Sciencescience

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 11:30 AM

Misunderstanding (or other) of the Concept of mtEve

Our evolutionist colleague shows his ignorance of basic science in posting this:

mtEve is the most recent female ancestor of the human race, not the first female ancestor. mtEve had both female and male ancestors herself. So the laughable attempt of Creationists to equate her with the Biblical Eve fails on definitional grounds. PBS Eons provides an excellent definition of mtEve:

First only females pass on mtDNA.

Second the most recent ancestor of the human race not the first? Well human DNA shows only approx. 6500 years as subsequent research has shown- especially factoring in mutation rates.

So what would the most recent female ancestor be around 6500 years ago? According ot evolutionist time frames homosapien neandertalis and homo sapien sapien coexisted and that neandertal went extinct c. 45k years ago!

19 replies, 350 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 11:38 AM

1. mtEve undoubtedly had a mother, probably sisters, certainly first, second, third,... female cousins

All that happened is that the lines of female descent from those other women became extinct.

This is a normal statistical effect. See for example the limited number of patronymic surnames in Korea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 02:41 PM

7. Well according to both models of origins

Evolution mtEve would have been the first true homo (whether erectus, neandertal sapien) someone had to be the first!

Creation- she would have been teh literal eve and the first created human!

Well as both evolutionist and creationist scientist agree that all of modern mankind descend from 3 genetic trunklines the only argument is the age and how they got there in the first place!

Followers of Christ accept the recorded history as written with its subsequent genealogies that run right up to Jesus and trace the founding of the varied nations!

Evolutionists rely on ages that have been proven to be totally unreliable, and multiple trillions and quadrillions of mutations over eons of time that they cannot demonstrate, replicate or even give one answer to validate!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:43 PM

8. Our colleague still has no clue what Most RECENT Common Ancestor means

as he shows in the post above. Why is this so hard?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 03:54 PM

9. Like calling them genetic trunklines.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2019, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Who the fuck calls them trunklines?

Edit: I did find a reference to it being called a trunk line here.
From 1891.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27896870.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 04:28 PM

10. Yet he persists. He claims that...

“Well according to both models of origins
Evolution mtEve would have been the first true homo (whether erectus, neandertal sapien) someone had to be the first! “

He simply does not understand this is a completely erroneous statement regarding the scientific definition of mtEve. She could have had a mother and multiple siblings whose “trunklines” all became extinct and therefore she, not her mother, would the Most Recent Common Ancestor. Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2019, 04:31 PM

11. I just edited.

I found a reference to a trunk line.
From 1891.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 07:28 AM

12. well as I am not dealing with MCRA

your post is irrelavent

evolutionists talk more than just MRCA they also talking of when lines diverged (like ape and men)

If you want to talk about MRCA let me know

do try to keep up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2019, 10:45 AM

13. I think we've isolated the problem. Our colleague simply does not understand the

concept of mtEve. Despite the fact that in post #7 he attempts to speak for those “evolutionists”and despite the fact that he has started this thread on the topic, he has no clue as to the definition of mtEve:

“Nolidad
well as I am not dealing with MCRA
your post is irrelavent
evolutionists talk more than just MRCA they also talking of when lines diverged (like ape and men)
If you want to talk about MRCA let me know
do try to keep up”

He doesn’t (or won’t) understand that mtEve is defined as the Most Recent Common Female Ancestor. Therefore, discussing the topic with him has no merit. However, while I would not accuse our colleague of any such doings, this technique is common amongst Creationists. They misrepresent science and then argue against those misrepresentations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 07:56 AM

14. Just a reminder

MRCA is a generic term that context determines meaning.

If looking for the MRCA of men and apes-one has to find when Australopithecus and homo diverged. That is the MRCA of homo and ape. Granted that is a simplified answer but it is accurate.

But as you ignore the proven genetic fat that all mankind descend from three genetic trunk lines and that those three lines all descended from one - It is you who have mtEve and MRCA bolluxed up.

Remember even in Evolution which believes that mankind descended from the Australopithecus- there has to be one woman who left being... I guess they would have been labelled homopithecus? And be true homo! There always has to be a first!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 08:13 AM

15. The Human Family Tree: 10 Adams and 18 Eves

The book of Genesis mentions three of Adam and Eve's children:
Cain, Abel and Seth. But geneticists, by tracing the DNA patterns
found in people throughout the world, have now identified lineages
descended from 10 sons of a genetic Adam and 18 daughters of Eve.

The human genome is turning out to be a rich new archive for historians and
prehistorians, one whose range extends from recent times to the dawn of human existence.

Delvers in the DNA archive have recently found evidence for a prehistoric human
migration from Western Asia to North America; identified the people who seem
closest to the ancestral human population; and given substantial weight to the whispers,
long dismissed by historians, that Thomas Jefferson fathered a family with his slave Sally Hemings.

A new history of Britain and Ireland by Norman Davies, ''The Isles,'' (Oxford University Press)
begins with an account of Cheddar man, an 8,980-year-old skeleton from which mitochondrial
DNA was recently extracted. The DNA turned out to match that of Adrian Targett, a teacher
in a Cheddar Village school, proving a genetic continuity that, despite numerous invasions,
had endured through nine millenniums.

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/02/science/the-human-family-tree-10-adams-and-18-eves.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 07:33 AM

16. Actually they narrowed it down to 3 eves

Last edited Sat Feb 23, 2019, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

human genome project and encode are rich with more definitive info than a 2000 article.

https://www.icr.org/article/new-dna-study-confirms-noah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 01:56 PM

17. Thanks for this. Just read it

As someone who has done graduate work in linguistics, particularly IE, it’s gratifying to see genetics confirm much of what we’ve known and hypothesised for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 05:09 PM

18. At least he was honest enough to say "we believe".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 05:14 PM

19. Human genome project narrowed it down further!

Human DNA Variation Linked to Biblical Event Timeline
BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * | MONDAY, JULY 23, 2012

Each person is different, and each, except an identical twin, has unique DNA differences. These differences can be traced across global populations and ethnic groups. Furthermore, recent research provides interesting insight about the approximate time that these DNA differences entered the human race.

A new study reported in the journal Science has advanced our knowledge of rare DNA variation associated with gene regions in the human genome.1 By applying a demographics-based model to the data, researchers discovered that the human genome began to rapidly diversify about 5,000 years ago. Remarkably, this data coincides closely with biblical models of rapid diversification of humans after the global flood.

The vast majority of DNA base sequences between any two humans are nearly identical, so the few differences are traceable among people groups. The human genome project has continued to analyze thousands of humans throughout the world for variation in their DNA sequence. Researchers link this variation with many human traits and heritable diseases.2

Typically, this variation is evaluated using single DNA base differences or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) between individuals and populations. Because of the type of standardized "gene chip" technology commonly used, most SNP analyses evaluate only the most variable parts of the human genome and, therefore, exclude the much less variable protein-coding regions.

The recent Science study analyzed the DNA sequences of 15,585 protein-coding gene regions in the human genome for 1,351 European Americans and 1,088 African Americans.

The data proved ideal for examining the course of human genetic variation over time, partly because protein-coding regions are less tolerant of sequence variation than other parts of the genome; these regions record more reliable, or less "noisy" historical genetic information.

Typically, evolutionary scientists incorporate hypothetical deep time scales taken from paleontology or just borrowed from other authors to develop and calibrate models of genetic change over time.3 In contrast this Science study used demographic models of human populations over known historical time and known geographical space. The resulting data showed a very recent, massive burst of human genetic diversification.

The authors wrote, "The maximum likelihood time for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago." Old-earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why—after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans—human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?

However, the same data conforms to and dramatically confirms biblical history. Since the author's date represents the maximum time, the actual DNA diversification event probably occurred even sooner. A biblical time scale indicates that a global flood occurred about 4,500 years ago, and this closely correlates with the time scale of the researcher's estimate.

The Bible clearly indicates that modern humans descended from Noah's three sons— Shem, Ham, and Japheth—and their wives. Such a dramatic reduction (bottleneck) in the overall size of the human population would certainly have been followed by a burst of genetic diversity, as it does in many animal populations.4 The genetic data from this research paper spectacularly confirms key biblical events and their Bible-based timelines.

References

Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.
McCarthy, M. et al. 2008. Genome-wide association studies for complex traits: consensus, uncertainty and challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics. 9: 356-369.
Thomas, B. Circular Reasoning in Polar Bear Origins Date. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 9, 2012, accessed July 13, 2012.
Custance, A. 1980. The Seed of the Woman. Brockville, Ontario: Doorway, 73. Also available online at custance.org.
* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted on July 23, 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 12:57 PM

2. Wrong.

As usual.

Males have been found to pass down their mtDNA in rare cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 01:07 PM

3. I'm not sure why our Creationist Colleague even threw that into the mix

“SatansSon666
2. Wrong.
As usual.
Males have been found to pass down their mtDNA in rare cases. “

I guess it was because I said mtEve had a father?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 01:08 PM

4. Him and oflguy are really outdoing themselves today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 01:13 PM

5. Yeah, it took a little time yesterday, but I think I really livened up the Science forum

He is now just splattering it with ICR pseudoscience. There’s one by Master Thomas that starts off (paraphrasing): “If science hasn’t proven Adam didn’t exist, why shouldn’t we all believe he did.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 01:16 PM

6. Lol..

Then you got oflguy "direct quoting" me, but paraphrasing at the same time, that's quite a feat! Hahaha

He even went on to make an OP trying to poke at me for saying that at computer model of the earth's magnetic field isn't actually magnetic.
I think he really believes that the computer model is an actual magnetic field and not a representation of it.
It's very, very odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience