Y chromosome Adam, Mitochondial Eve lived just 20 thousands years ago

adnanmuf
dating is wrong. you can not date stones or bones, you can date light plants, cotton tissue, animal soft tissue, by carbon dating, because radio active carbon comes from the air a plant or animal breathes. a fire soot could be carbon dated too.
70k is jazzedup

dating isn't wrong, you are.you are referring solely to C-14 dating. there are many other types with different limitations than C-14. thermoluminescence can date rock, Uranium-Lead dating is good back to about 1 million YA, Uranium-Thorium is good from about a few thousand YA to about 700,000 YA, Potassium-Argon can date metamorphic, igneus and volcanic rock as well as volcanic ash, magnetostratigraphy can date old rock. your on the damned internet for christ sake, utilize it to your advantage as a resource.

as for reference for a species not to go extinct it has to be above a number 50 for pandas etc.
a bottle neck on one man is impossible according to scientists

what the heck are you talking about? who said anything about only one man in a bottleneck? well besides you of course... the Toba event approx. 70,000 years ago reduced the worldwide population of AMH down to roughly 10,000 breeding individuals.

books.google.com... Vs#v=onepage&q=genetic%20evidence%20for%20toba%20event&f=false

as for most of our dna are junk from viruses and germs

en.wikipedia.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I love it! Horizontal gene transfer... your using a reproductive method of single celled organisms to disprove evolution. thats not anywhere near as amusing as the goat bite genetic insertion bit but still entertaining so thanks!

also
Astonishingly, only 1.5% of the genetic material in our cells codes for human life. Half of the rest is sometimes described as "junk DNA" with no known function, and the other half consist of genes introduced by viruses and other parasites
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17809503

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

less astonishing is that you're completely wrong and haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

something even less astonishing than that? the fact that several people have asked you specific questions, of which you have yet to field one. could it be that you know which line not to cross without having to admit your inability to see the forrest for the trees?

reply to post by peter vlar

radio active potassium dating is to date stones when it was baked/created (out of magma made) of billions of years.
in stone henge stones , you have to date when the stones were cut schizzled, Luminouss can tell you if it's more than 2 k old only not the date it was shizzled!
you are saying that humans for hundred thousand years stck on being in stone age and building same configured stone henges and suddenly into bronse age 4 k years (where they have to go to Bristol in Britain scotland to buy tin to make bronze every year by ships)??
if they were so smart they could build such a great monument in south africa 70k years ago then they should been able to go into bronse age in 65k years ago.
and that humans stuck in doing stone henges for 70 thousand years?

Do you want me to believe such far fetched stories and reject the powerful undisputed dna science which proved that all humans descend from one man who lived 20k years ago.

You want me to believe the infamous 3 men who claimed they discovered small parts of the first 3 skuls bones to support darwin, and later it turned out one of the three have fabricated his bone( this like believing testimony of three people over science). So they say we found the skull in a layer of sediment of 1 million years ago! how do I know they are not lying like that pioneer, how do i know they did not move the bone into that layer? how can i accept a testimony of mere few humans politically motivated in the court case of intelligent design vs evolution!
is it because due to brotherly love I should trust them even though they have an agenda they confessed of before they went out raoming the earth just to prove that agenda of darwin evolution and god doesnt exist.

you know that a judge wont accept such evidence (in a simple murder case), but any judge is forced to accept dna evidence. (the most powerful evidence in court these days, more powerful than fingere print evidence)

you cant find dna in a million year old Peking man. you can not date Peking man BONES, you can only date the earth sediment the bone was found in (allegedly--they (usualy one man- the great discoverer)told you so he found the shrapnel of a skul in that sediment, and he even swear on that-the people who dont believe in god swear to you , got it? )


toba event (a short period event causing hypothetically a bottle neck can not explain the little genetic variety of current humans) The low genetic diversity of man can only be explained if the bottle neck had to last more than 100 000 years bottle neck, in which humans went from 100 million to just 2 thousands for 100000 years. what calamity on the world wide earth could cause humans living all the way from China (peking man) to ethiopia (lucy) and else where , to die off to mere 2k people and stay so for 100000 years , while the foxes and all other animals less advanced than humans did not suffer that bottle neck and still have the great genetic diversity.
It is estimated the 7 billion humans have less genetic diversity that a herd of apes. so the apes did not suffer bottle neck effect.
More over a population of a species that goes to 2000 will most likely go extinct in a hundred year, but humans stayed in a bottle neck 2k peoples generation after for 100000 years without going extinct???

