This Guy Makes A Good Point!

[Keeper]

Evolutionists, bring your notes!

[Ynot]

right, ok first, what's this macroevolution stuff? evolution's evolution in my book 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? (See pages 6–8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 17.)[/b] well, evolution happens over millions of years you can't "see" it happening we haven't been around long enough to "see" it but you can see certain little things happening, which in themselves maybe don't mean a lot people are getting taller, and people's feet and hands are getting bigger look at any preserved medieval castle in the UK, and you can see that quite clearly. their beds are about 5 ft long the head-height through doorways is about 5'6" evolution? maybe, who knows "What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs?.....If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ?" hmmm, little bit of poetic licencing, me thinks no creature has ever "gained" a vital organ small creatures would absorb oxygen directly through their skin into the blood stream (a technique that catapillers still use today) the bigger the creature gets, the more this passive oxygenation system needs help there was a creature - pre-dinosaur (forget it's name now) that had a hole right through it - top to tail with muscles at each end it would relax both muscles, and air would fill the hole and then close the muscles, and the air would be trapped "inside" the creature (but outside of it's skin) this allowed for a quicker absorption of oxygen (greater surface area) it doesn't take a great imagination to see this further developing into a primative lung arrangement creatures didn't suddenly have lungs their existing system slowly adapted around it anyone want to do question 2?

[Ynot]

2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 14.) How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page 19.)[/b] again, slowly you have a sea creature that feeds on plankton plankton grows where the sunlight is creature needs to know where the plankton is creature gains the ability to "sense" sunlight through it's skin swim toward the "sensed" sunlight with your mouth open bingo - food special skin further develops .... you can see where this is going 3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 11.)[/b] all the fossils ever dug up are transitional all living creatures today are transitional evolution doesn't go in fits and starts it's the slow, gradual change that happens to a species over a long period of time there is no transition 4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? (See page 12.)[/b] bad example on the authors part insects are one of the earliest forms of "modern" creatures ever found the reign of insects makes the dinosaurs look like amateurs insects have been around since flowering plant-life, that's about 350 million years 5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time. (See page 14.)[/b] lol how did life begin well, if we knew that, we wouldn't be having this discussion I'll leave the rest for someone else

[TweaK]

Sorry for the offtopic, but what's up with all the threads ? You seem to be creating a gazillion

[Ynot]

it's e-Evolution the more topics like this the more likely the forum will "evolve" into a creationism Vs. evolution board it all aids our secret ploy

[TweaK]

I don't mean that. I mean the fact he creates about 2-3 threads a day

[Ynot]

6 - 9 are crappy questions with no way to "answer" them 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.)[/b] they are lumps of rock they will spin whatever way the forces of gravity and collisions with larger objects tell them to spin 11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system? (See page 26.)[/b] it's a lump of rock in orbit around the earth how can you argue that 12 - no possible answer 13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 28–30.)[/b] they are balls of gas that have been drawn together though gravity as matter is packed together, it increases in temperature stars have undergone self-nuclear-fusion due to the extreme temperatures these temperatures propel hydrogen atoms toward each other at such a rate, that they overcome the nuclear repulsion, and fuse into helium atoms this releases massive amounts of energy 16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 31–37.)[/b] I think our solar system is fairly young our sun isn't half way through it's life span, yet 17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page 45.)[/b] floods kill people, destroy crops, and can plunge a society into famine this tends to stick with a culture in the form of legends told to it's children

[Keeper]

I cant help myself Mark. I need to make threads!!! I think you are exagerating the number, though. Besides, when I have aquestion, how else to ask? And when I find something, where else to put it? Ynot, I think that your answers arn't very exact. Example: Light sensors. HOW did it learn to do that? And if one learnt to do that, why didn't it become more sucsessful then the other single celled orginisims?

