Girl saying the tsunami in Japan is an answer to her prayers.

I don't think I made my point clearly enough (well I know I didn't). I don't mean ancestors in "recent" terms. I mean at the point of separation from the populations that went on to become apes. At some point there will be a set of individuals that take a different path and lead to Homo sapiens, these will likely be a small population (although we are an amalgamation of what should be 2^a-large-number-of-generations of ancestors the vast majority of these are shared). That small population will then lead to all the current Homo sapiens. That small population (and even if it were a large population and went back far enough) though will have a most recent common ancestor itself. And even if it takes a long time and the mitochondrial eve is the same for all the Hominidae or even the Primates then there is a mitochondrial eve. The only way there couldn't be a mitochondrial eve is if life (or probably more correctly eukaryotes) arose from more than one point and could sexually reproduce with each other.

Maybe I just hideously miss the point about why its important. Is the eve much more recent than expected, or perhaps its unexpected that the eve was a Homo sapiens?

 

It was my understanding that Mitochondrial Eve is, or rather was, a single woman who is currently believed to have lived roughly 200,000 years ago. The fact that the definition of the Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor of all humans living today with respect to matrilineal descent would seem to indicate that we're talking about a single woman, not a group of women.

Also it's my understanding that population bottlenecks aren't really necessary in order to create common ancestors, they might lessen the gap between present day and the time at which the most recent common ancestor lived but that's about it. We'd all still have a common ancestor even if there hadn't been a population bottleneck.

It should also be noted that Mitochondial Eve is only one of a number of most recent common ancestors that can be traced back to depending on what genetic information you're relying on. For example, there's Y-Chromosomal Adam who is the most recent common ancestor for all living humans with respect to patrilineal descent and was believed to have lived around 50,000-60,000 years ago.

Is there really such a big deal made out of mitochondrial eve? As you say there is always going to be one because matrilineal lines die out and you can trace back through time using matrilineal descent as your guide to find that only one woman living in a certain period has any ancestors still living today. It just happens that the current day Mitochondrial Eve lived about 200,000 years ago probably somewhere in Africa. In the future that will change just as in the past it will have been different. To be honest I'm not even sure why Mitochondial Eve was even mentioned in the first place because I don't think she's all that relevant to a discussion of evolution.

 

Krazeh, mitochondrial eve was brought up by me in response to thehippoz constant false argument that we all came from one... "butsekks monkey". I postulated that such ideas as mitochondrial eve and y-chromosomal adam were what he was thinking of, rather than the drivel of everybody going back to one like some kind of genetic singularity. It was an argument against his ignorant, unfounded view of the evolution of mankind being a mystery or somehow shrouded in magic coupled with his basic misunderstanding of genetics. Long story short: my bad. Sorry.

Nope, Dawkins isn't a drunk. I do believe you're thinking of Hitchens, who is a renowned drunkard, chain smoker, and quite a bully. He also happens to be very eloquent, informative, and isn't afraid to speak his mind.

Why do people keep insisting that you've no grasp of the scientific method, how science is performed, or who is behind it all? Because you've demonstrated an obvious lack in information within this particular field. As has been noted by others in this thread only a couple of your creationist scientists actually study biology, which is kind of important. Let me put it bluntly: calling somebody a scientist doesn't make them an expert at everything - they've just gone through the particular training for a chosen field of inquiry. Beyond their training, any opinion they express should be taken as just that: opinion. You wouldn't take a juris doctor's opinion about your sore knee, now would you? What about if he was really well trusted within his field? The same is true about taking a philosophers word on the propagation and transmittance of AIDS if it flies in the face of germ theory. This is all to say that in no way did I confer that a philosopher was a scientist (beyond the abstract way that one could say that it is a science), just that doctorate is to doctor in the same way that a scientist is to science. They're not equal, division of labour and all that. I also feel the need to reiterate that the concept of evolution has been with us for at least two thousand years, but was out and out rejected by the religiously devout because of the doctrine about the absolute truth of creation. Peer pressure can be a powerful thing.

You gave a few names, I'll give you one hundred, one names, courtesy of the Discovery Institute.

 

All you've really demonstrated is that you're an a*hole who doesn't listen.

 

All you've really demonstrated is that you throw a hissy fit when you are unable to sustain a reasoned argument.

Somehow I'm not entirely surprised, but mind the potty mouth, will you?

 

Can't you guys take the conversation back to gingers? I'll add my name to the list!

 

Hey pal, I don't know where you grew up but here in the 21st century, we don't use words with those letters. This word is quite offensive to people!

 

+rep

 

I seem to recall some research published a few years ago which indicated that the 'ginger gene' was a result from breeding between Neanderthals (the gingers) and Cro-Magnon man (our ancestors).

 

haha well this has gone rapidly off topic.

 

There was a topic?

 

My bad, this thread absolutely rocks, I've read every word. Then it got a little 'serious'.

 

More like a debate among masters... sorry.

It's always intresting when everyone gets abit hooti-tooti on the serious section

 

I'm sorry. I stepped out of line there. I feel a little trampled on and backed into a corner.. so I mean... I'm gonna lash back when someone accuses me of being ignorant of the scientific method. I don't feel that I am and I'm not really trying to make any kind of scientific claims either. The problem with creation vs evolution is that it can be both a philosophical and a scientific debate and the lines can get blurred sometimes.