you want me to believe that nonsense??.

why would humans stay 2000 people generation after generation even though the earth bounty is huge around them and they are so advanced to can hunt all the other animals, and smart to avoid disasters more than animals. humans have thermo center in the brain that they are the only species that can live in the north pole and in the tropics the second day.
have the best kidney system, that make them survive when other animals fail.
.Your assumptions of kato volcano in Indonisia caused 500 000 000 humans to go down to just 2000 humans is just proposterous. and can not explain the low genetic diversity of humans.

mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
(Minimum Viable Population)

adnanmuf
It is known now that humands did not descend from monkeys million years ago, and that all 7 billion humans living on earth now are all from one man and one woman who definitly lived in Africa.

the fact that 10% of our DNA is Junk DNA that came only from the Tsetse fly (this tsetse dna found in Eskimo too )
this 10% across all humans chinese eskimo, etc is inherited from common ancestor/ancestors who definitly lived in the area of land where the Tsetse fly exist.
It is known that all flies and mosketoes don't immigrate. a fly can only wander randomely around its birth place untill it dies.
the finding of mosquetoes every where is caused by human migration. who transported flies and mosquitoes in ships or planes of recent times.
.
The mutation rate in DNA transcribing is found to be the same in all DNA human and not human and it is around 0.004. it used to be thought of as 0.002 when they decided that Y chromosome Adam lived 50 000 years ago. Now with Mutation rate of 0.004 is half that time ie 25 000 years ago.

all the anthropologists and paleontologists discoveries about million years old humans are lies based on junk science. There was never evolution. all species (foxes , bears) are replicas of original first fox/bear etc.
all the mutations observed in nature so far can only cause nothing or cause a disease. never a mutation caused so called evolution. Time can only accumulate disease and degradation in a species., never time cause enhancement (evolution).

Not only are you full of crap, you completed misinterpreted the findings.

It was a 25,000 year gap between Adam and Eve. Both existed millions of years ago. But anyone who questions evolution isn't going to be the sharpest tool in the shed. I am surprised you got as much right as you did.

adnanmuf
reply to post by sulaw

 

humans all are descendent s of one man who lived 25000 years ago.
this is dna science not the bible. it is based on simple mathematics as in 1 plus 1 equals 2.
it is not inferred conclusion but undisputable fact.
you must heard of dna evidence , it is more precise than finger print evidence.

if dna study showed that 2 men are brothers from same father, there is nothing the two men or anybody elso do to refute that.

Why on gods green earth would you reply this to me??? Did you even bother looking at my thread??? IT'S ALL ABOUT DNA~ And Adam and Eve the X and the Y Chromosome.

Thank you for the layman 1 +1 = 2 example.

Wow~

LABTECH767
reply to post by adnanmuf

 

All of us are sheep being led by the information we have been taught, the truth is non of us KNOW, we have belief, hypothesis and theory.

Now I am a christian but as for that the living clay and the spirit of god, maybe modern human transcendance is of divine paranormal infusion of the spirit into the formerly base human form thus elevating it above the dust of mere animal, Still atheists believe in the off switch and I am one whom has experienced it and found it is not all but that is another argument.

I can not define god but have experience that there is something, I believe in Christ and that is my faith and devotion, I do support evolution but do accept that species adapt to there environment including mankind but this in no way rules out the creator, Atheism can be comforting to some as they think they will never have to answer for there mistakes though many Atheists are actually humanists and good people whom I value though I disagree with them, I would share my experience but some thing's can never be put into word's.

Actually, athiests tend to be the most moral people because they have no one to blame but themselves. They can take responsibility for their successes and flail themselves for their failures. No boogeymen to blame.

You can lie in confession, but you can't lie to yourself. And it holds you far more accountable.

reply to post by nixie_nox


this gap is not cut in stones. ten years ago hey said eve (aka Most Recent common ancestor of Mitochondrial (maternal Human) dna is older than adam (aka MRCA of human Y-chromsome) by 50k, nowadays they say adam is older than eve by 25k.. these are approximate numbers clearly show amazingly how they both in the same time period confirming the creation theory (adam and eve biblical story)
If adam had two wives, then there is no reason why the most common recent ancester of the two women is not one million years old or even more, since man (allegedly) been around for 7 million years

the current (official ) dna estimate of MRCA for adam and eve is around 125 thousand years ago but that only based on a fraudelant-so called-hypothetical ancestral mutation rate, that is recently been forced politically on scientists.
pedigree based mutation rate is found to be 0.004 while the hypothetical ancestral m rate is 0.0007. ( the pedigree rate makes adam around 20000 years ago, while the imaginative rate to 200000 years ago.
Pedigree is what is observed by the naked eye to the scientists (like father-son observation or sperm analysis etc)

the ancestral rate is based on the assumption that all humans of the earth suffered continuous bottle necks ( as if they wer living all of them on a small island for 7 million years), which does not seem to had happened.

of course adam being older than eve is impossible, while eve older than adam is very hard to swallow idea. but according to the hypothetical faked ancestral rate it is so.

when you take two female monkeys in africa. it is highly likely their common ancestor is 100000 years before their time, considering monkeys been around for 7 million years.





actually half of all cells in the human body are not human!!!!, the possibility of ((Lateral gene transfer)) LGT is quite reasonable.
not to mention the viruses that force themselves into human dna and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
so 98.5% of human dna is junk dna , half of which is from viruses only , 20% of that is from bacteria, and the rest from other animals like insects, goats etc. according to the references i provide down here.!


one known ameoba has actually 400 times more dna than a human cell, obviously all that dna is junk.
the similarities between humans dna and chimpanzees is of the junk dna to the most part. but they both got it from viruses etc. just like all other living beings did!! 97% of deep sea bacteria is in humans, 99% of mouse dna in humans, and so on. junk dna goes around into all dna of all species.99% of mouse dna is found in humans (all functional dna, show you dna is just for life functions regulations across species)

what really counts as a proof of relatedness is the mutations that happened on that junk while in humans and chimps!! only dna mutations in the junk dna can tell the relatedness of species (humans and chimps should have the same mutations to be related (especially the Y and Maternal dna that goes uninterrupted from parent to child for ever generations), so far no such mutations similar between chimps and humans. non of the snp and str in humans are found on chimps (or gorillas) (they now claim those mutations got lost to history wiped out because of the bottle necks that affected the poor humans out of all animals!!!, or were shed away, as if dna is intelligent!! to know what dna to shed away !!!. shedding away one functional dna cause immediate death. dna can't tell unless if it's intelligent hence we are back to intelligent design

reply to post by nixie_nox


why don't you correct the misinterpretation of finding smart guy.
and you don't have to curse me to prove you are a son a monkey. instead you can always use your monkey brain of yours to prove me wrong and that you indeed descend from apes.

adnanmuf
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

this gap is not cut in stones. ten years ago hey said eve older than adam by 50k, nowadays they say adam is older than eve by 25k.. these are approximate numbers clearly show how they both in the same time period.
If adam had two wives, then there is no reason why the most common recent ancester of the two women is one million years old.

the current dna estimate is around 125 thousand years but that only based on a fraudelant so called hypothetical ancestral mution rate, been forced politically on scientists.
pedigree based mutation rate is found to be 0.004 while the hypothetical ancestral m rate is 0.0007.

the ancestral rate is based on the assumption that all humans of the earth suffered continuous bottle necks, which does not seem to had happened.

of course adam older than eve is impossible, but according to the hypothetical faked ancestral rate it is so.

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

when you take two female monkeys in africa. it is highly likely their common ancestor is 100000 years before their time, considering monkeys been around for 7 million years.

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

actually half of all cells in the human body are not human, the possibility of Lateral gene transfer is quite reasonable.
not to mention the viruses that force themselves into human dna and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
so 98.5% of human dna is junk dna , half of which is from viruses only , 20% of that is from bacteria, and the rest from other animals like insects, goats etc.
one known ameoba has 400 times more dna than a human cell, obviously all that dna is junk.
the similarities between humans dna and chimpanzees is of the junk dna to the most part. they both got it from viruses etc. what counts is the mutations that happened on that junk while in humans and chimps!! 99% of mouse dna is found in humans (all functional dna, show you dna is just for life functions regulations across species) only dna mutations in the junk dna can tell the relatedness of species (humans and chimps should have the same mutations to be related, so far no such mutation similar between chimps and humans.(they claim those mutations got wiped out because of the bottle necks, or were shed away, as if dna is intelligent!! to know what dna to shed away !!!. shedding away one functional dna cause immediate death. dna cant tell unless if its intelligent hence we are back to intelligent design

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

I am just laughing at all these arguments of yours because you are using DNA and evolutionary evidence to try to claim that evolution isn't true.


