Thread: Out Of One Man, All Of Humanity

Wow. Now I've got something to talk about tomorrow.

Sources?

Im not saying I dont believe it, as I do, but I'd still like to see the proof.

Wow i hear that we also decended from 11 women

It sounds weird but it is not really; just math and common sense. We all had a singele common female ancestor, we all had a single common male ancestor. Do you think because you had 2 parents, 4 grand-paretns, 8 great-grand-parents, etc. that there used to be a lot more people on earth? We have common ancestors who converge to one person; that doesn't mean that these individuals were the only people on earth at the time.

A weird fact: everyone who lived 2000 years ago is the ancestor of everyone who lives today. That sounds strange, but can be proven mathematically.

Yeah, a source on that would be great. We all know the dangers of inbreeding I assume? I don't see how a species can evolve from 2 people and not be genetic trash based on what we know of people (Country bumpkins and Royalty) who have inbred for generations.

Sources, please. Because I think its a load of crap.

Our DNA is 99.5% the same as that of chimpansee's. Oh my fucking gawd. How can you say we are all linked to one man? How can you even say it was a man? There is so much cross-breeding in the course of history that probably everyone is related to each other. If no one was related, it would mean there had to be 6billion x 2^80 people around in roman times. Since everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8... ect.

yea....except that would mean there was a first of EVERY animal, and not just humans........which really doesnt make any sense.


so!!! the christians are still flawed!!!!

both of you, sorces, now (oh, and moonbeam, I read that, to. pritty cool, eh?)

we need evedence from both you and Neruo, Chaos.

Originally Posted by Keeper

both of you, sorces, now (oh, and moonbeam, I read that, to. pritty cool, eh?)

we need evedence from both you and Neruo, Chaos.
[/b]

http://www.primatesworld.com/HumanMind.html

Human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimps and bonobos, a lesser-known chimp-like ape.

-

Hmmm, I allways thought it was a percent more then that. Well still. We allso match like 50% with earthworms.

Neruo, it depends on whether you include "junk DNA". Junk DNA is present in all organisms, but doesn't do anything.

I totally agree with Neruo here. Nice evidence.

Chaos Psyche: firstly, I think all of us would like to see proof before we start to open our minds to your opinion... and secondly, even the people who WROTE the bible didn't mean for it to be taken literally, so don't go talking about Adam and Eve being literally the first two humans in existence --- evidence: In genesis chapters 3-4, Adam and Eve's son, Cain, is banished to the Land of Nod for killing his brother, Able. Somehow, even though in the bible god created only Adam and Eve, Cain has children of his own by finding a wife in the Land of Nod. Therefore, since this is not literally possible, the teachings must be considered as figurative.

I'm afraid not, Neruo

I'm afraid not.

[edit] Patrick, Cains wife was his sister. Gross, I know, but it is still there.

What about Noah? The flood? One family left? Ark of animals?

Just wanted to throw that out there.

Your first link was wrong, Keeper. I've mentioned it hundreds of times, the percent that is the same is mostly based on whether junk DNA is included in the measurement or not. Second, chimps and humans have been evolving in a divergent path for hundreds of thousands of years--of course there are differences. How much? We don't know yet, until we finish sequencing the genes, but it doesn't matter much if we have other proof of common ancestry.
Proof such as Endogenous Retroviruses. I've mentioned them before, but you apparently didn't listen. The ONLY way that two species can have the same remnant of a retrovirus infection is if they were previously the same species and diverged over time. This is because each retrovirus infection is unique because of transcription errors.
Humans and apes share retrovirus infections. They cannot have been infected separately, because there would be differences in the transcription errors, which are, for all purposes, random. The ONLY way that they could have gotten there would be if the initial infection happened when humans and apes were members of the same species.

Originally Posted by Chaos

Scientist's have proven, with DNA samples taken from all over the world, that we are all genetically linked to one man. Basically, it started with one man. Gives creedance to the bible's claim that Adam was the first Human Male Being. [/b]

Well, yeah... they proved a long time ago that all homo sapien sapiens originated in Africa and migrated from there. (I don't really care if anyone believes me or not... if you want to see, however, go look it up). HOWEVER, they can't trace it back to -one- man/woman/whatever because, well, that one person hasn't exactly been found. Saying that all humans have a common ancestor is saying that we're all human... duh.

...or it could be that God is a race of super-advanced extra-terrestrials that genetically engineered Adam and Eve and before we blow ourselves up they return to stop it, and say they are our creator and that all the shit in the bible about lights in the sky and chariots of fire, was in fact their spaceships. Who knows, and even still, someone had to create them. And with complete control over the particles and atoms, all the miracles in the bible that were performed, it was them behind the seens, through telepathic communication with the man they were using at the time. And so you have a religion formed out of ignorance, but now that we ourselves have advanced enough to comprehend this (with technology that they themselves let us find, and reverse engineer) we can see what it really is. Science
[/b]

Side note to Tsen: I'd like to commend you on your methods of argumentation.

