"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Delirium · 08-01-2012 03:15PM

so if Adam and Eve didn't exist at the same time in history, surely that means the bible story you're supporting is a non-starter?

Did Adam reproduce by some form of mitosis?

dlofnep · 08-01-2012 03:50PM

J C wrote: »

Creation Scientists don't argue now that Mitochondrial Eve was Eve of the Bible ... although she could have been, she could also be the most recent common female ancestor of the immediate descendents of the people on the Ark (if this woman wasn't Eve). The same applies to Y-chromosome Adam ... he may be the Adam who was Created by God ... or the most recent common male ancestor of Noah and his family (if this man wasn't Adam). With two genetic bottlenecks in the Human population (at Creation and at the Flood) this creates the possibility that Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve may not be Adam and Eve ... but they could be!!!

Wishful thinking. I 'could' win the Euromillions next week, but the chances of doing so (while much better than your theory) - are very slim. While it is true that the 'estimated' age of our most recent common ancestor may deviate as we gain a better understanding, and as science progresses - that does not build a case for both of them coming from a single couple, or 2 people from the biblical tale of the ark.

But hey - if that's the lengths you are willing to go to, to try and convince yourself that the bible is true - then be my guest. But you're not fooling anyone in this thread except yourself.

J C · 08-01-2012 04:08PM

MrPudding wrote: »

That might be the score in the land of the retards, however, here in the land of reality the score is somewhat different.

MrP

Don't be so hard on yourselves ... most Evolutionists that I know have normal levels of intelligence.

... and it really is 5 - 0 ... and counting!!!:)

dlofnep · 08-01-2012 04:29PM

J C wrote: »

Don't be so hard on yourselves ... most Evolutionists that I know have normal levels of intelligence.

And the rest have extremely high levels of intelligence. You on the other hand are the type of person, that reads the first page of a book and makes a conclusion on it - evident by your quote from The Blind Watchmaker in your signature. Anyone who has actually read the book in full understands why your single quote is asinine, so the logical conclusion is you haven't read the book as you lack the intellectual rigour to do so.

J C · 08-01-2012 05:04PM

dlofnep wrote: »

Wishful thinking. I 'could' win the Euromillions next week, but the chances of doing so (while much better than your theory) - are very slim. While it is true that the 'estimated' age of our most recent common ancestor may deviate as we gain a better understanding, and as science progresses - that does not build a case for both of them coming from a single couple, or 2 people from the biblical tale of the ark.

But hey - if that's the lengths you are willing to go to, to try and convince yourself that the bible is true - then be my guest. But you're not fooling anyone in this thread except yourself.

The fact that all Humans are descended from one man and one woman is supportive of Adam and Eve (as the common Father and Mother of Mankind) and it also supports the genetic bottleneck in the human population that occurred after Noah's Flood ... which could also have resulted in a reduction in Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA diversity that could have resulted a only a single surviving male and female common ancestor for all of Mankind, other than Adam or Eve.

Either way, a single Man and a single woman who were the common ancestors of all of Mankind doesn't support the Evolutionist idea that we are descended from Apes ... which would have resulted in the earliest common ancestor of ALL mankind being an Ape ... or even something further back ... because the first 'men' would have had multiple male and female lineages extending back into their Ape ancestry ... and therefore no common single male or female Human ancestor.

Equally, if the two earliest common ancestors didn't live as a couple, as Evolutionists claim ... then the only way that there could be a single male and a single female common ancestor (that weren't a couple) is if there was a worldwide mass-extinction event that resulted in a very small number of closely related people (like Noah's family) surviving, so that the 'bottleneck effect' would be so severe, that they would have one common male ancestor and one common female ancestor. If there was no worldwide Flood or if thousands of people survived all over the Earth, there could be no single common male or common female ancestor for all of Mankind, as again, there would be multiple surviving male and female lineages running in parallel and extending back to the Apes.

6 - 0

Delirium · 08-01-2012 05:21PM

You're not even reading the link that you post. It says that "Eve" existed between 50,000 and 60,000 years prior to "Adam". That means that your bible parable isn't applicable to that scenario, because for a start the bible says Eve was created from Adam whereas the link you provided says that they didn't even exist in the same century.

J C · 08-01-2012 05:23PM

dlofnep wrote: »

And the rest have extremely high levels of intelligence. You on the other hand are the type of person, that reads the first page of a book and makes a conclusion on it - evident by your quote from The Blind Watchmaker in your signature. Anyone who has actually read the book in full understands why your single quote is asinine, so the logical conclusion is you haven't read the book as you lack the intellectual rigour to do so.