[Ynot]

Ynot, I think that your answers arn't very exact. Example: Light sensors. HOW did it learn to do that? And if one learnt to do that, why didn't it become more sucsessful then the other single celled orginisims? [/b] I don't bloody know read up on it make your own mind up

[Keeper]

I'm just saying why your answers dont make sence to me please dont hurt me! *cowers*

[Ynot]

I'm just saying why your answers dont make sence to me please dont hurt me! *cowers* [/b] no, if I were to hurt you for not thinking how I do I'd be religious no hurt intended *edit* a quick wikipe'd brought this up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

[dreammask]

I decided to copy the "20 questions for evolutionists" from that page so people don't have to go and read through them all... no copyright infringement if we cite it... http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ By the way, Keeper, people don't like having to dig through web sites to find whatever point you're trying to make, so it would be easier to just copy and paste the appropriate points, with a link to the full page, when you want to make points like this. It's just easier for people to get to what you're trying to say. Twenty Questions for Evolutionists To answer a question satisfactorily, one must first understand facts related to that question. When you click on the page numbers following each question, you will be taken to a brief section within the online book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. There you will see why knowledgeable evolutionists have great difficulty answering these questions. If you find evolutionists who feel they or others can answer these questions, then ask one more question: “Why won’t evolutionists enter a strictly scientific, written debate on the creation-evolution issue?”; After you read the entire book, the answer will be evident. For details on this written debate offer, see pages 372-374. 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? (See pages 6–8.) If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (See page 17.) 2. Do you realize how complex living things are? (See page 14.) How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? (See page 8.) How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place? (See page 19.) 3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? (See page 11.) 4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? (See page 12.) 5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? (See page 14.) Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time. (See page 14.) 6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books’ worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? (See pages 9 and 15.) 7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? (See page 15.) 8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? (See page 18.) How could immune systems evolve? (See page 18.) 9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? (See page 24.) 11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system? (See page 26.) 12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? (See page 27.) What about water? (See page 24.) 13. How could stars evolve? (See pages 28–30.) 14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old? (See pages 34–37 and 292–297.) 15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination. (See page 33.) 16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young? (See pages 31–37.) 17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? (See page 45.) 18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago. (See pages 289–291.) 19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their source—and a powerful launcher, “the fountains of the great deep?” (See page 275.) 20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth: The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons Mid-Oceanic Ridge Continental Shelves and Slopes Ocean Trenches (See pages 135–155.) Seamounts and Tablemounts Earthquakes Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Formations Methane Hydrates Ice Age Frozen Mammoths (See pages 201 –232.) Major Mountain Ranges Overthrusts Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Strata and Layered Fossils (See pages 157–169.) Metamorphic Rock Limestone (See pages 193–199.) Plateaus Salt Domes Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Changing Axis Tilt Comets (See pages 233–263.) Asteroids and Meteoroids (See pages 265–283.)[/b]

[Keeper]

sorry, Dreammask, guess I'm a bit lazy. I'll start doing that soon, though I want people to read the whole thing, and not just extracts.

[Bonsay]

Ynot, I think that your answers arn't very exact. Example: Light sensors. HOW did it learn to do that? And if one learnt to do that, why didn't it become more sucsessful then the other single celled orginisims? [/b] It didn't learn it, I believe it's called coevolution. I really don't believe that the creature just decided to follow the sun to get plankton. And besides this happened over millions of years so they both had time to adapt. The simplest organisms are the most succesfull ones. They had a predator-prey relationship, there is a special dinamical balance between a predator and a prey: I guess something like, more plankton-more food for the creature, so there is less plankton after some time. Because there is less plankton there is less food for the creature and so there are less creatures and so on... hope you understand what I was trying to say.

