hear their explanations instead of vomiting mis-representation and lies all over this beautiful, human, scientific discovery. You represent hell for humanity, you'd have us ignorant, conditioned and easily-controlled. Free your minds! It's 2009 - there is NO excuse. Wake Up ! Educate yourself!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
NO! This is obvious and I really dont understand why they just dont come out and say it. It all dates back to one woman because one woman was chosen for conception by aliens from another planet. In fact, there were about 4 or 5 eves. 1 eve for every race group on this planet. We are not one race, we are several from black, asian, caucasions etc. Evolution is not that fast in order for us to divide so drastically. Scientists already know the answers. We've been kept in the dark about the truth.
Ok so let's say perhaps there were many women at the time that certain woman existed from who we obtained our mitochondria from, how come we only received our mitochondria from one woman and not the others? How come everyone's ancestry all dates back to just one woman yet if there were many why don't we date back to them? Did all the other women live a life of celibacy and one woman was a pure slut? Obviously it proves the Bible, there's no way evolutionist can get around this one.
"how come we only received our mitochondria from one woman and not the others?"
Because nobody has more than one biological mother.
The descendants of that one female, and their descendants, etc. eventually dominate the population. Realize we are talking thousands or tens of thousands of generations.
Of course, if you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, this video is inconsistent: "Mitochondrial Eve" would necessarily be one of one of the four women on the Ark, not Adam's Eve.
That isn't what I was implying. When I said how come we all receive our mitochondria from one woman I was referring to that one specific woman from who our mitochondrial dna traces all the way back to and according to the reasearch we are all related to this same woman. Now if there were indeed other women who lived on the land in the same time how come there aren't people who's Mitochondria traces all the way back to someone else? How is everyone, asians, blacks, whites are all related-
and descendant of just this one woman when scientist suggest there were many women at the time this person existed? Why is it we're all related to just her and none of the other women? That's where I think many scientist stumble, they just added that part in to back themselves up.
YouTube is eating my replies. Apologies if they show up and I repeat myself.
"Why is it we're all related to just her and none? of the other women?"
I explained this; for the same reason that you, your parents, siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins all share a common ancestor. Each family tree has a root which itself is just a branch of a much larger tree.
For all humans, evidence suggests the tree's root stops at Mitochondrial Eve, but that itself just a branch for the tree of ALL apes.
Many Women were here that came from one woman and they underwent a process of alchemy to create the male species. The mitochondrial DNA predates the "Y" chromosome by 70,000 years and it is my theory that this is the reason there are more women than men.
Mitochondrial DNA does NOT predate the Y chromosome... it only predates the particular encoding in the Y chromosome being sought in Mtdna... that a little like saying before there were Red buses...there were NO buses....
Your hypothesis is to be fair total bollox... and there aren't really that many more women than men...they just live about 3.5 years longer... thus there are more snce men die on average 3.5 years before!
Mitochondrial Eve might have only had a single child...or two... all other women in this particular line had their lineage go extinct... that might have been 1,000 years ago... it might have been 100,000 years ago... since we aren't looking at them we'll never know!
You are willfully fucking ignorant. look up mitochondrial DNA before making a total fucking idiot of yourself!
What fucking school did you total morons go to? Its like talking to a bunch of turtles!
The discussion certainly is... since mitochondrial eve is a scientific study.... and what you know of 'real' science I could write on the tip of my cock with a large red marker and still have room for a full stop!
All humans descended from mtEve All males descended from Y-Adam, but mtEve lived long before Y-Adam. How does that square with Genesis?
Y-Adam is Noah. Remember, only Noah and his three sons survived the Flood.
Also, the dates weren't derived from empirical study of observed human mutation rates but were conjectured using rates necessary to support the assumption of the supposed descent from the common ape ancestor 6my ago.
Much earlier dates were found when they used actual mutation rates.
Shut the fuck up fag, you're standing from a creationist standpoint gtfo. If we're EVE was created from ADAM's RIB we should all have the same EXACT dna sequence. so stfu.
The generations certainly were not... 4,000 generations have passed since Mitochondrial Eve... 4,000 generations... not 4,000 years! So unless you bible...and your observations tell you humans live only 5 years... your bible ideas are fucked up!
4,000 generations is the base minimum... originally they thought it might have been as high as 5,000! so the difference is somewhere between 200k to 180k years ago...
The real laugh about this is that even the secular sceintist aren't good enough to convince these evolutionists or the error of their ways. Now that is what I call dogma.
I am not sure, but i was under the impression that there were many women,whose progeny did not survive, on earth at the time of "mitochondrial eves" existence. If this is true, the life and procreation of "mitochondrial eve" supports the theory of natural selection.
but that is what i have been taught; it is not likely we can be certain who is right, but both sides should be represented :)
Wow, there were so many if's in there it almost sounded like a book by Charles Darwin. So, I would think with all the if's it would make this much more palatable to the average evolution-believer.
Also, to the guy talking about "150,000 yrs from now" At that point they won't be able to read our writings and they will say the same thing as you're saying now. I mean we cant even read LinearA and that was spoken in Crete only 3000 yrs ago.
There were no printed books, data storage devices, multimedia or other methods of storing information 3,000 years ago...
BTW mitochondrial Eve lived 4,000 generations ago... if the world is less than 10,000 years then every human in the world lived and lives only 5 years! do you really believe humans live only 5 years...
4,000 generations is a LONG time... longer than 10k years... humans do not breed at the age of 2!
@MumblingMickey: At generations being 18 to 20 Years, even when lifespans of 35 were common, still puts "Mitochondrial Eve" some 80,000 years in the past. Not hard to imagine when the most distant branch on the Human tree alive today settled Australia 40,000 years ago. That crude estimate is close as other sources will put our emergence at 180,000 to 200,000 years in the past . The video takes this info and either lies outright, or "mis-hears" things deliberately.
I agree... I think I was pointing out that given the 'quantity' of generations... which is known... that humans would need to have a VERY short lifespan for creationist bollox to hold water...
I'm not sure about the 'as high as 200k' model... people died in the past quite young... and reproduction ages were lower than today... I'd veer towards the down side of the 160k myself for mitochondrial eve! having said that I'm only going on what I consider to be conservative.
It is so funny listening to creationists being forced to admit the truth of how evolution works and desperately trying to twist it so that they don't look like the complete idiots that they are.
An accurate interpretation of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y chromosome Adam" absolutely disproves the Biblical story and adds more evidence to the overwhelming trashing of creationist nonsense.
Watch out creationists! Your God is listening and he doesn't like liars.
Wahey 3gdosrsfs! Great to hear from you again. I thought you'd disappeared, but obviously you're still out there.
Tell you what, you sum up the entirety of Christian doctrine, complete with all subtleties & nuances & its relations to other religions, in 500 characters & I'll do the same for the whole of science in return.
Or you could make some effort & do some reading. Start with Steve Jones' book "Y" all about the Y chromosome.
Proof against it? Mitochondrial Eve lived 4,000 generations ago. They didn't mention that mitochondrial DNA is measured in GENERATIONS in the vid did they?
You can work out 4,000 generations yourself... or Google 'Mitochondrial Eve'... Go on... research it... open your eyes... or die in blissful ignorance.
Would their diagnostics be able to see that distinction, though? Hmmmm... then again, going with the idea from the Bible, Noah's sons should each have wives of their own, which would (just go with me on this one) give FOUR women related to her at a kind of "bottleneck event" (i.e., the flood). How would we expect such data to manifest?
I wish real scientists would stop using the names of fictional characters like 'Eve' to describe their findings - it just seems to give ammo to this kind of silliness.
'Credit' for the term's coinage is attributed to Rebecca Cann (co-authors on the paper were Berkeley's Allan Wilson and Mark Stoneking) in the journal Nature paper "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution".
i think you misunderstand. creationists love true observable science. but the problem is that creationism is like evolution in the fact that they are both historical sciences, meaning, neither can be tested (in the macro), repeated or observed. thats where conjecture and assumptions come in because like part of the definition of theory says it takes guesswork and hypothesis.
natural science doesnt prove or disprove creationism or evolution. its a personal preference thing.
actually evolution can be proven, just not in our time, as long as we keep records of our growth and how we change, 150,000 years from now when people are different from us, they will have all the evidence they will need.
but you see, saying that wont prove evolution and make it fact. there isnt any proof from the past - lack of fossil data and just no observation of a common ancestor. it sounds good on the outside that you said "150,000 years from now" but what matters is now not then.
yeah anything is possible given time.. creationism can be proven if we wait long enough for christ to return. so possibles, ifs and time are no object in the study of science.
we did not all come from one women. mtDNA is only inherited maternally, that is, only the mother passes her mtDNA to all her offspring, the fathers mitochondria "have no say". This doesnt meanthat we all came from her. liklihood is that a bottleneck event, where many humans in africa (where we all originated from) died due to drought or somilar, and only eve and her progeny were left alive. or simply eve's mtDNA gave her and her offspring a decisive evolutionary advantage.
Well then, if Eve and her progeny were the only ones to survive the bottleneck event, then we did in fact all come from one woman, because noone alive today came from any else.
It's a theorized extinction event that took place around 50,000 years ago which explains why all our genetic codes can be traced back to one lineage line. Could have been disease, famine, the Toga catastrophe, or any number of things. Basically the entire Earths population dwindle to about 500.
----- Another religous cop-out ---- The scientific community, above any other subgroup of the population, has become overwhelmingly atheistic . The biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God .
I think people in this society really have issues with WO-Man being the Creator of ALL. They still want to think Adam was MAN and first and eve was cloned from a rib.
Thanks for the reply! Can you tell me the books if you remember? I would LOVEEEEE to read them! You can email me the names if they are to much to type. THANKS!!
It says the same thing in the movie Japanesse movie "Parasite eve" and the video game that we all have the same mitochondria from Eve.lol I think thats neat!
That quote from Scientific American is a "quote mine", i.e. a quote that is taken out of context to make you belief they are anti-evolution, when they are not. This is intellectually dishonest.
good work here
clairebehun 2 days ago
Very enjoyable thank you
MrBrucebracey 4 days ago
really informative and interesting
jayejayeee 1 week ago
Wikipedia article Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup has a world map of distribution of human mtDNA. The arrows and chart are designed to support "out-of-Africa", but it is quite consistent with the fact that every human has mtDNA that can be traced back to one of three women whose haplogroups were L,M,N. Their mtDNA was distributed out of Mesopotamia. They were the three daughters-in-law of Noah.
Mdebacle 2 months ago
I am always amazed at the length of b.s. creationists will go to maintain their fairy tales. Professional fact deniers can weight in..........now.
metalsusa1 4 months ago
@metalsusa1 Well, your science fiction has produced nothing. Stay with REAL science and all is well.
BereanBeacon1 4 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 I demand you throw out your cell phone, P.C., and stop going to your doctor when your sick because all of them were developed by the same scientific method that genetics and evolutionary theory were.
Go live in a cave and gather your food you jack ass. P.S. Get a real science education.
metalsusa1 4 months ago
Your conveniently forgetting the "Y" chromosome source of males about 70,000 years ago. So Eve lived 150,000 years ago and Adam (y- chromosome) lived 70,000. One answer to that- D'OH!!!!!
metalsusa1 4 months ago
YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!
Have you learned anything about the genetic evidence. What ever gets you through the day I guess.
metalsusa1 4 months ago
Why is the announcer referring to the bible as a source, is it sarcasm? :-/
theclewis 4 months ago
Let us find Mitochondrial Eve (I'll call her mEve). Taking your family, they all have a common female ancester - your mother. If you include your cousins, then it is your grandmother. If you include in a group a 3rd or 4th cousin, you can still define a CFA, perhaps your great-great-grandmother. Indeed, any given group of humans can trace back up the tree and find a CFA. It is not different if the group is everyone alive today - that CFA is called mEve.
puncheex 7 months ago
Some things about mEve. Is she your only ancester? No, she is just one of them, but she is unique because she is in a common female line. She is not even your only female ancestor; only the one through the female line all the way down. Her mother is also a CFA, but she is the latest, so she wears the crown, such as it is. It must be that she had at least two female children that lived to bear children.
puncheex 7 months ago
If all the descendents (thru the female line) of one of those two live on an island, and it is wiped out by a tsunami, then the title of mEve moves down to the female descendant who still has living descendants. So the title is dependent on the group chosen. What is the significance of mEve?
She is significant because mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is only passed down from a mother to all her offspring. The mtDNA of the father (or anyone who has no children) stops with him.
puncheex 7 months ago
So, our mtDNA - all of our mtDNA - is identical to that of mEve, except for the fact that mtDNA, like out cellular DNA, mutates over time. If a mutation happens in a female's egg cell, and then that egg cell becomes a person, then that mutation becomes permanent in that woman's descendent line. Such mutations are rare, but they tend to happen often enough that we can use the collection of mutations in anyone's mtDNA to tell where their maternal ancestors came from.
puncheex 7 months ago
You can view a proposed map of some of the known mutations of mtDNA at bradshawfoundation(.)com/journey/ There is an equivalent way to track one's male ancestral line, through the Y chromosome back to a yAdam. Note that there is no necessary connection between mEve and YAdam; they may have lived 1000s of years apart in different places; he is not anyone's only male ancestor, just the one everyone has through their male only line.
puncheex 7 months ago
Biochemist degrees require no math (excepting statistics) nor physics, where thermodynamics might be discussed. So, the answer is he might be reliable, but with no greater probability than any fairly educated man might be. His degree doesn't inform the area of discussion.
Ah, the 60s, just a mere 50 yrs ago, before the genetic code or genomics, evo devo or sociobiology were fields. But find me a citation where I can read what he really said, not what you think he may have said, then we'll see.
puncheex 7 months ago
@puncheex really??? so let me guess this straight. a respected professor with a Ph.D in biochemistry is not as reliable? you know, if he was a professor of german or theater, i would be cautious. But, to be a professor with a biochemistry degree means that he is pretty knowledgeabled in genetics and biology itself. He helps develop drugs and stuff. btw, this thing happened in the 60's and has never been debunked. like mike said, you are indeed very funny.
xcode394 7 months ago
really??? so let me guess this straight. a respected professor with a Ph.D in biochemistry is not as reliable? you know, if he was a professor of german or theater, i would be cautious. But, to be a professor with a biochemistry degree means that he is pretty knowledgeabled in genetics and biology itself. He helps develop drugs and stuff. btw, this thing happened in the 60's and has never been debunked. like mike said, you are indeed very funny. you think that you are smarter than a professor.
xcode394 7 months ago
@xcode394 Once again the difference between evolution (science fiction) and real science must be pointed out. We are very interested in real science, but when evolutionists do present real science, they use the bait and switch technique as a sleazy salesmen, to slip in science fiction.
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 my comment was directed towards puncheex. i mightve accidentally missed the reply button. but it seems like you are against evolution. well so am i. i talked to that professor about evolution and natural selection and he said that its fake too or at least nothing like how evolutionists say it is.
xcode394 7 months ago
@xcode394 Sorry, I should not have stuck my noise in.
Stay in the fight.
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@xcode394: 1. Who is this prof? 2. Is he indeed respected? Dunno, don't know to whom you refer. 3. As reliable as whom? No referent. 4. If he's from the 60s, as you say, then he knew little genetics and no genomics. At all. Certainly not at the time he spoke. 5. Never been debunked, but you can't identify him or the incident. 6. Biochem says very little or nothing about either math or thermodynamics. Sorry, but it doesn't. 7. Do you often repeat yourself this way?
puncheex 7 months ago
lol you had me going there for a few. creation scientist believe the age is different... belief doesnt exit in actual science. you go where the evidence leads. not i already have absolute knowledge and am only looking for the supporting facts. fuck everything else!
arkmade 9 months ago
if we came from one woman that's to say that she was created. i was asking for evolutionists that are in the lie, when did humans became a specie and how could be possible all becoming men and women at the same time, having the same dna etc.
alexrj2 11 months ago
@alexrj2: It is patently obvious that not all humans "have the same DNA". If we did we'd all be clones of each other. DNA is not of the essence of speciation; it is the passenger, so to speak. The ancestors of all humans alive today apparently became H. sapiens about 200,000 years ago, give or take 100,000 years. At that point we were no longer commonly interbreeding with any other species, that being the operational definition of a species. It didn't happen at any single point in time.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex it"s not possible, to create one specie they have to have a common part of the dna.
evolution is not possible mathematically. each specie would have trillions of changes. if you multiply the changes, with the number of species you would have trillions of changes. that's not possible, no time possible. evolution is a lier.
alexrj2 8 months ago
@alexrj2: Sure. Humans are over 99% common in their DNA. There are 3 billion base pairs; 1% leaves some 30 million base pairs to play with. I really believe that you don't know what DNA is or what it has to do with evolution.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex i know very well. you that don't know how to explain those 3 billions when they were created and the other trillions of changes in billions of specie. of course no time could create that, even trillions years. only God in one same time.
alexrj2 8 months ago
@alexrj2: OK, you got me. I don't know, yet, how those 3 billion base pairs got there originally, but I think we will know, someday soon. But what has that got to do with evolution? There haven't been billions of species. Today there are about 1.8 mil known, and perhaps 10 mil altogether. Over time, perhaps 100 mil. Certainly time could create that; you have no concept of what a billion years represents in terms of evolutionary power. It's things like these that say you don't know biology.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex yes man, you seem to be intelligent, and intelligent people dont believe in an absurd lie.
not only mathematically it's impossible when you start a think about all changes, all the species, all the changes by species, all the changes by group etc that becomes crazy and you see a very big number,
impossible to be fulfilled... also think about the division between males and females, why females started to reproduce etc. think about very specific qualities in some species etc.
alexrj2 8 months ago
@alexrj2: You haven't yet demonstrated either absurd, or lie. You appear to have this incredulity problem: if I can't keep track of twenty tasks, how can anything do a million of them? For example, humans and chimps separated about 6 mya. In terms of 20 year generations, that's 300,000 generations. One change that happened in that time is that the protruding snout moved back underneath the braincase. That's about three inches, which means it only moved .001" every 300 generations.
puncheex 8 months ago
... At the same time all the rest of the changes required were happening at the same glacial pace, as seen from our point of view. All evolution proceeded at about that same rate, a little here and a little there. As I said, you have no concept of the time involved, if you think it happened all too fast.
puncheex 8 months ago
@puncheex actually alexrj2 is right. evolution and natural selection is not mathematically possible. I talked to a professor of human nutritions at my university who has a degree in biochemistry and he told me that in the 60s, a group of evolutionists told a group of top mathematicians to figure out the possibilites of a natural selection and evolution of certain species after a certain amount of time and they all say that it is mathematically impossible.
xcode394 7 months ago
@xcode394: It's all a lie if you don't have the scientific papers to prove what you are saying. And what you say sounds suspiciously like a rehashed version off Granville Stewart's efforts in proving thermodynamics doesn't work for evolution, which has been debunked by physicists.
Find me a citation, or it's hear-say and it didn't happen.
puncheex 7 months ago
@puncheex @puncheex Not having "scientific papers" doesn't necessarily mean it's a lie! LOL You're funny... and not logical. Maybe you're funny because you're not logical? Possibly.
MikeOfKorea 7 months ago
@MikeOfKorea: True, but it's much more difficult to lie when a scientific paper is consulted. It's easy to say "a friend of a friend told me", no way to check up on it. It's harder to make the statement above and back it up with real science. "Mathematical impossibility" is a powerful but much-abused phrase. A "group of top mathematicians" is easy to type, but has no meaning. Funny? What does that have to do with a nutritionist holding forth on thermodynamics and math proofs?
puncheex 7 months ago
Comment removed
xcode394 7 months ago
@alexrj2 300000 generations. you make me laugh... count how many changes between the two... it's an absurd... not talking about the others absurds... as the huge difference between humans and apes.
why chimps would be changed in man? males chimps becoming men and females chimps becoming women? evolution is a big lie, one of the biggest. a bug absurd!
alexrj2 8 months ago
@alexrj2: Fallacious argument by incredulity noted.
puncheex 7 months ago
Stop persecuting scientists who question modern evolutionary beliefs. By silencing certain findings we will never continue to discover. Conventional scientists would not accept the greatest findings of the greatest scientists. Newton, Gallileo, Pascal, Pasteur, Kepler (aka the greats) were all Christians and would all have had their findings quashed if they lived today.
Watch a History of Scientists Who were Christians
burnyroy 1 year ago
@burnyroy "Newton, Gallileo, Pascal, Pasteur, Kepler (aka the greats) were all Christians and would all have had their findings quashed if they lived today."
Christianity was the one quashing their findings at the time, you dolt! Open a fucking history book.
chodaboy51500 1 year ago
@burnyroy And Darwin was also a Christan and his fucking religious peers are still quashing him.
chodaboy51500 1 year ago
The question is - is Mitochondrial Eve the biblical Eve, the one who committed that sin? If she is then homo sapiens is going to hell unless we atone for her sin. We know that Mito Eve was around 160,000 years ago and had lots of children you and I are her decedents Adam or y chromosomal male didn't turn up until 50,000 years. No chance of a sin there!. Homo sapiens is not related to the biblical A&E and so we are not guilty. The bible is wrong about this! Why not stop being so silly!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
This video is not true. They are lying and distorting science to fit their primitive mythology.
MikeOfKorea 1 year ago
@MikeOfKorea Not true, check Meet the Afrikan: Mitochondrial Eve. This has been proven already.
kellielizabeth1 1 year ago
@kellielizabeth1 The Genesis account is a lie. We are not descended from two prototypical ancestors. The science does not support that in the least. In fact, it is physically impossible. Now if you want to believe that a god magically distorted biology, then go right ahead. But otherwise, nature on its own cannot do what is claimed in the Hebrew myth of Genesis.
MikeOfKorea 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 7 months ago
Comment removed
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
Well she damn sure isn't very sympathetic. That bitch told me what side of the line to stand on and I'd kick her head off of her shoulders like a football!!!
CDanielzSpecialist 1 year ago
Many of the scientists at ICR have had peer reviewed papers. But as soon as they are known to be critical of macro-evolution, they are fired or demoted. Isaac Newton; Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, etc. would not be allowed to teach in most Western Universities today. Freedom to share alternative views on the subject of evolution is no longer allowed on most campuses. The Humanists took control years ago just as the Socialists are making a play to control society, as are Bush's Illuminatti pals.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom I agree with everything you said but don't you think its time to leave Bush behind? Bush IS GONE AND OBAMA IS DOING MORE TO DESTORY FREEDOM THAN BUSH EVER DID.
thebig1 1 year ago
@thebig1 Don't recall discussing politics. Just probably said they were both non-believers based on what they have said & done. Don't trust either of them.
moabedom 1 year ago
@thebig1 The agenda has continued uninterupted, but Obama definatly hasn't done more to destroy freedom then bush? I don't know which bush you refer to bush 1....Iran contra (selling crack)...this was to lock people up and limit freedoms. More people were locked up by the bush administrations then all the other presidents combined.
bush 2...Ran Guantanamo and started secret prisons with end rounds the constitution.
Both bush's started unprovoked wars? Is freedom only for Americans?
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking Sure, you know more than John Sanford and many others at the icr site. many who taught biology for years as evolutionists & then saw the lack of evidence for macro-evolution. Am done talking with you. You are obviously not a sincere truth seeker. For those who are : check out the "icr" site and our page.
moabedom 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking Yes, Have studied biology & opened several biology textbooks. Says PhD in Genetics, John Sanford (inventor of the Gene Gun which is used in nearly all plant clonings & holder of over 25 patents & founder of 2 successful biotech businesses), "...he (Bergman 2004) found 453,372 "mutation" hits, ..but only 186 mentined the word beneficial...He was unable to find a single example of a mutation which..created new information".
moabedom 1 year ago
I once believed what I was taught, that an incredibly complex code (or language) like I DNA could arise randomly by chance. I now think that's a miracle beyond belief. Every code we know of, just a very simple one, requires intelligence. A code is information. Could "War & peace” arise randomly over time? You have every right to believe that it can arise randomly over time. I now think it's a fairytale. 99.99% of mutations are neutral or deleterious. Mutations never add DNA Information.
moabedom 1 year ago
What this idiot doesn't tell you is the the "adam" they discovered with DNA from the y chromosome is separated by the mitochondrial eve by thousands of years.
jimdotbeep 1 year ago
In the past few rears secular evolutionary scientists have given up debating creationist scientists on college campuses because the evolutionists nearly always "lose" in the minds of the students. Many evolutionists are reduced to just calling names; saying "how stupid" Christians are, etc. The evolutionists just won't debate anymore.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom Scientists have given up debating evolutionists because evolutionists don't have any scientific arguments to put forth, it all comes back to faith in God.
If "evolutionists nearly always "lose" in the minds of the students" (And where did you get that from???) then that would be due to the students already holding supernatural religious beliefs. :shrug: What can you do?
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@TheRadicalLiberal There are surveys often taken after the debates. They ask who put "won". Who made the most sense, etc. That's where we get that info. from. Why else would secular scientists stop debating? Interestingly, in most universities today there is an all out attack to destroy student's belief in the Bible being true to all that it discusses, and to destroy students belief in Christ. This is an agenda started in the 1930's - check out "The Humanist Manifesto". See "Expelled" Ben Stein
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom Interestingly, they don't usually attack New Age beliefs, or Muslim beliefs.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom I will if they are trying to get their views taught in science classes or incorporated into the laws of the land. They don't so I am happy to leave them alone. It is only the Christians who feel they have a right to force their beliefs down people's throats.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@TheRadicalLiberal Wrong. Totally the reverse. Most Creationists just want the freedom to point out the inconsistencies & errors in Darwinian belief & favor open discussion with no censorship of ideas. It is the Humanist Manifesto agenda folks who finally gained power, hiring leftist leaning Professors ( Iwas a "leftist" & an agnostic/atheist for many years). Censorship & Tyranny are "in' - Truth is out. see our page "Separation of Church & State ?? film if you are open to Truth.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom EVery scientific field is open to debate and dissent, that is how it moves forward, that is how it gets closer and closer to the truth. You wouldn't understand that. Creationists are not scientists raising real scientific objections, they are religious fundamentalists trying to re-inforce non-scientific theological FAITH, trying to leave a shred of doubt so that you don't lose even more of the faithful. I am open to the truth, that is why I follow the scientific process.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@TheRadicalLiberal Evolution is demonstrably false on many fronts. 1. Dna is a language, a code. It is information. Codes and languages have only been seen to come from Intelligence. If it has never been seen, and of course can't be replicated in a lab, therefore, it is not science.