It is really quite strange.

adnanmuf
reply to post by peter vlar

 

radio active potassium dating is to date stones when it was baked (magma made) of billions of years.
stone henge stones , you have to date when the stones were cut schizzled, Luminouss can tell you its olf more than 2 k but not

ok excellent, now we're up to date on dating methodology. I'm assuming that 'Luminouss' is a reference to ThermoLuminescence? if I'm wrong please correct me... it can tell you if an elf is more than 2 k but not... not what? Whqat won't the elves do for you after 2K? 2 degrees kelvin is really cold so maybe that's why the elves aren't motivated?

you are saying that humans for hundred thousand years and suddenly bronse age 4 k years (where they have to go to Bristol in Britain scotland to buy tin to make bronze every year)??
if they were so smart they could build such a great monument in south africa 70k years ago then they should been able to go into bronse age in 65k years ago.
and that humans stuck in doing stone henges for 70 thousand years?

Do you want me to believe such far fetched stories and reject the powerful undisputed dna science which proved that all humans descend from one man who lived 20k years ago.

No, I never said human evolution was completely stagnant for 100,000 years and then BAM, Emirl made some soup and voila... Le Bronze Age appeared suddenly. There is nothing sudden whatsoever about the origins of civilization in the Middle East. Curious... when did Britain become the only place in the world to obtain tin or bronze? Correlating an astronomical calendar based on observation is not the same thing as understanding let alone implementing smelting of materials. Get a library card, it will do you a world of wonder. The usually have story time listed on their web page if its easier for someone else to read it to you.

You want me to believe 3 men who claimed they discovered small parts of the first skul bones to support darwin, and it turned out one of the three have fabricated the bone( this like believing testimony of three people over science). So they say we found the skull in a layer of sediment of 1 million years ago! how do I know they are not lying like that pioneer, how do i know they did not move the bone into that layer?
is it because of brotherly love I should trust them even though they have an agenda and they were raoming the earth just to prove that agenda of darwin evolution and god doesnt exist.you know that a judge wont accept their evidence, but any judge is forced to accept dna evidence.

I don't know what the heck you're talking about here, perhaps you could be a little more clear? which 3 men are you talking about and what falsified data? I'm glad we finally discovered the root of your trepidation though. You don't believe or trust scientists. Good, it's a world wide conspiracy across all disciplines with one goal and one goal only... deceiving Christians and confusing them so that eventually we can convince them of the merits of atheism before introducing them to the Church of Satan.

you cant find dna in a million year old Peking man. you can not date Peking man BONES, you can only date the earth sediment the bone was found in (allegedly--they told you so, and they swear on that-the people who dont believe in god swear to you , got it? )

You've got me there again... I agree 100% that you can NOT date 1 million year old Peking Man bones. There are 2 reasons for this, there are no bones only fossils and 2nd, Peking Man's oldest remains date from a quarter million years earlier than your claim. If YOU can't bother to ascertain the actual facts then why bother at all?

toba event (a short period bottle neck can not explain the little genetic variety of current humans) it had to be 100 000 years bottle neck, in which humans went from 100 million to just 2 thousands for 100000 years. what calamity on the world wide earth could cause humans living all the way from China (peking man) to ethiopia (lucy), to die off and stay so for 100000 years , while the foxes and all other animals less advanced than humans did not suffer that bottle neck and still have the great genetic diversity.
It is estimated the 7 billion humans have less genetic diversity that a herd of apes. so the apes did not suffer bottle neck effect.
More over a population of a species that goes to 2000 will most likely go extinct in a hundred year, but humans staued in a bottle neck for 100000 years without going extinct???

you want me to believe that.???.