I accept ... and I have never claimed that the quote is representative of the rest of the book ... but it is a very interesting observation.

J C · 08-01-2012 05:30PM

koth wrote: »

You're not even reading the link that you post. It says that "Eve" existed between 50,000 and 60,000 years prior to "Adam". That means that your bible parable isn't applicable to that scenario, because for a start the bible says Eve was created from Adam whereas the link you provided says that they didn't even exist in the same century.

The reason for the big difference in 'ages' between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam is because of the assumed rates of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome mutagenesis ... which are, in turn, based on Evolutionist 'long ages' assumptions.

Delirium · 08-01-2012 05:33PM

J C wrote: »

The reason for the big difference in 'ages' between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam is because of the assumed rates of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome mutagenesis ... which are, in turn, based on Evolutionist 'long ages' assumptions.

and what about the following note in the linked page?

Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the Biblical Adam. This may lead to a misconception that he was the only living male of his times, even though he co-existed with plenty of men around,[6] including his own father who was not the "most recent". However, all his other male contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken male line to the present day.

dlofnep · 08-01-2012 05:36PM

J C wrote: »

The fact that all Humans are descended from one man and one woman is supportive of Adam and Eve

No, it simply isn't - especially since there is nothing to suggest that they were a mating pair. And even if they were, it still wouldn't be supportive of the biblical tale of Adam and Eve.

J C wrote: »

and it also supports the genetic bottleneck in the human population that occurred after Noah's Flood ...

No, I'm afraid it doesn't support that either. These is indeed evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the human population, which is dated back to 70,000 years ago after the Toba super-eruption. Once again, no evidence pointing to the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, or the Ark.

J C wrote: »

Either way, a single Man and a single woman who were the common ancestors of all of Mankind doesn't support the Evolutionist idea that we are descended from Apes ...

I don't think you understand the term 'most recent common ancestor'. It is simply the nearest amount of time we can go back to link a population. It doesn't prove, nor disprove that we were descended from apes. But if you want to examine the compelling evidence that humans are directly descended from apes - then there is a huge amount of supporting evidence - from an advancing fossil record, to comparative studies between the entire human and chimp genome.

RichieC · 08-01-2012 05:37PM

I cant believe hes arguing that noahs ark happened.

dlofnep · 08-01-2012 05:38PM

J C wrote: »

I accept ... and I have never claimed that the quote is representative of the rest of the book ... but it is a very interesting observation.

It's not an interesting observation. What is interesting is the chapters that follow where he explains exactly why it is there is no design involved, nor is there any design required. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote Dawkins without any context, or foresight into his conclusion at the end of the book.

J C · 08-01-2012 06:06PM

koth wrote: »

and what about the following note in the linked page?

I have just shown you why the common male ancestor of all mankind logicaly had to be either Adam ... or somebody who was the common male ancestor of the survivors of a near-extinction event ... the survivors of which were the ancestors of all Humans ... and Noah's Flood is the only plausible candidate for the latter!!!

J C · 08-01-2012 06:09PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

... so you have no answer then ... and all you can do is to go into denial ... and to strike through what I have said!!!

7 - 0

Delirium · 08-01-2012 06:16PM

J C wrote: »

I have just shown you why the common male ancestor of all mankind logicaly had to be either Adam ... or somebody who was the common male ancestor of the survivors of a near-extinction event ... the survivors of which were the ancestors of all Humans ... and Noah's Flood is the only plausible candidate for the latter!!!

No you haven't. You've displayed a lack of understanding of the source material provided. The material says nothing about the Noah parable, and it also doesn't support the creation myth either.

This would work better if you could provide data to back up your support for the biblical creation myth.

J C · 08-01-2012 06:26PM

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it simply isn't - especially since there is nothing to suggest that they were a mating pair. And even if they were, it still wouldn't be supportive of the biblical tale of Adam and Eve.

If they were a mating pair, it would certainly be supportive of the existence of Adam and Eve ... the hints are in the names Mitochondrial Eve ... and Y-chromosome Adam.:)

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I'm afraid it doesn't support that either. These is indeed evidence of a genetic bottleneck in the human population, which is dated back to 70,000 years ago after the Toba super-eruption. Once again, no evidence pointing to the biblical tale of Adam and Eve, or the Ark.

The 'Toba super-eruption' wasn't a worldwide event that reduced the Human population down to one family from a single geographcal location (like Noah's Flood did) ... and which would be required if all of Humanity now has one single male and female ancestor.