[dreammask]

“Why won’t evolutionists enter a strictly scientific, written debate on the creation-evolution issue?” Because saying things are complex and not fully explained is NOT, in any way at all, indicative of a creator. Besides the fact that this question doesn't make any sense whatsoever... if no evolutionists are part of this "strictly scientific" debate on Creation vs. Evolution, then how would this "debate" yield any results other than creationism? Granted, if they were really being scientific, they'd realize they have no proof of creationism either, as well as no overwhelming evidence against it, which is the whole reason there are intelligent creationists out there. 1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? It really doesn't matter. I'm an evolutionist and I don't really care about examples of macroevolution within our lifetimes. That's like saying, "Where has God creating new species ever been observed?" Nobody would be able to quote the Bible either, since nobody was actually there to see it happen, and even if the Bible were usable as a primary resource, the fact that it was written long after the Biblical creation would place enough doubt on the story to be considered flimsy at best. Not to mention that Christians would balk at the suggestion of using other religious historical accounts as primary examples of things that really happened just so. Can you use religious examples? Sure, but not as primary evidence for anything. 2. Do you realize how complex living things are? Yeah... and? Complexity is no evidence of divine intervention. The formation of crystals can be very complex, but it's a completely natural process. If some creator designed them that way, that's all good and dandy, but doesn't negate evolution. 3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? [. . .] Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? We do see "transitional" fossils. People, especially scientists, who deny this are simply blinded (read as "biased") by some belief they held before looking around them. Then there's the point that Ynot made, that there are no actual "transitional" fossils because evolution is not a process of moving from one distinct form to another... that just happens to be what occurs over millions of years of evolution... forms distinct from long-previous forms come to exist, with or without the survival of the old form. You want "transitional" forms? Look at the differences in primates over time. They did NOT all exist at the same time. Look at homo erectus and homo habilus in comparison to homo sapien, and keep their time of existence in mind while you do so. 4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? Look in a more specific textbook. 5. How could the first living cell begin? This argument is really the argument for the existence of God based on a necessary beginning and end to everything. The obvious conundrum of this argument is that if everything has a beginning and end, then God too must have began at some point. And if God can be eternal, then why can't all things be eternal as well? Why does there have to be a beginning of oxygen and helium? If there is an infinite timespan within which life can possibly develop, why insist it couldn't have happened without intervention? 6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. [. . .]Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source? This is two questions... what natural process creates information, and that the complexity of nature necessarily lends itself to the existence of an intelligent designer. First, life is a strictly natural process that creates - you start with a single cell and you end up with a living creature (if everything goes well). I won't even address the second question because I already did. 7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA? Who cares? Chicken or egg? What does it matter? This question also assumes that everything that exists now is exactly as it always was... which is stupid because it ignores the debate altogether. 8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve? Another two-part question. I don't see why that's such a tough problem... we still have critters whose sex changes, and we have critters that reproduce a-sexually. What's to say that things haven't changed over a very long period of time (which is how it would necessarily happen), during which time there would have been a lot of different ways of reproducing? I don't understand the immune system question either. Um... critters with cells that attacked bacteria and what-not survived better than critters without such cells.. natural selection. hello. 9. Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? I'm getting tired of these repeated questions about intelligent design. I did want to mention that nobody thinks hydrogen will turn into anything... it's an element. Go take a chemistry class... sheesh. 10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? Because of their orbits, gravity, impacts, sources, etc? Oh wait, maybe it's angels pushing them around like that... that does make more sense, you know. 11. . . . Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? . . . What on earth is this guy talking about? Evolutionary theories for the moon's origin? Gimme a break... Evolution is the development of critters, not chunks of rock. 12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? What about water? Nature. Oh, and water comes from two hydogen and one oxygen. I'm skipping 13 because I don't feel the need to add anything to Ynot's answer. 14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old? What, like the inability for it to be otherwise? Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is approximately 6000 years old? If you, or anyone you know, is having a hard time discerning which to believe - the billions of years old theories or the 6000 year old theory - you should go study up on all evidence for both theories and decide which one is more reasonable to believe. 15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Despite what they said, contamination is a definite possibility (and I'd like to see definite proof). Oh, and bacteria can be found in rocks because, well, some bacteria eats rock, and some bacteria can get through tiny fissures in rock. It's a pretty stupid question. 16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young? Yeah, only a few billion years old. 17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends? Because floods happen a lot. Why do so many ancient cultures have legends of earthquakes? How about famines? Oh wait, here's one... Why do so many ancient and modern cultures have multiple gods? 18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago. So they found the "missing link," eh? Funny I didn't learn about that in my anthropology degree program. Still cool though, if it's not a hoax... still, they're probably not even human. Maybe homo erectus. Wait a minute.. I just looked at the pages it refers to... they studied the mtDNA of 147 women and the Y chromosomes of 38 men and decided, based on THAT, the origin of all humans? What a crock of s**t. You can't even do a study within one US city that small and have people believe your results are definite... and this study was supposed to be of all the world's human population. We can defenestrate this "evidence." 19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their source—and a powerful launcher, “the fountains of the great deep?” Of course, and we're also the center of not only the solar system, but of the universe. Didn't you all know that? I thought we figured this one out a long time ago. Sheesh. "20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth: " The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons - water Mid-Oceanic Ridge - plate tectonics Continental Shelves and Slopes - plate tectonics, geomorphology Ocean Trenches - plate tectonics Seamounts and Tablemounts - plate tectonics Earthquakes - plate tectonics Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor - earth's shifting magnetic poles Submarine Canyons - plate tectonics Coal and Oil Formations - compression of previously living matter Methane Hydrates - I don't know that one off the top of my head Ice Age - We're still in it, so I don't know how to answer that one. Global temperature shifts? Frozen Mammoths - Mammoths that got stuck and froze. Major Mountain Ranges - plate tectonics Overthrusts - plate tectonics Volcanoes and Lava - heat and pressure Geothermal Heat - nature Strata and Layered Fossils - old stuff gets laid down first, followed by newer stuff Metamorphic Rock - rock that changes with heat and pressure Limestone - squished sandstone Plateaus - who? Salt Domes - that's when you knock the whole salt shaker over onto the table Jigsaw Fit of the Continents - plate tectonics Changing Axis Tilt - wobbly planet Comets - balls of ice going really fast Asteroids and Meteoroids - balls of rock going really fast Okay, that was fun. ^_^ Hey! My quotes didn't work! argh... Sorry 'bout that... hope it's not too hard to read.

[Keeper]

sorry, but crystals actaully are very simlpe in there complexity. Crystals are just paterns. Pritty, complex patterns, but paterns none the less. [edit] oh, and well you gave some good answers, I regret to say that not all of what you said made sence.

[The Blue Meanie]

very simlpe in there complexity.[/b] You realise how completely stupid an oxymoron that is?

[dreammask]

sorry, but crystals actaully are very simlpe in there complexity. Crystals are just paterns. Pritty, complex patterns, but paterns none the less. [edit] oh, and well you gave some good answers, I regret to say that not all of what you said made sence. [/b] Lol. If that's the only issue you have with the whole post, I'm doin' pretty good!

[Hard as Nails]

hmmm....a debate between creatonists and evolutionists.....hmmm..... Option 1) Animals confrom to best fit their environment over millions of years. This has been proven when moths in England changed from brown (the color of tree trunks) to black (the color of sut) so they could hide easier (the sut from the factories turned the trees black). Option 2) Everything was blinked into existence in 6 days (btw, how the hell do you have days before the earth and sun were created) i know who would win. The creatonists. They will always bring up questions that cannot be answered with science. They will ask \"why do babies look so cute\" and \"where did emotions come from\". Really, creatonists are pretty good at basing their beliefs on something that cannot be proven or disproven. We call that god.

[Ynot]

Option 1) Animals confrom to best fit their environment over millions of years. This has been proven when moths in England changed from brown (the color of tree trunks) to black (the color of sut) so they could hide easier (the sut from the factories turned the trees black). [/b] actually, the "peppered moths" was discredited a while ago they gave outside assistance to the black peppered moth population and the fact people beleived the findings (even after fairly extensive scrutiny poked holes in it) gave light to the almost "religious" acceptance of evolution amoung some people Irony at it's best, really but, hey......

[dreammask]

actually, the "peppered moths" was discredited a while ago they gave outside assistance to the black peppered moth population and the fact people beleived the findings (even after fairly extensive scrutiny poked holes in it) gave light to the almost "religious" acceptance of evolution amoung some people Irony at it's best, really but, hey...... [/b] Meh, who cares... there are plenty of other examples of evolution working... they're just not so popular. He does have a point though. I mean, babies are cute.

[Tsen]

Good posts, Dreammask and Neruo. Unfortunately, apparently Keeper doesn't get it--which speaks a lot about his supposed proficiency in biology. By the way, Keeper, here's a question for you. The speed of light is ~300,000,000 meters per second. It travels ~9 500 000 000 000 000 meters in a year. The Andromeda Galaxy is ~24 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 meters away. That means that light leaving the Andromeda Galaxy will take about 2.5 MILLION YEARS to reach earth. But the Andromeda Galaxy is quite visible...and it isn't even the most distant visible galaxy. So how does this mesh with your concept that gawd created the universe 6,000 years ago? Did he magically create the light in transit, so it would reach us more than a million years early?

[Nanten]

This is probably overkill, but here goes: "1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html "2. Do you realize how complex living things are?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html "3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html "Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html "5. How could the first living cell begin? " http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html "6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information." http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html "7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html "8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html "How could immune systems evolve?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html "10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards? " http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html "12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from?" http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE440.html "18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago." I quote, from Wikipedia: "Ingman et al. (2000) repeated the study while avoiding its major pitfalls: "* They sampled 53 persons, 32 of whom were Africans from different regions of sub-Saharan Africa. "* They sequenced the complete mtDNA but excluded the rapidly evolving D-Loop in the analysis. "* An outgroup (chimpanzee) mtDNA sequence was used to root the tree (outgroup rooting). Outgroup rooting is much more reliable than midpoint rooting. "The study by Ingman et al. verifies the major conclusions of Cann et at. that is: a recent (172 ± 50 kyr) African origin of human mtDNA." Therefore, Mitochondrial Eve did not live 6,000 years ago.

[Tsen]

Not only that, but the Mitochondrial Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve that the study theorized would've lived more than a thousand years apart, therefore were NOT in any way related to Biblical ancestors. Link-heavy post, Nanten, but it did the job well. Perhaps we all should start doing that--why waste the time writing out answers? Keeper consistently refuses to write out questions, only posts links to pages to do that for him, so why shouldn't we do the same?

[sargentpepper882]

"5. How could the first living cell begin? " a popular theory fairly widely accepted throughout teh scientific community is as follows(no yelling at me for mistakes, just yell at my memory): Beginning of Earth--semi-solid molten rock, volcanos, oceans of sulfuric acid, ammonia atmosphere throughout hundreds of thousands of years of certain pools of liquid being zapped by lightening, massive heat, mineral rich surroundings, massive amounts radiation--first simple simple DNA structures form out of some acids and sugars. Evolve for a little bit, consuming the ammonia in the atmosphere they way modern life comsumes oxygen. The waste of these organims is oxygen. Eventually, all or most ammonia is converted by these organisms into oxygen. No ammonia left, these organsims die. process happens again, this time, the new organisms thrive on oxygen. Eventually, beginning of autorophs(cells that make their own food through sunlight, i.e photosynthesis) which provides a constant supply of oxygen. evolution yay--humans the argument that the chance of this happeneing is so minute, listen to this the same odds are beeing placed against every second of every day of ever. After millions of years, of something being put against odds a practically infinite amounts of time, its goign to happen eventually. organisms dont get new organisms that help them live when they need it, the ones that already have them through genetic defects beat out the ones that don't--survival of the fittest