explain to me why the bottleneck event had to be 100,000 years? Its absolute bull poop and there is nothing to back up that assertion. the numbers you're using are completely made up. there simply were not 100 million AMH's of breeding age across the world 70,000 YA. A liberal estimate is several hundred thousand AMH as well as 100,000 or so H.N.S. You're also wrong about other apes not suffering from a genetic bottleneck at the same time as AMH's. This is why we have to separate gorilla groups. One on each side of the river. As for human genetic diversity, just look at populations South of the Sahara. Those groups had never left Africa and due to their location in the Southern Hemisphere they escaped the worst effects of the Toba eruption. Additionally, many animal groups suffered from bottlenecking approx. 70,000 YA It affected all primates(including humans) as well as Tigers and Cheetah's. There is certainly more work to be uncovered regarding this event but the fact that it did happen is verified through mtDNA showing a huge migration out of Africa 70-60,000 YA FYI- there were no "Peking Man" or "Lucy" 70,000 YA so they have no bearing on this whatsoever.

why would humans stay 2000 people generation after generation even though the earth bounty is huge around them and they are so advanced to can hunt all the other animals, and smart to avoid disasters more than animals. humans have thermo center in the brain that they are the only species that can live in the north pole and in the tropics the second day.
have the best kidney system, that make them survive when other animals fail.
.Your assumptions of kato volcano in Indonisia caused 500 000 000 humans to go down to just 2000 humans is just proposterous.

Why would they? they wouldn't and didn't. Those numbers are either fabricated or assumed on your end, much like your assumptions about humans being better at avoiding disaster than other mammals. It's a creative non sequitor where you change your initial number of 100,000,000 AMH pre bottleneck and now in the end you're upping it to 500 million. Which is it? it can't be both(actually its neither). So yes, dropping from 500 million to 2000 is preposterous but YOU are the only person making these claims.

mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

reply to post by peter vlar

Both genetic and anthropological data are incompatible with the hypothesis of a recent population size bottleneck. Such an event would be expected to leave a significant mark across numerous genetic loci and observable anatomical traits, but while some subsets of data are compatible with a recent population size bottleneck, there is no consistently expressed effect that can be found across the range where it should appear, and this absence disproves the hypothesis.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10666702

if all humans went down to a bottle neck of only one man and one woman ( suddenly and temporarily as in toba volcano eruption hypothesis!), there would still be a great genetic diversity in their decendents since each of them has genes of great diverse ancestors. the genetic diversity has to be filtered out in a long period bottle neck lasting 100000 years for the 7 billion humans to have less genetic diversity than a tribe of apes!

the above study says HLA genes in humans is so diverse that a bottle neck could not possibly had happened ever. the diversity of HLA (responsible for immunity) could only be explained according to evolutionists if man out of the rest of animals lived for 400 million years (before even life started on earth). yet at the same time all the rest of human dna is so less diverse that the adam had to be the first of his species and did not come from a bottle neck but rather was the first of his kind aka the first human. because human low diversity is so severe that could bnot be explained by a million bottle necks, yet at the same time his HLA segement is so diverse that it has according to evolutionist had been evolving for 400 million years just in the human population alone, since no animal on earth gets even close especially the apes.
moreover, the human ability to speak require FOX dna that is absolutely not found in chimps or anyother animal, plus the change in the neck anatomy (hyola bone) is a stuff of legend in evolutionary theory requiring 100 000 000 years to change from the hyola bone in apes to the hyola bone in humans. now all apes came about 10 millions years ago only.
unless of intelligent design these discrprepencies can not be reconsiled in evolutionary manner) namely HLA, FOX gene, Hyola neck bone) the unbelievable extreme low genetic diversity of humans

adnanmuf
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Both genetic and anthropological data are incompatible with the hypothesis of a recent population size bottleneck. Such an event would be expected to leave a significant mark across numerous genetic loci and observable anatomical traits, but while some subsets of data are compatible with a recent population size bottleneck, there is no consistently expressed effect that can be found across the range where it should appear, and this absence disproves the hypothesis.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10666702

Using 13 year old outdated information does not disprove anything. Nice how you ignore everything else.

reply to post by adnanmuf


Again we share a common ancestor, we do not come from monkeys....do you not read anyone elses posts or are you just bleating on?
Like Nox says you are all over the place in this thread.

adnanmuf
if all humans went down to a bottle neck of only one man and one woman ( suddenly and temporarily as in toba volcano eruption hypothesis!), there would still be a great genetic diversity in their decendents since each of them has genes of great diverse ancestors. the genetic diversity has to be filtered out in a long period bottle neck lasting 100000 years for the 7 billion humans to have less genetic diversity than a tribe of apes!

how many different ways are you going to reword and regurgitate the same crock of $h1t? I don't care what the above study says, its over 13 years old and we know better now. well, most people that aren't you I guess. The human bottleneck was NOT let me say again, NOT a reduction to only 2 breeding individuals and even if there were NO the genetic diversity would absolutely not be as you try to claim. it is as we see it now. There is no mechanism that requires the amount of time you claim. Prove it or zip it. just a heads up, your ape analogy is awesome... humans ARE apes.

the above study says HLA genes in humans is so diverse that a bottle neck could not possibly had happened ever. the diversity of HLA (responsible for immunity) could only be explained according to evolutionists if man out of the rest of animals lived for 400 million years (before even life started on earth).