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't think you understand the term 'most recent common ancestor'. It is simply the nearest amount of time we can go back to link a population. It doesn't prove, nor disprove that we were descended from apes. But if you want to examine the compelling evidence that humans are directly descended from apes - then there is a huge amount of supporting evidence - from an advancing fossil record, to comparative studies between the entire human and chimp genome.

It is a fact that the Y-chromosomes of all men show that we're all descended from one man ... and our mitochondrial DNA shows that we are all descended from one woman.
If we were descended from Apes there would be multiple male and female ancestral lines running right back to the Apes ... and there would therefore not be any common male or female Human ancestors for all of Mankind.

J C · 08-01-2012 06:31PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I have no answer?

A situation that Evolutionists commonly find themselves in ... when it comes to origins issues!!!:)

8 - 0

Delirium · 08-01-2012 06:31PM

J C wrote: »

If they were a mating pair, it would certainly be supportive of the existence of Adam and Eve ... the hints are in the names Mitochondrial Eve ... and Y-chromosome Adam.:)

They weren't a mating pair, your link says as much. And even states that people, like yourself, are prone to making incorrect assumptions about "Adam" and "Eve" due to the names they were given by whoever put forward the hypothesis.

RichieC · 08-01-2012 06:32PM

Super eruptions are global events.

dlofnep · 08-01-2012 06:35PM

Er, you still don't understand what the 'most recent common ancestor' is, do you?

J C · 08-01-2012 06:36PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you explain, in the simplest possible terms, without any of the dancing around the point you seem so fond of, how Noah's flood is the only plausible candidate?

Because it is the only worldwide extinction event, that resulted in only one family of Humans surviving ... and such an acute genetic bottleneck would be a pre-requisite to all Humans having a common male and female ancestor ... the only other way that this would be possible, is if all Humans are descended from one man and one woman.

J C · 08-01-2012 06:41PM

RichieC wrote: »

Super eruptions are global events.

Yea, they can result in extra dust in the atmosphere on the far side of the Earth ... but they don't have the precision that they result in demise of everybody on Earth ... but for just one family!!!!

dlofnep · 08-01-2012 06:48PM

J C, before we go any further - Please explain to me what your understanding of what the 'Most Recent Common Ancestor' is? It is futile to proceed any further until we're clear you understand what it means.

RichieC · 08-01-2012 07:01PM

J C wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

Super eruptions are global events.

Yea, they can result in extra dust in the atmosphere on the far side of the Earth ... but they don't have the precision that they result in demise of everybody on Earth ... but for just one family!!!!

Noones saying it did. They say it left about a thousand humans.

dlofnep · 08-01-2012 07:02PM

Also J C - it might be beneficial to you if you could also inform us that you are aware of the existence of Nuclear DNA, which isn't inherited matrilineally... And perhaps elaborating how it fits into your idea of all humans are descended from Adam and Eve.

Sarky · 08-01-2012 08:53PM

His answer will probably involve cfsi, and thus be complete horse sh*t.

Queue J C claiming ad hominems and dodging intellectual honesty like it was the plague.

J C · 09-01-2012 01:04AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So you read the linked page, decided most of it was bull**** anyway, then took a small part of it that vaguely backed up what you had to say?

I read the the whole thing.

Love you all ... and Jesus loves you too.:)

Sonics2k · 09-01-2012 01:34AM

J C wrote: »

I read the the whole thing.

Love you all ... and Jesus loves you too.:)

Really?

Last time I met Jesus he punched me in the gut because I'd said his girlfriend looked like a saggy, less attractive Selma Hayak.

Wait. Are we talking about the same guy?

joseph brand · 09-01-2012 01:58AM

J C wrote: »

I read the the whole thing.

Love you all ... and Jesus loves you too.:)

Is this real love? You see, I'm rather cynical. And we haven't even met. It's a very sweeping statement.

Mr. Boo · 09-01-2012 02:49PM

J C wrote: »

I have already asked which dimension to the CFSI found in the genomes of living creatures, you are denying.

... are you denying that it is Complex?
... or Functional?
... or Specified?
... or Information?

... and the silence that these questions have received proves that CFSI is a valid scientific descriptor of genetic information.

It has already been said, more than once, that the fact that genetic information is complex (which is debatable, given that it consists of a fairly basic code), functional, specified does not mean that it fits your CFSI. This CFSI is simply a creationist concoction formulated after years of questioning backed up by mounting, impartial scientific evidence.

The last sentence quoted here points out the flaw in your thought process. Just because every spurious emission you post here is not answered, does not make you right.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments