All Blue-Eyed People Are Related

[gallo]

Quote by: Chancellor It amazes me the way the evolutionist idiots come up with such nonsense and expect us essentially to ignore their use of words like "probably" as they try to convince us that their speculations are to be taken as fact.

It isn't speculation. It is based on evidence. I said probably because the age is based on observed rates of mutation in mtDNA and the Y-chromosome. The findings come from the field of population genetics. Although I have studied population genetics (my text: Gillespie, John H. Population Genetics. 1998. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. 174 p.), I found the math to be quite daunting and I lack the skill to explain it to you, as well as the knowledge to represent the math on this board.

Words like "probably" are used because an exact date is uncertain. Certainly, the dates given are within a few thousand years either way.

Question: If there was a matrilineal common ancestor to humans, how did she procreate without there being a patrilineal common ancestor at the same time?

Because she procreated with one or more males in her population. I should have said our most recent matrilineal common ancestor lived about 140,000 years ago, while our most recent patrilineal common ancestor lived about 60,000 years ago. The oldest, modern human fossils that have been found were from Africa, 2 skulls from Omo from about 195,000 years ago, and 3 from Herto from about 160,000 years ago. So our most recent common ancestors lived somewhere in Africa, since they are ancestral to all modern humans. But our most recent patrilineal (X-chromosome) ancestor lived shortly before our species exited Africa.

[gallo]

Quote by: Domino There may have been, but no evidence remains.

Actually, there most certainly was a male that mated with our most recent matrilineal ancestor. Otherwise, her mtDNA would not have been passed down to us. It's just that the male(s) with which she mated are not our most recent patrilineal ancestor. That individual, who lived some 80,000 years after the mtDNA Eve, mated with a female descended from the mtDNA Eve

It seems that, several thousand years later, all but one male died without successful progeny, so evidence of patrimony before that time is now gone..

It isn't that all but one male died. It is that all but one lineage eventually became extinct. Many descendants of the mtDNA Eve might have still been around at the time of the X-chromosome Adam, and they may have been around for thousands of years afterwards. But all other lineages but that one became extinct or interbred with that lineage. Evolution happens in populations, not individuals.

[gallo]

Quote by: Isherwood You may cease to be amazed. Evolutionary biologists want you to notice their use of terms like "probably" so you won't be so foolish as to try to take their speculations as fact.

Not speculation but approximate ages based on evidence.

Science doesn't produce "facts", it presents the best answer that accounts for all the currently known evidence.

Exactly. The facts of science are the observations that are explained by tested theories.

The evolutionary process is better understood these days than it was in Darwin's time, and no doubt will be better understood in the future, or perhaps even replaced by an answer that better accounts for evidence not yet found.

Certainly true. I think Darwin would be amazed by the proliferation of biological specialization the has arisen from his few theories, and support his theories.

Science doesn't produce absolute facts. It's only religion that attempts that futile exercise.

Indeed. Science observes facts and offers tested explanations. Religion assumes the conclusions and rejects facts that disagree.

[Suburbanite]

123

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: Chancellor I don't.

I do only as a possibility

Because it takes two humans to procreate and, thereby, pass on the genetic traits.

Further because species change due to mutation takes place in numbers not singularly!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo But, of course, SoylentGreen, you are correct and Chancellor is not. A new genetic trait arises in a single individual, and even though another member of the population is necessary for reproduction, it is not necessary for that allele to be present in both. Thus, even though it takes two to procreate, it is not necessary for both to carry the allele in question in order to pass it along.

No, I am correct - the trait does not get PASSED ON without the second person's participation in the reproduction process. In other words, the trait cannot be passed on to successive generations unless procreation occurs - and that process cannot be accomplished by one single individual.

If you're going to disagree with me, you damned well had better get it right!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kuldeep Further because species change due to mutation takes place in numbers not singularly!

This is a really silly statement since the "numbers" are a combination of singular individuals. You don't get the "numbers" without the "singulars."

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo It isn't speculation. It is based on evidence... Words like "probably" are used because an exact date is uncertain.

Which makes it speculation.

Certainly, the dates given are within a few thousand years either way.

Again, it's still speculation - guesswork.

Because she procreated with one or more males in her population. I should have said our most recent matrilineal common ancestor lived about 140,000 years ago, while our most recent patrilineal common ancestor lived about 60,000 years ago. The oldest, modern human fossils that have been found were from Africa, 2 skulls from Omo from about 195,000 years ago, and 3 from Herto from about 160,000 years ago. So our most recent common ancestors lived somewhere in Africa, since they are ancestral to all modern humans. But our most recent patrilineal (X-chromosome) ancestor lived shortly before our species exited Africa.