2. Darwin's theories of life coming from non-life contradicts a law of science, Pasteur's "law of Biogenesis". 3.Stanley Miller (Urey & M) “All..who study the origin of life find..it is too complex to have evolved
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom Now I know that you don't know what you are talking about. You expect science to be able to do everything right away e.g. make life in the lab, or science must be wrong. You want to have a all the answers at once, never mind we have only had a few years to investigate and if you haven't got all the answers right now to everything from science then science must be wrong.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@TheRadicalLiberal Science is fine. Evolution is just not science. Science demands observation and replication in a lab. Neither have been done for evolution. Creationism is not science either. it just fits the scientific evidence better, unless you are not a truth seeker.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom actually, evolution has been repeatedly observed, in the lab and in the wild. Evolution is a fact, it happens, the theory of evolution is what tries to explain this phenomenon.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@Strikesnake1994 Actually, no, evolution from one "kind" of creature into another has never been observed, anywhere. Dogs stay dogs & cats stay cats. Selective breeding within a species creating variations within a species was explained by Mendel, prior to Darwin's publication of "Origins..." Evolutionists like to point to that as "evolution". People observed that way before Darwin was born. Tall couples tend to have taller children. Black couples tend to have dark skinned children.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom If you are interested in the truth read John Sandford's excellent book "Genetic Entropy". John has a PhD in the area of plant genetics and plant breeding. He holds many patents taught for over 25 years at Cornell Univ., and is the inventor of the "Gene Gun" which is used in virtually all plant cloning situations. The concept that man is the product of random mutations and natural selection is most definitely wrong. Mutations will eventually lead to the death of all species.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom i direct you to many excelent computer simulations, such as stellar alchemy's one, that demonstrate what evolution is. i have heard this genetic deteriation idea before, i must admit i don't know much about it. from my understanding of natural selection, the idea wouldn't work.
btw, plant cloning is actually rather simple, you do it with rooting powder and a cutting.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@Strikesnake1994 Our conversation is over "Strikesnake" . Obviously you are not a sincere truth seeker. Fine. Hopefully you will change someday. Either way you can discuss it with your Creator someday. For anyone interested in scientific Truth, check out the sites for "icr" and "answersingenesis".
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom oh, come on, i spent all of an hour learning about genome decay, and found that it had been debunked
user/cdk007#p/u/43/26dwfZIqfco
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@Strikesnake1994 Both sides claim to have debunked the others viewpoints. Sincere truth seekers need to check out the evidence for themselves, as I did when I believed "macro-evolution" and was an agnostic/atheist. Fot he side not spewed out by the bought & paid for mass media, sincere truth seekers should check out the "icr" site and the "answersingenesis" site for scientific evidence. For prophetic evidence check out the site featured on our page - the Truth Seekers Tv program .
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom so, you believe the best places to go for truth are places that were founded with an objective in mind and openly admit that they don't accept evidence that contradicts their pre-determined conclusions. Most people would disagree, and i would be one of them.
Try wikipedia.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@Strikesnake1994 In Evolving: The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution, leading evolutionists Ayala and Valentine ask the question, “What does the future hold?” When I was an evolutionist, I would have expected that chapter to be full of bright prospects: higher IQ’s, greater mathematical and musical genius, faster runners and higher jumpers, the conquest of disease. Instead, Ayala seems despondently concerned with basic survival: how can we save ourselves from mutations?
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom to be honest, it's a pretty rubbish arguement anyway, if it happens to us, it happens to bacteria, so since bacteria reproduce hundreds of times faster then us, the arguement for young earth from genetic decay doesn't work.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@Strikesnake1994 The best answer, I think so far, is that bacteria (b.) have more offspring. This probably is the main ingredient in some bacteria avoiding extinction to this point.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom erm, not really. bacteria reproduce by various means, but they result in a single parent splitting into two daughter bacteria, sometimes with influence from a second doner parent. so actually, bacteria have two children, and die in the process.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@moabedom changing "kind"(rubbish undefined term) takes many thousands of years, however it is observed in the fossil record. search for whale or horse evolution. And speciation is evolution, and has been repeatedly observed. Evolution happens on scales small and large, small we have seen, large is shown in the fossil record.
if you want a case of human evolution, look at sycle-cell anemia. it's a very interesting condition.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@moabedom Further proof you have no idea what you are talking about - the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Darwin never addressed it, it is not part of his theory of natural selection. Pasteur and a lot of other scientists going back to the 1600 were simply saying that life like maggots and fleas didn't come about spontanaously from e.g. rotting meat or sacks of grain. There are many hypothesis of abiogenesis, just look it up on wikipedia. We just aren't there yet.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@TheRadicalLiberal If you don't have an origin for life, you can't have "evolution" following. Ignore the evidence for origin of life at you own peril. You will stand before God someday. Discuss it with Him.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom I'm done with you. Shove your god up your ass.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@moabedom nobody understands why particles have matter, or why this matter warps space-time. it's a major part of the LHC. so, nobody knows where gravity comes from or why it works.
does that mean you don't accept the theory of gravity?
hundreds of thousands of people believe that god started life, and then it evolved.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@Strikesnake1994 Sir isaac Newton, who believed that the prophesies proved jesus was the only Messiah, discovered gravity. His genius was recognized even in his day, as way beyond his contemporaries. He was Einsteins favorite scientist. In fact, Einstein listed 2 other scientists behind newton as favorites. Maxwell and Robert Boyle. Both also Christians who also loved to prove & discuss God's existence from prophesy. God created gravity. If you seek truth watch Utube "Priveleged Planet" film.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom ok, so.
1. you didn't address my point
2. Hippocrates, Pythagorus and Aristotle believed in Zeus, Galen believed in Mars, over the years thousands of brilliant scientists have worshipped thousands of gods, it doesn't make any of them right.
3. the "Privilaged Planet" arguement has been totally debunked, the sheer number of planets means that our planet is remarkably unremarkable.
As i said, abiogenesis is a seperate, but interesting, theory, evolution has nothing to do with it.
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
@moabedom You are just giving the standard creationist responses that might be good enough for your fellow creationists who don't understand the theory of evolution or even understand what science is. Give it up. Go and peddle your bullshit to someone as ignorant as you are.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@moabedom I'm all in favour of destroying students belief in Christ and all superstitions and religions. If the students think that the creationists won the debate then they just aren't listening or aren't comprehending what they are hearing because there is not a single logical or rational or scientific argument that the creationists have ever made. The US court system understands this when they have to rule on whether or not creationism should be taught - they always rule in the negative.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@TheRadicalLiberal You then favor censorship as students fear to argue back or they'll be given lower grades. The U'S. court system also believed that African Americans were "property" for a while. Starting in 1947, the U.S. Supreme court totally reversed the 87+ Supreme Court precedents stating we are a "CHristian" country. This was the first time a court voted without using prior court precedents. Tyranny by a majority among just 9 Justices ! See our page "Separation Church & State' film.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom Any truly objective person, who is not afraid of alienating his buddies & who is willing to quit sinning (few there are, unfortunately, that are that way. Even Jesus said so, John 5:44), will see that a DNA coded language could never arise without an Intelligent entity or entities writing the language. Unfortunately, most want to please their friends and also refuse to give up habit patterns that Jesus calls "sin". Sad, since their Creator knows what is best, Satan deception.
moabedom 1 year ago
@moabedom Evolutionary theory is science. Where it does not have an answer, it says so. Science only ever claims to be the best explanation that fits the available evidence, which in the case of evolution is considerable. All of the objections raised by creationists have been refuted in scientific fashion. Evolution is even accepted as truth by most religions. It is only a small number of fundamentialists who insist the bible is literally true.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@TheRadicalLiberal What you people do is find a little tiny crack and try to drive a wedge into it so that you can say "AH HA! GOTCHA! GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT!" as if that statement isn't a billion times harder to support than the little crack in the science that you think you have found or that is just maybe something that we don't know yet. This is what makes you ridiculous.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
@moabedom And Ben Stein is an absolute dullard. You embarass yourself by using him as an example.
TheRadicalLiberal 1 year ago
isn't Mitochondrial Eve around 6,000 years old?
Shadofx 1 year ago
What many creationist/christians haven't yet understood is that Adam and Eve could possibly represent, not just one man and woman, but are symbolic of the human race as a whole.
McDanielDavid 1 year ago
Lets see how far we can twist the scientific facts to fit our bronze age mythology. "Mitochondrial Eve" (an unfortunate moniker) would have lived around 200,000 years ago and lived with many other men and women in her community and had many ancestors before her.
halberthawkins 1 year ago
this is a lie, we did not come from 1 set of perents.
mitochondria are in all plants and animals.
and there is no such thing as mitochondrial eve.
navik2008 1 year ago
I admit I came on this vidieo for mainly entertainment purposes but the conversaional comments piqued my inteest. It was said that only the egg sex cell cntained mitohondria before fusion. Im not sure but wouldnt the sperm sex cell need even more mitochondria as it excerts much more energy swimming 'upstream' to get to the egg presumibly dodging various antibodies of the female body enountered on the way and hence it should be made mainly of mitochondria as opposed to the drifting egg cell?
raphros 2 years ago
Also, one further mistake made in Creationist assumptions is that an ancestral split comes from only one Adam and one Eve of each species. That is NOT true. The DNA in a cell comes from both parents, and every ancestor of those parents. Mitochndria only come from the mother as the egg cell is the only sex cell to still have mitochondria before fusion with the sperm. THAT'S how one woman can be "Mitochondrial Eve". You need at least 500 pairs for good genetic health. 50 for poor. 2? Extinction.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
some animals are known to be able to inbreed well without too much damage.... primtes do not fall into that group...
I'd say a minimum for the out of africa theory would need to be about 150 to 200...
However there were TWO migrations from africa... (if truth be told probably more)
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Plus there were times in the past when humans very nearly became extinct... Figures as low as 5,000 individuals have been bandied about...
not too sure about that...just because there is evidence that a DIRECT mtDNA line is present ...that does not nessecitate a low population... just an exceedingly unlucky one for the other members... which is what would happen in the normal course of events anyway..
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
The 50/500 rule holds true for humans, too. One pair of any species would end in extinction in mammalian lines. 500 humans and you get the great diversity we see today. 150 and you'd have a lot more homegeniety. At 50, we'd be as inbred and unhealthy, genetically, as the Cheetah is. They were bottlenecked to approximately 80 individuals some 20,000 years ago, according to the best genetic drift/clock info available.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
A second fact ignored is that not all the DNA the mitochondria need is kept *IN* the mitochondria. Some of that DNA became locked up in the cell nucleus (roughly 60%). This allows for the smaller bit of zDNA in the mitochondria to exist seperately and reduces the lethality of mitochondrial errors. Remember, Mitochondria are the most important symbiotic bactera like organism to make up eukaryotes. So important, some of their DNA was left unassimilated by the nucleus.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Well...seems the cheetah is fucked...another dead end.. didn't know that! An image of two cheetahs on the African plains where one says 'you look like my uncle ted' to which the other replies...'and you look like MY uncle ted too!' sprang into my head there.
mitochondria is a really interesting engine! But whilst we'll both go off and look up mitochondria to entertain ourselves, the average creationist won't they have no interest at all.
Which is why its a 'pastime' of mine to wind them up!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
And even if they did go off and look up how a cell actually works...their base education is so low that they can't 'compare' what they are learning to other things they know... so it'd be like climbing a mountain of grease to them!
But they sure are funny people. I used to give people the 'benefit of doubt' in the general intelligence arena but creationists reason really badly!
Its unlikely that they really are stupid y'know.. theres something else at work there?!?!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Mitochondrial DNA measures GENERATIONS, the amount of PEOPLE who came before the sample taken. It does not measure TIME... just generations.
This quantity of generations to mitochondrial eve is at the very least. 4,000.
To allow mitochondrial eve to have existed 6,000 years ago... or even 20k years ago... every human on the planet would have a lifespan of just 5 years!
Since we all know this is not true, this video is bearing false witness.... and we all know what the punishment for that is!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
BEWARW!!!!! You must go outside of religion to learn truth!
candireign1 2 years ago
Bravo! An embarrassing new monument to religious ignorance, dishonesty and stone age thinking... why not share the thoughts of the scientists who carried out the science and hear their explanations instead of vomiting mis-representation and lies all over this beautiful, human, scientific discovery. You represent hell for humanity, you'd have us ignorant, conditioned and easily-controlled. Free your minds! It's 2009 - there is NO excuse. Wake Up ! Educate yourself!
mrfpercival 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NO! This is obvious and I really dont understand why they just dont come out and say it. It all dates back to one woman because one woman was chosen for conception by aliens from another planet. In fact, there were about 4 or 5 eves. 1 eve for every race group on this planet. We are not one race, we are several from black, asian, caucasions etc. Evolution is not that fast in order for us to divide so drastically. Scientists already know the answers. We've been kept in the dark about the truth.
greekstud21 2 years ago
So silly.
shadetail 2 years ago 2
Ok so let's say perhaps there were many women at the time that certain woman existed from who we obtained our mitochondria from, how come we only received our mitochondria from one woman and not the others? How come everyone's ancestry all dates back to just one woman yet if there were many why don't we date back to them? Did all the other women live a life of celibacy and one woman was a pure slut? Obviously it proves the Bible, there's no way evolutionist can get around this one.
sclock2 2 years ago
"how come we only received our mitochondria from one woman and not the others?"
Because nobody has more than one biological mother.
The descendants of that one female, and their descendants, etc. eventually dominate the population. Realize we are talking thousands or tens of thousands of generations.
Of course, if you believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, this video is inconsistent: "Mitochondrial Eve" would necessarily be one of one of the four women on the Ark, not Adam's Eve.
Smidge204 2 years ago
That isn't what I was implying. When I said how come we all receive our mitochondria from one woman I was referring to that one specific woman from who our mitochondrial dna traces all the way back to and according to the reasearch we are all related to this same woman. Now if there were indeed other women who lived on the land in the same time how come there aren't people who's Mitochondria traces all the way back to someone else? How is everyone, asians, blacks, whites are all related-
sclock2 2 years ago
and descendant of just this one woman when scientist suggest there were many women at the time this person existed? Why is it we're all related to just her and none of the other women? That's where I think many scientist stumble, they just added that part in to back themselves up.
sclock2 2 years ago
For the record, the "Mitochondrial Eve" lived approximately 150,000 years ago in Africa.
I highly recommend watching YouTube video MCayG4IIOEQ which explains it rather well.
Smidge204 2 years ago
YouTube is eating my replies. Apologies if they show up and I repeat myself.
"Why is it we're all related to just her and none? of the other women?"
I explained this; for the same reason that you, your parents, siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins all share a common ancestor. Each family tree has a root which itself is just a branch of a much larger tree.
For all humans, evidence suggests the tree's root stops at Mitochondrial Eve, but that itself just a branch for the tree of ALL apes.
Smidge204 2 years ago
If evolution were wrong,NO WAY would that make the buy-bull true.
Rockster969 2 years ago
Many Women were here that came from one woman and they underwent a process of alchemy to create the male species. The mitochondrial DNA predates the "Y" chromosome by 70,000 years and it is my theory that this is the reason there are more women than men.
candireign1 2 years ago
Mitochondrial DNA does NOT predate the Y chromosome... it only predates the particular encoding in the Y chromosome being sought in Mtdna... that a little like saying before there were Red buses...there were NO buses....
Your hypothesis is to be fair total bollox... and there aren't really that many more women than men...they just live about 3.5 years longer... thus there are more snce men die on average 3.5 years before!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
Oh, that's the date when the human race split from the last common ancestor. Mitochndrial Eve would have to be less than that, timewise.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Don't be so fucking stupid.
Mitochondrial Eve might have only had a single child...or two... all other women in this particular line had their lineage go extinct... that might have been 1,000 years ago... it might have been 100,000 years ago... since we aren't looking at them we'll never know!
You are willfully fucking ignorant. look up mitochondrial DNA before making a total fucking idiot of yourself!
What fucking school did you total morons go to? Its like talking to a bunch of turtles!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
I posted that comment long ago. This discussion is dead, now go back to sucking dildos.
sclock2 2 years ago
The discussion certainly is... since mitochondrial eve is a scientific study.... and what you know of 'real' science I could write on the tip of my cock with a large red marker and still have room for a full stop!
Pion!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
If all humans came from 2 persons, then why do we have different hair, eye and skin color?
That could only mean 2 things:
1. We did not come 2 people
2. Evolution is true.
But i believe both is true.
halabalo195 2 years ago
good vid
wILLiamking777 2 years ago
All humans descended from mtEve All males descended from Y-Adam, but mtEve lived long before Y-Adam. How does that square with Genesis?
Y-Adam is Noah. Remember, only Noah and his three sons survived the Flood.
Also, the dates weren't derived from empirical study of observed human mutation rates but were conjectured using rates necessary to support the assumption of the supposed descent from the common ape ancestor 6my ago.
Much earlier dates were found when they used actual mutation rates.
JackHartHome 2 years ago
Shut the fuck up fag, you're standing from a creationist standpoint gtfo. If we're EVE was created from ADAM's RIB we should all have the same EXACT dna sequence. so stfu.
Slycet 2 years ago
the dates were conjecture? lol
The generations certainly were not... 4,000 generations have passed since Mitochondrial Eve... 4,000 generations... not 4,000 years! So unless you bible...and your observations tell you humans live only 5 years... your bible ideas are fucked up!
4,000 generations is the base minimum... originally they thought it might have been as high as 5,000! so the difference is somewhere between 200k to 180k years ago...
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
The real laugh about this is that even the secular sceintist aren't good enough to convince these evolutionists or the error of their ways. Now that is what I call dogma.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
I am not sure, but i was under the impression that there were many women,whose progeny did not survive, on earth at the time of "mitochondrial eves" existence. If this is true, the life and procreation of "mitochondrial eve" supports the theory of natural selection.
but that is what i have been taught; it is not likely we can be certain who is right, but both sides should be represented :)
rollininoldstyle 2 years ago
all scientist agree evolution happened, there is no 'dogma' Bible packers are the only ones stupid enough not to get it.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Wow, there were so many if's in there it almost sounded like a book by Charles Darwin. So, I would think with all the if's it would make this much more palatable to the average evolution-believer.
Also, to the guy talking about "150,000 yrs from now" At that point they won't be able to read our writings and they will say the same thing as you're saying now. I mean we cant even read LinearA and that was spoken in Crete only 3000 yrs ago.
jayjohnson56 2 years ago
There were no printed books, data storage devices, multimedia or other methods of storing information 3,000 years ago...
BTW mitochondrial Eve lived 4,000 generations ago... if the world is less than 10,000 years then every human in the world lived and lives only 5 years! do you really believe humans live only 5 years...
4,000 generations is a LONG time... longer than 10k years... humans do not breed at the age of 2!
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
@MumblingMickey: At generations being 18 to 20 Years, even when lifespans of 35 were common, still puts "Mitochondrial Eve" some 80,000 years in the past. Not hard to imagine when the most distant branch on the Human tree alive today settled Australia 40,000 years ago. That crude estimate is close as other sources will put our emergence at 180,000 to 200,000 years in the past . The video takes this info and either lies outright, or "mis-hears" things deliberately.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
I agree... I think I was pointing out that given the 'quantity' of generations... which is known... that humans would need to have a VERY short lifespan for creationist bollox to hold water...
I'm not sure about the 'as high as 200k' model... people died in the past quite young... and reproduction ages were lower than today... I'd veer towards the down side of the 160k myself for mitochondrial eve! having said that I'm only going on what I consider to be conservative.
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
This video is such a laugh!
It is so funny listening to creationists being forced to admit the truth of how evolution works and desperately trying to twist it so that they don't look like the complete idiots that they are.
An accurate interpretation of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y chromosome Adam" absolutely disproves the Biblical story and adds more evidence to the overwhelming trashing of creationist nonsense.
Watch out creationists! Your God is listening and he doesn't like liars.
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Funny though...you cant list any proof against this or you would have.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Wahey 3gdosrsfs! Great to hear from you again. I thought you'd disappeared, but obviously you're still out there.
Tell you what, you sum up the entirety of Christian doctrine, complete with all subtleties & nuances & its relations to other religions, in 500 characters & I'll do the same for the whole of science in return.
Or you could make some effort & do some reading. Start with Steve Jones' book "Y" all about the Y chromosome.
I hope you don't hit Earth with too hard a bump!
BoneySkylord 2 years ago
Proof against it? Mitochondrial Eve lived 4,000 generations ago. They didn't mention that mitochondrial DNA is measured in GENERATIONS in the vid did they?
You can work out 4,000 generations yourself... or Google 'Mitochondrial Eve'... Go on... research it... open your eyes... or die in blissful ignorance.
MumblingMickey 2 years ago
say who tha fuck it is muthafukkas!!! kan u say BLACK WOMA, KOCKAZIODS!!! I kan, BLACK WOMA/THA BLACK DARKSIDE BITSH!!! ~WHOOOOAAAA~ aSHE'
MargaAset 2 years ago
Good VIDEO! I try to tell people that teh Chicken came before the Egg but they think I am looney..lol
Wow the bible reallyyyyyyy has people thinking that a women came from the rib of a man. I use to believe the same thing.HAHAHA
TheGoddessNetworks 2 years ago
Would their diagnostics be able to see that distinction, though? Hmmmm... then again, going with the idea from the Bible, Noah's sons should each have wives of their own, which would (just go with me on this one) give FOUR women related to her at a kind of "bottleneck event" (i.e., the flood). How would we expect such data to manifest?
wanderingjew2008 2 years ago
There were other mothers like the Irish mothers too, weren't there?
Lupiswolf 2 years ago
If the Bible were taken literally, wouldn't the actual "Mitochondrial Eve" be Noah's wife- not THE Eve?
wanderingjew2008 2 years ago
You're correct.
I wish real scientists would stop using the names of fictional characters like 'Eve' to describe their findings - it just seems to give ammo to this kind of silliness.
proudfootz 2 years ago
that is what i thought, but i would be more willing to believe that the press added the eve part. Then again i could be wrong...
rollininoldstyle 2 years ago
'Credit' for the term's coinage is attributed to Rebecca Cann (co-authors on the paper were Berkeley's Allan Wilson and Mark Stoneking) in the journal Nature paper "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution".
proudfootz 2 years ago
Why can't I look up science videos without running into religious contamination?
psychosavant 2 years ago
Religious people try to disprove all science. Why can't they leave us in peace!
Treldman 2 years ago
i think you misunderstand. creationists love true observable science. but the problem is that creationism is like evolution in the fact that they are both historical sciences, meaning, neither can be tested (in the macro), repeated or observed. thats where conjecture and assumptions come in because like part of the definition of theory says it takes guesswork and hypothesis.
natural science doesnt prove or disprove creationism or evolution. its a personal preference thing.
lordyunii7 2 years ago
actually evolution can be proven, just not in our time, as long as we keep records of our growth and how we change, 150,000 years from now when people are different from us, they will have all the evidence they will need.
doomroe3 2 years ago
"150,000 years from now"
but you see, saying that wont prove evolution and make it fact. there isnt any proof from the past - lack of fossil data and just no observation of a common ancestor. it sounds good on the outside that you said "150,000 years from now" but what matters is now not then.
lordyunii7 2 years ago
yeah anything is possible given time.. creationism can be proven if we wait long enough for christ to return. so possibles, ifs and time are no object in the study of science.
not2getto 2 years ago
we did not all come from one women. mtDNA is only inherited maternally, that is, only the mother passes her mtDNA to all her offspring, the fathers mitochondria "have no say". This doesnt meanthat we all came from her. liklihood is that a bottleneck event, where many humans in africa (where we all originated from) died due to drought or somilar, and only eve and her progeny were left alive. or simply eve's mtDNA gave her and her offspring a decisive evolutionary advantage.
andiandy9 3 years ago
Yes, as if evolution wasn't enough CO-incidence.
chriss179 3 years ago
Well then, if Eve and her progeny were the only ones to survive the bottleneck event, then we did in fact all come from one woman, because noone alive today came from any else.
TranswarpXL 3 years ago
The Bottleneck event?
wanderingjew2008 2 years ago
It's a theorized extinction event that took place around 50,000 years ago which explains why all our genetic codes can be traced back to one lineage line. Could have been disease, famine, the Toga catastrophe, or any number of things. Basically the entire Earths population dwindle to about 500.
TranswarpXL 2 years ago
----- Another religous cop-out ---- The scientific community, above any other subgroup of the population, has become overwhelmingly atheistic . The biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God .
21sentry 3 years ago
You people can deny the facts all you want but Mitochondrial Eve is not rumor it is fact.
All humans can trace their DNA back to her.
CapricousCapricorn1 3 years ago
I think people in this society really have issues with WO-Man being the Creator of ALL. They still want to think Adam was MAN and first and eve was cloned from a rib.
kendrabyrd 3 years ago
"Adam" actually lived 60,000 years ago, and Eve lived 120,000 years ago. it's funny
Treldman 2 years ago
what are basing your assumptions on?
TheGoddessNetworks 2 years ago
Couple of books I read some years back and talking to my father.
Treldman 2 years ago
Thanks for the reply! Can you tell me the books if you remember? I would LOVEEEEE to read them! You can email me the names if they are to much to type. THANKS!!
TheGoddessNetworks 2 years ago
your information is old, the new research locate eve in 7000 to 12000 years ago, very similar to Bible version.
stv2007 2 years ago
She was the first mother? She wasn't even the first human mother
mln9898 3 years ago
It says the same thing in the movie Japanesse movie "Parasite eve" and the video game that we all have the same mitochondria from Eve.lol I think thats neat!
iwannacosplay 3 years ago
That quote from Scientific American is a "quote mine", i.e. a quote that is taken out of context to make you belief they are anti-evolution, when they are not. This is intellectually dishonest.
Zaunstar 3 years ago 2
the job of pres. really is mission impossible
ark1588 3 years ago