The fact that neo-Darwinists premise their notions, ideas, concepts and theories about common ancestry and common descent on the biblical story of Adam and Eve is proof enough that evolutionist "theory" is premised on a religious belief and concept to start with.
Wow... is that an ignorant statement for this forum.
No one 'premises their concepts" about common ancestry on the bible. If you are referring to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, those are just names given to our common DNA ancestor, not how they arrived at these ancestors.
Wow... is that an ignorant statement for this forum.
No one 'premises their concepts" about common ancestry on the bible. If you are referring to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, those are just names given to our common DNA ancestor, not how they arrived at these ancestors.
In Eve's Case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_EveWe know about Eve because of mitochondria organelles that are passed only from mother to offspring. Each mitochondrion contains Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). A comparison of DNA sequences from mtDNA in a population reveals a molecular phylogeny. Unlike mtDNA, which is outside the nucleus, genes in nuclear DNA become mixed because of genetic recombination, and therefore we can be statistically less certain about their origins. Diversity is magnified in mtDNA and population bottlenecks are particularly magnified (Wilson et al 1985).
Just as mitochondria are inherited matrilineally, Y-chromosomes are inherited patrilineally. Thus it is possible to apply the same principles outlined above to men. The common patrilineal ancestor of all humans alive today has been dubbed Y-chromosomal Adam. Importantly, the genetic evidence suggests the most recent patriarch of all humanity is much more recent than the most recent matriarch, suggesting that 'Adam' and 'Eve' were not alive at the same time.
They got there by finding how far back our DNA bears similarities with each other. Eve was the name given the single woman whose all of humanity's COMMON ANCESTOR via DNA, not religion.
She lived 150,000 years ago in Africa, and we are ALL descended from her via DNA evidence. Because some scientist thought it was funny to give her the mythological name, that means DNA is mythological?
QUOTE
Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation story by Wilson, has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living female of her time — she was not (indeed, had she been, humanity would have probably become extinct). Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of mitochondria that persists today.
Imagine a family tree of all humans living today. Now imagine a line from each individual to their mother, and continue those lines from each of those mothers to their mothers, and so on. Going back through time their mitochondrial lineages will converge as sisters share the same mother. The further back in time one goes, the fewer mitochondrial ancestors of living humans there will be until only one is left — this is the latest common matrilineal ancestor of all the humans alive today, i.e. Mitochondrial Eve.
Now, going in the opposite direction of the family tree (from ancient times to today), imagine the same line, which now connects mothers to their daughters. Starting with the entire human population alive at some time in the past, lineages will become extinct as women die childless or only have male children. Eventually, only a single lineage remains, which is the same as before.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal (female-lineage) ancestor for mtDNA, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineage, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 150,000 years ago, the MRCA is estimated to have been living only a couple of thousand years ago.
Hope that helps.
CactusCritter
7th July 2006 - 07:01 AM
My congratulations and admiration to all who so thoroughly squelched jcrawford's weird claim.