Ah, yes, so the guess work continues. Notice words like "about" and "shortly."

And you people expect the rest of us to take science seriously?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: gallo Not speculation but approximate ages based on evidence.

"Approximate" is still speculation, still guess work.

Exactly. The facts of science are the observations that are explained by tested theories.

Tell that to the numerous anti-religion idiots who spew forth on boards such as this or on news shows proclaiming to the world how evolution is "fact" - even though none of them have actually observed one species evolving into another.

Indeed. Science observes facts and offers tested explanations. Religion assumes the conclusions and rejects facts that disagree.

Is it really "facts" that science observes or is it phenomena that science observes? Oh, and if you're going to make statements about religion, you damned well had better get it right! Religion doesn't ASSUME anything and it doesn't reject "facts."

[gallo]

Quote by: Chancellor No, I am correct - the trait does not get PASSED ON without the second person's participation in the reproduction process. In other words, the trait cannot be passed on to successive generations unless procreation occurs - and that process cannot be accomplished by one single individual. If you're going to disagree with me, you damned well had better get it right!

I did get it right. You're just moving the goal posts. SoylentGreen's point was that a single individual could be responsible for introducing a genetic trait into a population. That is correct. You disagreed and claimed that it took two to procreate. Either you missed the point in the first place, or you expressed yourself so badly that your words implied that two individuals would have to have that trait. That's not true. As I correctly stated, in procreating species a single individual can pass a new trait into a population by interbreeding with any number of the opposite sex.

However, you are actually quite wrong. The introduction of a new trait into a population can and is accomplished by one single individual. Organisms that are parthenogenetic introduce new traits into a population without interbreeding.

If you are going to disagree with someone, then you should make more effort to be clear.

[gallo]

Quote by: Chancellor Which makes it speculation.

No. It is based on evidence. No matter how much you don't like it or how much you don't understand, it still isn't speculation.

Again, it's still speculation - guesswork.

Not really. At least it isn't based on a belief in magic and mythology.

Ah, yes, so the guess work continues. Notice words like "about" and "shortly." And you people expect the rest of us to take science seriously?

I would never expect you to take science seriously. I am puzzled that you use a computer and probably drive a car. But do you go to a witch doctor when you get sick?

Quote by: Chancellor "Approximate" is still speculation, still guess work.

No it's not. That is just your failure to understand the English language and the process of science.

Tell that to the numerous anti-religion idiots who spew forth on boards such as this or on news shows proclaiming to the world how evolution is "fact" - even though none of them have actually observed one species evolving into another.

Some of them have. Species evolution is pretty obvious. Sometimes humans cause the evolution to happen on purpose. You just don't seem to know enough about science to grasp what is being talked about.

Is it really "facts" that science observes or is it phenomena that science observes?

The observations are the facts.

Oh, and if you're going to make statements about religion, you damned well had better get it right!

Why? You don't seem to feel any obligation to get anything right. You just babble on without comprehension.

Religion doesn't ASSUME anything and it doesn't reject "facts."

Again, you're being silly. Religion assumes the existance of some sort of supernatural being. Some religions assume that the mythology of ancient, bronze age herdsmen is somehow the word of this assumed supernatural, magical being. Many religious people, based on their mythology, reject the fact that the earth is very, very old and that the universe is much older than the earth. Based on religion, some reject the fact of common descent, even of quite similar species. And of course, religion rejects the fact that we can no nothing about the supernatural.

[loser]

Certainly true. Actually, our matrilineal common ancestor probably lived about 140,000 years ago, while our patrilineal common ancestor lived about 60,000 years ago. Molecular biologists humorously refer to them at Adam and Eve, even though the lived some 80,000 years appart

You'd need an excellent sense of humor (as well as a furtive imagination) to believe that. Of course, that belief would solidify the sarcastic meaning of the first statement...yep, real geniuses.

There may have been, but no evidence remains. It seems that, several thousand years later, all but one male died without successful progeny, so evidence of patrimony before that time is now gone..

Or, they never existed. Instead, mankind began with one male and one female. No need to perform hoop tricks and fantastical fairy thoughts...just simple facts is all that is needed. I love science fiction as much as anyone but I am grounded in science fact, a trait woefully lacking in most so-called scientists.

Science explains the evidence.

Except where 'scientists' reject the truth. There, science reverts to superstition, fallacy, and propaganda. Although science validates the wisdom of a very few, it simultaneously promulgates the ignorance of the vast majority. It's only as good as the hands to which it is entrusted. The pseudo-science being foisted upon an unsuspecting audience is to true science as what alchemy is to true chemistry.

Why are people so pathetically gullible?

And you people expect the rest of us to take science seriously?

I take science very seriously...it's the 'I'll pretend that I'm smarter than you but I really don't have a clue scientists' that I take exception to.

SoylentGreen's point was that a single individual could be responsible for introducing a genetic trait into a population. That is correct.

And if we call that "single individual" God, what then?

Not really. At least it isn't based on a belief in magic and mythology.

Actually it is. The Christian religion is based on evidence and fact and it completely lambasts magic, superstition, and mythology; whereas evolution only exists in those realms and has, in fact, no place in reality.

Some of them have. Species evolution is pretty obvious. Sometimes humans cause the evolution to happen on purpose. You just don't seem to know enough about science to grasp what is being talked about.

'Species evolution' is implied in the Bible. What isn't supported, however, is the fanciful fallacy that all life has a common ancestor. It asserts, instead, that the different 'kinds' of animals were created from the very beginning...you know, like in genetic engineering.

Again, you're being silly. Religion assumes the existance of some sort of supernatural being. Some religions assume that the mythology of ancient, bronze age herdsmen is somehow the word of this assumed supernatural, magical being. Many religious people, based on their mythology, reject the fact that the earth is very, very old and that the universe is much older than the earth. Based on religion, some reject the fact of common descent, even of quite similar species. And of course, religion rejects the fact that we can no nothing about the supernatural.

According to your definition of religion, then, Christianity is not a religion...at least, TRUE Christianity. Actually, while decrying religionists' lack of understanding in matters of science (or, specifically, evolution), you display a total ignorance concerning religion.

For example, did you know that Christians were initially called 'atheists' because they refused to believe in mythology (in oher words, the hundreds of gods and goddesses worshipped in the Roman and Greek cultures)? Not suprisingly, it is these very same superstitious cultures of Rome and Greece from which our current laws and sciences originate. Is it any wonder that science is still saturated with superstition and mythology?

You don't know much about 'ancient' man. The Pantheon, an engineering marvel that still rivals any that exist today, is over 1800 years old, built by Hadrian, although originally it was built by Marcus Agrippa, son-in-law of Augustus. The concrete used to build this enormous dome (without the use of any reinforcing iron rods) still surpasses in quality any made today.

Your "ancient bronze-age herdsman" or their peers may have been almost as superstitious as present day evolutionists but they were indeed much smarter than their atrophied-brain counterparts of today.
As mankind's intelligence deteriorates with each passsing millenium, it is one of life's ironies that each generation thinks itself smarter than the one before. As mankind becomes more ignorant, his ability to recognize his ignorance diminishes.

Whatcha gonna do...

[rez]

Quote by: Chancellor Which makes it speculation.

Chancellor, I don't know if you know this or not, but an exact date is not going to change the evidence. Scientists are not perfect, so they are not going to come up with number that is based on a specific time period that ranges in the thousands. For instance the years that this happened could of been between was 10 b.c.e. and 1000 b.c.e. For all we know it could of happened in 95 b.c.e. The evidence does not become irrelevant because an exact date was given.

I don't know if you are grasping at straws or what, but this was a pretty simple thing to understand if you could read the text.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SoylentGreen FOXNews.com - Scientist: All Blue-Eyed People Are Related - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News Eye color - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Apparently a recent mutation but man has been living in those areas for a lot longer than 6 to 10,000 years. So what would be the cause for such a mutation.

So what, all human beings are related if you trace it back far enough. No matter what kind of eyes they got.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: rez Chancellor, I don't know if you know this or not, but an exact date is not going to change the evidence.

Exact is what makes it evidence and not speculation.

Scientists are not perfect, so they are not going to come up with number that is based on a specific time period that ranges in the thousands.

Since science insists that it is the sole arbiter of reality, it had better be perfect. There is no place for speculation in science.

For instance the years that this happened could of been between was 10 b.c.e. and 1000 b.c.e. For all we know it could of happened in 95 b.c.e. The evidence does not become irrelevant because an exact date was given.

It isn't evidence, it's speculation.

I don't know if you are grasping at straws or what, but this was a pretty simple thing to understand if you could read the text.

I read it and there was a lot of speculation going on. Speculation is not evidence.