No, just no...

yet at the same time all the rest of human dna is so less diverse that the adam had to be the first of his species and did not come from a bottle neck but rather was the first of his kind aka the first human. because human low diversity is so severe that could bnot be explained by a million bottle necks, yet at the same time his HLA segement is so diverse that it has according to evolutionist had been evolving for 400 million years just in the human population alone, since no animal on earth gets even close especially the apes.

I don't have the time to explain how wrong you are yet again

moreover, the human ability to speak require FOX dna that is absolutely not found in chimps or anyother animal, plus the change in the neck anatomy (hyola bone) is a stuff of legend in evolutionary theory requiring 100 000 000 years to change from the hyola bone in apes to the hyola bone in humans. now all apes came about 10 millions years ago only.

Do you mean the FOX P2 gene that in humans can cause severe speech IMPEDIMENTS and is not a prerequisite of speech? and by not found in any other animal I guess they never mentioned the word 'orthologue' at bible camp did they? there are orthologues of the FOX P2 gene in ALL mammals. nice try. What is a HYOLA bone? I'm familiar with the hyoid bone in the neck. If you can't be bothered to get basic facts correct what makes you think anyones going to pay attention to your absurd demands of DNA and genetics. Obviously it doesn't take 100 million years for the hyoid f an ape to become the hyoid of a MH because we only diverged 8 million YA with a possibility of up to 13 MYA. Either way it doesn't work with your math.

unless of intelligent design these discrprepencies can not be reconsiled in evolutionary manner) namely HLA, FOX gene, Hyola neck bone) the unbelievable extreme low genetic diversity of humans

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)

that's a really fancy way of saying you don't understand and don't want to so I'm jumpin' on the jesus train. your assertion is so uincredibly wrong regarding genetic diversity in MH. It varies by population and area. As I said earlier, populations south of the Sahara have a great amount of genetic variation, especially compared to Europeans.

reply to post by adnanmuf


Thanks for the post, OP...this quote intrigues me:

all the mutations observed in nature so far can only cause nothing or cause a disease. never a mutation caused so called evolution. Time can only accumulate disease and degradation in a species., never time cause enhancement (evolution).

reply to post by peter vlar


obviuosly you are disputing that all humans are descendents of one man and one woman who lived between 200 000 years and 20 000 years.
However this is a fact (dna evidence- better than a thumb print evidence) it is beyond doubt and beyond dispute. all scientists agree on it.
secondly the low genetic diversity of humans is also a fact beyond dispute, and all scientists agree on it.

The theory of a bottle neck of one man and a woman or even 2000 or even 10000 is also impossible due to the Minimum viable Population MVP.

Evolutionists insist using logic inference that an extreme bottle neck did not happen.

The Creationists can't agree more with that, because in creation of man there was no bottle neck ever, and there were no humans before MRCA Adam, because adam and eve were created by intelligent design like all other living beings from scratch and were sustained on earth by divine intervention..

species facing extinction with very low Minimum Viable Population need Human intervention.
adam and eve had even better than human intervention called God (divine) intervention.

Evolution theory can not explain why humans descend from a most recent common ancestor in recent times. Creation (theory) can.

creation hypothesis is the only one that explain all this. and then you have to accept it being it the only logical explanation, and you can not accept logic (mind) and insist on remenscing about being a descendent of apes. it is your choice

adnanmuf
reply to post by peter vlar

 

obviuosly you are disputing that all humans are descendents of one man and one woman who lived between 200 000 years and 20 000 years.
However this is a fact (dna evidence- better than a thumb print evidence) it is beyond doubt and beyond dispute. all scientists agree on it.
secondly the low genetic diversity of humans is also a fact beyond dispute, and all scientists agree on it.

nothing like moving the goal posts when treading water eh? your own OP states 20,000 YA not between 200 and 20,000. Either way, yes, I as well as any other Anthropologist will dispute that all modern humans originated with just 2 individuals. The "mitochondrial Eve," to which this claim refers, is the most recent common female ancestor, not the original female ancestor. There would have been other humans living earlier and at the same time. The mtDNA lineages of other women contemporary with her eventually died out. Mitochondrial Eve was merely the youngest common ancestor of all today's mtDNA. She may not even have been human. The same principles find that the most recent human male common ancestor ("Y-chromosome Adam") lived an estimated 84,000 years after the "mitochondrial Eve" and also came from Africa. The results assume negligible paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA, but that assumption has been called into question. Male mtDNA resides in the tail of the sperm; the tail usually does not enter the egg that the sperm fertilizes, but rarely a little bit does. It is also possible that there is some recombination of mtDNA between lineages, which would also affect the results. But these challenges have themselves been questioned. As for low genetic diversity on a global scale, n=you're absolutely wrong. Compare variation between a Fin and a Bantu. Those genetics aren't lying.

The theory of a bottle neck of one man and a woman or even 2000 or even 10000 is also impossible due to the Minimum viable Population MVP.

Evolutionists insist using logic inference that an extreme bottle neck did not happen.

The Creationists can't agree more with that, because in creation of man there was no bottle neck ever, and there were no humans before MRCA Adam, because adam and eve were created by intelligent design like all other living beings from scratch and were sustained on earth by divine intervention..

species facing extinction with very low Minimum Viable Population need Human intervention.
adam and eve had even better than human intervention called God (divine) intervention.

since you used Pandas as an example-

For example, for a theoretical simulation of a population of fifty giant pandas in which the simulated population goes completely extinct, thirty out of one hundred stochastic simulations projected one hundred years into the future are not viable. Causes of extinction in the simulation may include inbreeding depression, natural disaster, or climate change. Extinction occurring in thirty out of one hundred runs would give a survival probability of seventy percent. In the same simulation with a starting population of sixty pandas, the panda population may only become extinct in four of the hundred runs, resulting in a survival probability of 96 percent. In this case the minimum viable population that satisfies the 90 to 95 percent probability for survival is between 50 and 60 pandas. (These figures have been invented for the purpose of this example.)en.wikipedia.org...

[Evolution theory can not explain why humans descend from a most recent common ancestor in recent times. Creation (theory) can.

No, creationism can't explain something that didn't exist anymore than Grimm's Fairy Tale's depict reality.

creation hypothesis is the only one that explain all this. and then you have to accept it being it the only logical explanation, and you can not accept logic (mind) and insist on remenscing about being a descendent of apes. it is your choice

So by your logic if I find any faults in religion it is automatically disproven by inherent logic. Gotcha. I never said anything about being descended from apes, Humans share a common ancestor with the other great apes, because humans ARE APES. I give you a lot of credit for being able to ignore any real evidence and only stick to your talking points so that your case doesn't unravel in front of you.

reply to post by peter vlar

it seems that you are not aware that apes can not speak.
and that the fox gene in humans is so advanced to make them speak this advance require millions of years of so called random mutations evolutionary stuff to happen on that gene.

the statement made by revealed religion is the correct explanation and it even told us about adam and eve being in recent history, which is confirmed beyond doubt by dna evidence.
obviously the one who revealed religion to the prophets is a genius (intelligent as in intelligent design) who had the ability to know about MRCA adam 4k years ago before Molecular biology and advanced technology discovered as a fact (dna evidence). How did he do it unless he can travel in the future and back, or better yet he knows it because he did it





you and anthropolgy pseudo-science can not dispute a finger print evidence, can you?????
net the less a more powerful evidence DNA evidence. this science of dna molecular biology is far superior to anthropolgy-guessing and inferencing based on faulty premises.