My point about the other scientists was that they were respected scientists and that their opinions were also respected. I didn't claim it was some sort of scientific evidence that evolution didn't happen.

I did state several times in this thread that my beliefs are drawn somewhere in the middle of creationism and evolution.. theistic evolution if you will but leaning heavily on the theistic side. I still don't believe that evidence is conclusive enough for me to agree 100% with evolution, but that is my opinion.

I've been told that I'm demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the scientific method, stating

I never said that. Nor did I state that their opinions were anything more than just that. As an opinion you can choose to agree or disagree with them, but you can't tell me who's opinions I should agree or disagree with. If I disagree with you it doesn't mean that I don't understand the scientific method, it just means I think differently than you.

You've shown me some transitional fossils, I stand corrected on that. I honestly never knew we had so many.

The whole list of scientists originally started as an argument against "there are no scientists who disagree with evolution" it was nothing more than that. There might not be many, but there are some who disagree. Then it was picked apart saying "these guys don't count because..." ... guess it really went off from there. I even revised the little list to include people during or after Darwin's lifetime and who's expertise involved biology. But it didn't seem good enough.

On that list Louis Pasteur is probably the deal breaker for me with his ideas on Spontaneous Generation (in that it doesn't happen). The foundation for evolution is that first "primordial soup" so to me it's wonky to think that life could arise out of that in the first place.

I want to also mention that a lot of mathematicians are on those lists because it's mathematicians who work on things like string theory and quantum physics and the like. I think it's worth mentioning this because creation involves more than just placing humans on a planet, it's the creation of the entire universe and all matter and energy in it.

Somewhere we touched on Lucy a couple pages back and I wanted to share this and see what you thought about it. It's a reprint from apologetics press so try not to be put off immediately about that. What's interesting is the quote of Johanson near the end about bias.

Again, I'm sorry that I swore and I'm sorry I called you an a*hole. I definitely stepped out of line.

 

For a start, creation and evolution are not comparable: there is no creation vs. evolution debate possible. Evolution does not in any way deal with the origins of the universe, life or anything like that. it deals with the development of life once we already have replicating organisms.

The foundation for evolution is not in any way the primordial soup or abiogenesis. Evolution is very well understood. Abiogenesis not so much. However, evolution does not depend on one origin of life or another, just the presence thereof. It is a fallacy to say that that is uncertain and therefore evolution is too. They are not inextricably linked.

A good analogy is the origins of the universe and the big bang/ expansion. We know very well about the expansion and cooling of the universe following the big bang, yet we do not know anything before it (the first few milliseconds of the universe). Does not make the Big Bang Theory any less valid or weaken the evidence.

Again, the mathemeticians may be relevant for the origins of the universe. In theistic views, the creation of life and the universe may be linked. But in science, they are totally different fields with very little linkage. Expertise in the origins of the universe does not indicate any knowledge whatsoever in evolution.

Interesting. The only mention i find of the ribcage is in creationist websites, and there are no scientific articles on Google Schoklar tat I can find on the subject. So I am sceptical on that evidence against. The pelvis was apparently wrongly reconstructed initially and the modified, so I would take the part about the pelvis with a pinch of salt. It also fails to menion the femur and knee which indicate uypright walking. As for the diet, I don't think that is a definitive way of deciding whether or not something walked upright.

Overall, all it seems to say is that Lucy shared characteristics with both other apes and humans, as would be expected in an ancestor of that age.

 

In the 1980's a small team of scientists offered an alternative to quantum physics called the string theory. These people were rejected and made mockery for decades by their own colleges because they disagreed with main stream science (and scientific methods used) and that it was bad for grants.

Simply because one theory dominates amongst the science community does not automatically make the theory accurate or true, it can be accurate, as based on following the framework of the specific scientific method used, but that doesn't mean it would be accurate, it's funny how things work.


Please note:
This was not me questioning or supporting either approach, It was me making a point.

 

Why the f*** do these threads always degrade to religious flamewars?

 

I'll just leave these here
Evidence of common descent
Level of support for evolution

 

Because we're all entitled to our opinion and in this case we're having a debate about it. It always does because our beliefs are the things we hold dearest and to have them challenged can bring the backs up on some people.

If it gets out of hand, Nexxo steps in and swings his golden tallywhacker around and everyones calms down with a sense of rationalist for a page or two.

 

That's kind of the problem, right there: for you the debate is emotional/spiritual, not rational/scientific. You feel that the theory of evolution challenges the existence of God, and therefore, your religious beliefs.

Nobody is challenging your faith. Science holds no opinion on God. God falls outside of our physical realm and hence is scientifically untestable.

However the very attempt to seek proof of God's existence is a denial of faith. This is why I don't buy the Intelligent Design crowd: not only are they engaging in bad science (testing the h1 hypothesis "There is a God" rather than the h0 hypothesis "There is no God", so to speak); they are engaging in bad faith. If you believe, you don't need proof, because proof is of the physical realm, not the spiritual.