All humans have same ancestors scientists claim

a reply to: infolurker

Sigh that is NOT quite what science is saying ... Thanks Daily Mail, for being a useless rag...

There is Mitochondrial Eve who is the most recent common female ancestor (she lived around 150K to 100K years ago) and then there is Y Chromosome adam. He lived betweeen 160,000 and 300,000 years.

Notice they don't overlap?

So no there are not only two ancestors for todays people.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's what the study concluded.

No it didn't.

But what it did conclude is that over 90% of species have not changed a great deal since 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. Nor, actually, does it claim that we are all children of a single pair of parents.

Contemporary sequence data cannot tell whether mitochondrial and Y chromosomes clonality occurred at the same time, i.e., consistent with the extreme bottleneck of a founding pair, or via sorting within a founding population of thousands that was stable for tens of thousands of years [116]. As Kuhn points out unresolvable arguments tend toward rhetoric.

phe.rockefeller.edu...

They looked at mitochondrial DNA. All they can see is the female lineage. Eve might have been a party girl. Even if all children have different fathers, all the daughters will carry the exact same mDNA.

a reply to: Phage

Except ..

These bar codes, or snippets of DNA that reside outside the nuclei of living cells, suggest that it's not just people who came from a single pair of beings, but nine out of every 10 animal species, too

Single pair.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I can't seem to find that quote or anything like it in the study.

Consumer grade "science" often messes up the actual science.

a reply to: Noinden

There is Mitochondrial Eve who is the most recent common female ancestor (she lived around 150K to 100K years ago) and then there is Y Chromosome adam. He lived betweeen 160,000 and 300,000 years.

So if the 150k years for Eve, and the 160k years for Adam have an error factor envelope of 10%, they could have co-existed. The range of years is not considered accurate, by any means.

originally posted by: gort51
Isnt this the Chicken or the Egg, conundrum?.

Not really as there is no chicken or egg conundrum, eggs came first since dinosaurs laid them too. Unless of course you believe the dinosaurs never existed.

I wonder at what point in our evolutionary cycle inbreeding started to cause deformities or if it was the inbreeding of our early ancestors that caised "deformities" like the loss of our fur, disconnecting of our eyebrows and maybe even walking upright? (though I've read that prescribed to our wading about foraging in water for seafood and also on early cannabis use) I hope one day we get a difinitive answer (to the scientific question) as to how we got here.

a reply to: visitedbythem

He said there is not enough time for evolution as Darwin described, to take place. Not even in billions of years. He also went on to describe how he found overwhelming evidence of intelligent design through math. I did understand the solar system math but am unable to understand most of what he said

Like perhaps a mass breakout from a genetics lab?

a reply to: infolurker

the daily fail is not a science journal

a reply to: djz3ro

Or maybe they just camped out over a big uranium rock. I'm interested in the tail. Where's the tail? They are so cool, we could be swinging in the trees and everything. How is losing the tail "adaptive"?

a reply to: infolurker

So ...

Just what does this do to the "racist" argument?
If we are all from the same genetic line, we must all be of the same race. This kind of matches up with part of my argument. I have, for years, wanted someone to show me a member of some other race, other than human, which lives on the planet earth.
I have been accused of being racist and have always expressed the fact that I am indeed all in favor of the human race over any others.
I would much rather disagree on politics or public policies, something worthy of changing, than something we all have in common.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: infolurker

So ...

Just what does this do to the "racist" argument?
If we are all from the same genetic line, we must all be of the same race. This kind of matches up with part of my argument. I have, for years, wanted someone to show me a member of some other race, other than human, which lives on the planet earth.
I have been accused of being racist and have always expressed the fact that I am indeed all in favor of the human race over any others.
I would much rather disagree on politics or public policies, something worthy of changing, than something we all have in common.

Without delving to deeply into it all.....IMAGINE if all of UNIVERSAL LIFE is encoded the EXACT SAME WAY...what if life ANYWHERE in the Universe when it spontaneously blooms consistently finds its way under all circumstances to a humanoid form..representative of the original Father and Mother.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: infolurker

So ...

Just what does this do to the "racist" argument?
If we are all from the same genetic line, we must all be of the same race. This kind of matches up with part of my argument. I have, for years, wanted someone to show me a member of some other race, other than human, which lives on the planet earth.
I have been accused of being racist and have always expressed the fact that I am indeed all in favor of the human race over any others.
I would much rather disagree on politics or public policies, something worthy of changing, than something we all have in common.

Without delving to deeply into it all.....IMAGINE if all of UNIVERSAL LIFE is encoded the EXACT SAME WAY...what if life ANYWHERE in the Universe when it spontaneously blooms consistently finds its way under all circumstances to a humanoid form..representative of the original Father and Mother.

Pardon my ignorance ...

But your point being ???

originally posted by: tinymind

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: infolurker

So ...

Just what does this do to the "racist" argument?
If we are all from the same genetic line, we must all be of the same race. This kind of matches up with part of my argument. I have, for years, wanted someone to show me a member of some other race, other than human, which lives on the planet earth.
I have been accused of being racist and have always expressed the fact that I am indeed all in favor of the human race over any others.
I would much rather disagree on politics or public policies, something worthy of changing, than something we all have in common.

Without delving to deeply into it all.....IMAGINE if all of UNIVERSAL LIFE is encoded the EXACT SAME WAY...what if life ANYWHERE in the Universe when it spontaneously blooms consistently finds its way under all circumstances to a humanoid form..representative of the original Father and Mother.

Pardon my ignorance ...

But your point being ???

That ALL UNIVERSAL LIFE has a common evolutionary ancestry that is humanoid....humanoid came FIRST...it did not develop along the way it was the beginning....this means HUMANOID not specifically human like we are … we claim to be the ultimate creation but we are simply one of a numberless volume of creations reflecting the Creators image....and unfortunately we do not know exactly what that image was or is....maybe NONE of the races of humanoids know either.

It was only one lifeboat spacecraft that landed on Earth 200,000 years ago.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: infolurker

So ...

Just what does this do to the "racist" argument?
If we are all from the same genetic line, we must all be of the same race. This kind of matches up with part of my argument. I have, for years, wanted someone to show me a member of some other race, other than human, which lives on the planet earth.
I have been accused of being racist and have always expressed the fact that I am indeed all in favor of the human race over any others.
I would much rather disagree on politics or public policies, something worthy of changing, than something we all have in common.

Yea, if you want to talk race how about we all started out the same group but got separated over time. Let's say there were 3 groups, Europe, Far East, Africa, and lots of smaller groups milling around. For thousands of years each group remained isolated from the others, each developing in its own way at its own rate. Eventually, differences developed between them. They were all still human, there was still tremendous variability, but also some distinctive characteristics, culture, and history.

So to define race, you can see it not so much by just skin color but you can define it as a geographical gene pool. This is not saying they aren't human or that anyone is better, only that their genes derive from the relatively isolated area. Of course it can be divided other ways and there are smaller groups but these are the main ones.

a reply to: infolurker

I liked your post. I only wish I could make a thread based on the daily mail and get such positive replies. Some of the same responders here have dissed me due to from where I posted, like this one. Double standards prevail.

Star Flag.

a reply to: Phage

Which is why I said IF this is true. That's what the article said. Even if the study says it it could still be wrong.

So it’s true we are all ancestors of the Cylons...think I’m a number 6 😀

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: infolurker

So ...

Just what does this do to the "racist" argument?
If we are all from the same genetic line, we must all be of the same race. This kind of matches up with part of my argument. I have, for years, wanted someone to show me a member of some other race, other than human, which lives on the planet earth.
I have been accused of being racist and have always expressed the fact that I am indeed all in favor of the human race over any others.
I would much rather disagree on politics or public policies, something worthy of changing, than something we all have in common.

Yea, if you want to talk race how about we all started out the same group but got separated over time. Let's say there were 3 groups, Europe, Far East, Africa, and lots of smaller groups milling around. For thousands of years each group remained isolated from the others, each developing in its own way at its own rate. Eventually, differences developed between them. They were all still human, there was still tremendous variability, but also some distinctive characteristics, culture, and history.

So to define race, you can see it not so much by just skin color but you can define it as a geographical gene pool. This is not saying they aren't human or that anyone is better, only that their genes derive from the relatively isolated area. Of course it can be divided other ways and there are smaller groups but these are the main ones.

I think what you are referring to is called "speciation".
This is a part of what got Darwin into so much trouble with the sparrows. The difference in people could be looked at in this manner, but then you would be called a "speceist" or something else less desirable.

originally posted by: tinymind

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: infolurker

So ...

Just what does this do to the "racist" argument?
If we are all from the same genetic line, we must all be of the same race. This kind of matches up with part of my argument. I have, for years, wanted someone to show me a member of some other race, other than human, which lives on the planet earth.
I have been accused of being racist and have always expressed the fact that I am indeed all in favor of the human race over any others.
I would much rather disagree on politics or public policies, something worthy of changing, than something we all have in common.

Yea, if you want to talk race how about we all started out the same group but got separated over time. Let's say there were 3 groups, Europe, Far East, Africa, and lots of smaller groups milling around. For thousands of years each group remained isolated from the others, each developing in its own way at its own rate. Eventually, differences developed between them. They were all still human, there was still tremendous variability, but also some distinctive characteristics, culture, and history.

So to define race, you can see it not so much by just skin color but you can define it as a geographical gene pool. This is not saying they aren't human or that anyone is better, only that their genes derive from the relatively isolated area. Of course it can be divided other ways and there are smaller groups but these are the main ones.

I think what you are referring to is called "speciation".
This is a part of what got Darwin into so much trouble with the sparrows. The difference in people could be looked at in this manner, but then you would be called a "speceist" or something else less desirable.

You're missing the point. Yes, the different races have been called subspecies but that terminology is often met with objections. Often by those with the very views you expressed in your earlier post.

This is why I propose to not use any physical characteristics at all when referring to race. When you define a member as someone that originates from a specific geographical gene pool, it avoids all of the racist implications. Further, these gene pools can easily be proved to exist. You might say, "There is no black race, people have this Y chromosome and there is a lot of variability besides." But you can't say, "There is no Africa."

I realize this is not 100% precise. The Berbers are from an African gene pool and do not meet the accepted interpretation of "African" race. The old definition was also not precise as evidenced by all of the controversy.

So instead of saying Blacks and Whites, you have European peoples and African peoples. Asians are still Asians, I guess. Defining race by gene pools is really not different from the way we see things now.