All humans have same ancestors scientists claim

originally posted by: Bloodworth
This book said it was a long process of some marine creatures who would get thrown out of the ocean by a storm or beached. And 1 in millions would learn to adapt, grow some feature.

Just curious, which book are you referring to? They don't get beached and forced to suddenly grow a new feature or adapt. The features came before that from environments that were swampy and no longer connected to big bodies of water. It started as simply fish that had legs for land movement and shallow water navigation. Over millions of years some adapted to survive better on land.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Bloodworth
This book said it was a long process of some marine creatures who would get thrown out of the ocean by a storm or beached. And 1 in millions would learn to adapt, grow some feature.

Just curious, which book are you referring to? They don't get beached and forced to suddenly grow a new feature or adapt. The features came before that from environments that were swampy and no longer connected to big bodies of water. It started as simply fish that had legs for land movement and shallow water navigation. Over millions of years some adapted to survive better on land.

I've been trying to find the name for awhile.

I only remember the cover of the book had a picture of some small marine life creature that had ,what resembled a face. and the writer stated this was the ancestors of humans.

This was in the early 2000s

a reply to: infolurker

erm.. that would mean all animals evolved over a span of 100.000 to 200.000 years from one specie.

Believe who wants to believe.

Science, make up your mind.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

That’s not what the paper states. It’s referring to a genetic bottleneck and it’s just one interpretation of the data.

a reply to: peter vlar

Ok, humanity descended from only one pair of humans. Do you know how silly that sounds? It sounds like a story out of Bible.

originally posted by: Tempter
I find these kinds of studies irrelevant. The tree of humans is branching out like never before, with hourly global travel a modern reality humans are spreading among the firmament the greatest mixture of the primordial human soup than at any point in human history. Blacks are making babies with whites. Asians are procreating with Aboriginals genealogy. Middle-Eastern genetic heritage mixing with those of European decent. Everyone is ****ing.

Despite this intense cross-racial breeding, I don't believe there has been a new human species created. Anyone else find that odd? We have no new human species despite this global racial mixing?

What kind of drastic thing would it take beyond something as powerful as that to actually mutate DNA to a new species? Hell, we don't even see it in animals and they're countless phyla mixing due to human travel impact either. Just what DOES it take for DNA to mutate?

To the OP's post, how important is it that we came from one pair of humans? Isn't where we're headed and the branching of today's humans more important?

I would suspect that it was the incestuous breeding of our original fam of ancestors that created or activated recessive genes in their mutated offsprings, to be the reason for evolution overall. Racial mixing is actually what is probably keeping us the same genetically.

Our species apparently had become the dominant mutated species.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: peter vlar

Ok, humanity descended from only one pair of humans. Do you know how silly that sounds? It sounds like a story out of Bible.

Humanity didn’t descend from one single pair of humans. You should re-read the paper if you bothered to read it at all. They studied only MtDNA, not the Y or nuclear. It’s a very limited data set.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: infolurker


So we're all inbred? That raises a few questions.

Maybe it just answers a lot of question

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You don't ever read the source material do you?

There is a theoretical Mitocondrial Mother(from which all other mitochondrial clades are mutated from). When did she theoretically live? 120,000 and 156,000 years ago.

There is a theoretical Y-Chromosomal Father, (from which all the other Y-Chromosmal clades are mutated from). 19When did he live? 99,000 and 148,000 years ago.

SO for your Christian mythology. Eve was first, and she must have been thousands of years older than Adam. Making her a Cougar. Though unlikely to be of child bearing age

Rad the damn facts, and stop making stuff up.

a reply to: peter vlar

But yet from that they already conclude humanity sprang from a single pair.

Did you bother to read the article?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I read the actual paper the article was based on so I’m aware of exactly what it says and it doesn’t say what you think it does. You can make a genetic determination on male lineage based on MtDNA. If you could be bothered to try to understand the science that you seek to loathe so much you might have a clue. Until then all your playing at is a game of the One eyed man being the king of the blind. I’ll let you decide how well you can see.