It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: adnanmuf
read Wikipedia Mrca or Y chromosomal Adam
Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.
"Those two people didn't know each other," said Melissa Wilson Sayres, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study.
These primeval people aren't parallel to the biblical Adam and Eve. They weren't the first modern humans on the planet, but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today.
The rest of the human genome contains tiny snippets of DNA from many other ancestors — they just don't show up in mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA, Hammer said. (For instance, if an ancient woman had only sons, then her mitochondrial DNA would disappear, even though the son would pass on a quarter of her DNA via the rest of his genome.)
originally posted by: adnanmuf Whilst evolution is a scam putpotrated by fake science of observations and lying about what observed.
Researchers must trace ancestry along both female and male parental lines, and rely on historical and archaeological records.
originally posted by: adnanmuf
Science by definition. If you did not is experimentation not observation.aka laboratory testing.
DNA is not observation.
DNA proved dinosaur was birds before any other observations. And that paleontology was wrong about them being lizards.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: randyvs
Then why hasn't this god of yours produced more of said evidence if he is so insistent on everyone believing in him? Seems kind of odd that he would rely on testimonials of people from thousands of years ago to be the ONLY evidence of his existence that hasn't degraded over time when (according to the bible) he could produce said evidence easily and without much afterthought.
Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE just MAYBE belief in god isn't required to go where ever you are destined to go once you die? I know a thought like that is anathema to religion, but in all likelihood it is the most likely explanation for god and his not providing evidence for his existence. If he exists that is.
originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: tsingtao
Certain people?... lol... You mean the entire basis (the bible) for the religion right?... If you read the bible there is a heck of a lot of anthropomorphism in there... if you are trying to say that you don't anthropomorphise god, then you're interpreting it with modern understanding, proving that the "book" isn't an accurate historical record... merely stories with loose historical basis, and open to interpretation.
Actually, the Christian god is exactly like all those other obsolete god's... The story goes that He has a son... who funnily enough looks exactly like us, angels are portrayed as humans with wings... etc.
How did "god" make us in his image if there aren't similarities? Are you suggesting there are no physical similarities with your god? Are you saying that "his image" only applies to our spiritual self? (if you didn't notice, the soul and inner self are another anthropomorphism).
I don't think that god sits on a cloud with a beard, so no need to condescend me, but millions of others have thought that... and still do. The fact that you can come up with that visual image yourself proves my point.
My view of a god... if there is one... is much closer to Olaf Stapledon's "Starmaker".
originally posted by: tsingtao
Jesus was God in the flesh, part of the trinity. lots of people saw Him and He is not disputed to have been on earth.
are you saying that DNA science is based on observtion.and finding the mutation rate is based on observations. .you areout out of your mind..
originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf
I am a tad confused... Your posts seem to indicate that you believe studies of DNA have proven that the most recent common ancestor to all living humans was rather recent. While I do not discredit the conclusion (I agree that the most recent common ancestor was relatively recent, speaking on a geological timescale...) I must remind you to read your own sources... It was not DNA that was the basis of these claims, but mathematical models of DNA. DNA, itself, has proven nothing at all. Likewise, the models are just models based on observations of mutation rates and a few other assumptions.
See, to me, those models are less reliable than the models predicted in paleontology based on observations of fossil faunal succession, paleoenvironments, and the assumption of uniformitarianism. I grossly misrepresent this to a point of simplicity, so forgive me for that, but my point is that fossils are physical entities which can be seen, can be divided into stratigraphic layers, can be used to predict (oil/gas), and can be examined with your own hands. DNA cannot be examined with you hands and eyes (alone), cannot easily have mutation rates measured, and can only be observed, much like fossils.
What I am trying to so inelegantly say is that I am dumbfounded by your acceptance of a scientific concept based on observations while simultaneously dismissing another scientific concept equally based on observations... Can you please clarify?
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Actually there is little historical dispute other than from professed believers that christ did not exist so that point is null and void based on biased point's of view and the sheep that are lead by there authors.