Originally Posted by Tsen

Neruo, it depends on whether you include "junk DNA". Junk DNA is present in all organisms, but doesn't do anything.
[/b]

Actually that is a prove For evolution too : Junk DNA has no real use directly, but it does make it less likely that important stuff will get messed up by the always present mutations that happen in evenyones DNA, even when I am typing this.

A creator wouldn't put useless junk (DNA) in people, evolution does, becouse evolution is a passive process, and things sometimes happen sloppy, aslong as it 'works' (survives).

-

Keeper, those two articles do not really convince me. Especially the first. The man that wrote that didn't search for the truth, he just wanted to prove (to himself) that his (thaught) ideas of creation were still correct. People that try to disprove a theory, like evolution, just becouse of their religious ideas often makes bad un-objective scientists.

Scientist's have proven, with DNA samples taken from all over the world, that we are all genetically linked to one man. Basically, it started with one man. Gives creedance to the bible's claim that Adam was the first Human Male Being.[/b]

It doesn't really say that at all. Y-chromosomal adam (which I'm guessing is what you're talking about) is just the most recent common ancestor from which the y-chromosome in all living men are descended. It does not in any way say that this was the first, or only, human male living at the time. He's just the earliest one to have an unbroken line of descent. Just because they used a name based of the genesis myth doesn't mean it is validating the bible in any way.

Just in case that doesn't stop people thinking it does - adam's counterpart Mitochondrial Eve lived around ~150,000 years ago, while adam lived ~90,000.

Keeper:

I'd stop looking at sites like the ones you posted and start looking at reviews or studies written by actual scientists. The first article you posted is clearly trying to validate his beliefs, and is ignoring/misrepresenting facts to do so. For example:

"It must also be noted that chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs, so there is a definite discontinuity."

Sure, this seems like something that would help prove the assumption that evolution is wrong. Except, if the writer was to look any further than this basic fact he'd find that the reason for this difference is that, in humans, two of the ape chromosomes have fused together. That an article can use this fact against evolution should highlight the need to reading things written by qualified people, not just christians who need to prove evolution wrong to justify their beliefs.

I'm a little confused: why is it that whenever I post a link, you automaticly think it is wrong, but all your links are the Word of God?

Originally Posted by Keeper

I'm a little confused: why is it that whenever I post a link, you automatically think it is wrong, but all your links are the Word of God?
[/b]

I don't automatically think your links are wrong, I do read them first. It's just that after a while creationist claims tend to repeat themselves so I've already looked into it, or have a bunch of resources on hand. What I say in response (and link to support) is definitely not the word of god - but I guess you meant that figuratively .

The main reason that the links I've posted (in this thread at least) are more acceptable than yours is that they are either written by scientists, or heavily referenced to actual scientific studies. These people have definite areas of expertise, and within them they know what they're talking about. You're linking to sites written by people who are outside their area of expertise, and who don't show any evidence (ie. references) of having given this 'evolution' thing more than the cursory look needed to get some easily debunkable ideas out of them.

The people you should listen to on the subject of evolution are scientists (specifically biologists, earth scientists). I'm not saying you should just believe what I'm telling you, I don't expect you to. Whatever I link to check the references, and learn what evolution actually is to judge if what they're saying is worth the ... uh... pixels displayed on your monitor.

okay, I get you. But not all the links are done by none-scientists.

though I sapose that now I must only post "high qualite" links

There are very few scientists in relevant fields who are also creationists. There are plenty who believe in god, but the vast majority accept evolution and a old-earth. The thing is, even if you do find some papers written by the small intersection of biologists and creationists, you'll never avoid the fact that (hardcore biblical literalist) creationism can only be correct if a wide range of sciences are very incorrect. And that is just not the case.

But, as I said, don't take my word on it - read up. But take relevant scientists' word over creationists.

of course, the fact that at least some scientists beleive is evedence that the data doesn't EXPLICITLY say that they disproove God.

No, but it does explicitly disprove beliefs some religious people have. Evolution unequivocally disproves the notion that god created man ex nihilo. Just as paleontology, archeology, geology and biology (miss any?) disproves the notion of a young earth.

You can still believe in god and accept evolution or any other science quite easily, you just cant tie unscientific beliefs into your religion. Well, when I say "cant" I really mean "wont if you want any level of credibility". Not that this stops lots of people doing so.