MRCA studies are abound in scientific literature, everytime they sample few chimps they come with the number 4.7 million years ago, or 7 million yeras ago, etc etc.
when MRCA is calculated from two or more human dna they always come up with numbers like 100 years ago, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 40000, 120000 years ago at most , they never came up with a number beyond 120000 years ago neither from mother side nor from father side.

the fact that all humans branched from one man and woman in the very recent history disprove ancient history of man unless with a bottle neck of one man and one woman which is impossible scientifically.
in the science of demography humans always number half a bilion on top of every century going back in time for 5k years, why would humans be less than half billion or less than a hundred million at any time before 5000 or 10000 years ago, or million years ago (if evolutionists claim is true)
the existance of the alleged human bones all the way from Australia to china, to africa to every where begs the question why humans should be less that 100 millions in ancient time since monkeys and apes were, cows outnumber humans as of now. why humans numbers should be just few millions or just 700 ooo only when they are so advanced in hunting in raising cattle of unlimited cattle numbers in ancient times jusat like now.

is beyond me. more over a volcano cause a bottleneck in humans but does not erase birds so specialized that can only eat one species of flower or one species of worms, etc.

so really what can i do for you

adnanmuf
reply to post by peter vlar

 

it seems that you are not aware that apes can not speak.
and that the fox gene in humans is so advanced to make them speak this advance require millions of years of so called random mutations evolutionary stuff to happen on that gene.

you keep talking about the 'FOX gene' as though there is only one. it is agene that codes for proteins that bind to specific strands of DNA to operate multiple organ systems in a mammal. The FOXP2 is in both humans and Chimpanzees. The same gene, not an orthologue.

Said geneticist Daniel Geschwind:Said geneticist Daniel Geschwind:

We found that a significant number of the newly identified targets are expressed differently in human and chimpanzee brains. This suggests that FOXP2 drives these genes to behave differently in the two species.

In other words, human FOXP2 causes unique behaviors in other genes.

Added neurology researcher Genevieve Konopka:
Genetic changes between the human and chimp species hold the clues for how our brains developed their capacity for language. By pinpointing the genes influenced by FOXP2, we have identified a new set of tools for studying how human speech could be regulated at the molecular level.

With a slight tweak we could make Chimps capable of speech. It does not, no matter how you trot out the horse, take 100's of millions of years to occur.

the statement made by revealed religion is the correct explanation and it even told us about adam and eve being in recent history, which is confirmed beyond doubt by dna evidence.
obviously the one who revealed religion to the prophets is a genius (intelligent as in intelligent design)

Well that settles it then! Hallelujah! praise be adnamuf for bringing the truth to light. what is confirmed by DNA evidence is the exact opposite of what you postulate.

[you and anthropolgy pseudo-science can not dispute a finger print evidence, can you?????
net the less a more powerful evidence DNA evidence. this science of dna molecular biology is far superior to anthropolgy-guessing and inferencing based on faulty premises.

apparently you haven't taken many science courses or at least not in a long while. If you had you would know that Anthropologists do not sit around a table in a dark room trying to figure out how to pull the wool over all your eyes. for that to be the case you're talking about a multidisciplinary, world wide cover-up of scientific evidence, or in your view the lack thereof. In fact genetic evidence is crucial to understanding the big picture. It's why I'm so confident telling you how wrong you are and how disturbed I am at how little you seem to understand about how science in general works.

reply to post by boymonkey74


They're all over the place because their trying not to deviate from the talking points. nothing outside of a few select tid bits are ever addressed because the creation script doesn't account for it so they have no rebuttal. On a side note, posting in threads that you have also posted in is becoming difficult. my 5 year old is obsessed with your avatar, she wants to know when I'll get her a chimp to wash our cats haha

reply to post by peter vlar


I am not aware of any person came barging in a court room and said"your honor, this thumb print is not tyhat of the defendent because two persons can have the same thumbpints and the thumb print in evidence is that of a man in china"
not even an anthropologist.

genetic geneology/ancestry is so simple a child can understand.

when a mutation happens ona dna it gets inherited unchanged from father to son.
the possibility for a mutation to cancel that mutation is astronomical. it requires a billion generation. if a mutation happened to the supposed father of man and ape it will stay in both for a billion generation (billion multiply by 30 years equal 30 billions years down the future. the mutation will go away from some of the apes and some of the humans only after 30 billion years.
Now there are no common mutations between man and ape.

the mutations in humans started sometime in the past.
the most recent common ancestor will not have any of the mutations that happened after him.
by reverse calculating these mutations we come to most recent common ancestor who lived 1000 generations back (aka 30000 years ago) since every generations bring new mutations. in the human mutation tree we go back to the oldest branches of the tree haplogroup A and haplogroup B, who branched from the most recent common ancestor who had non of the mutations of a and non of the mutations of b.

and this is how they calculated time of MRCA
20000 to 120000 years ago, not one million years ago, or 7 mil.
on the contrary MRCA calculated for several chimps is always in the millions of years