It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out
Creationism is to be taught in religious classes alongside other stories from the bible. It has nothing to do with Science, and therefore it is idiotic to teach alongside scientific theories.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
So you cant address the rebuttal. I tell you what, I'll make it easier for you. Show me EXPLICITLY where in the paper it supports creationism, because the abstract says this:
the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out
So in addition to the shoddy nature of the paper, it doesn't even support your conclusion! LOL!!!
So again:
1) Why can't you address the rebuttal?
2) Show us where in the paper it supports creationism
Have a good day.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: GetHyped
I answered you question numerous times.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Boadicea
Yes, be a good creationist and pick up your ball and go home when you realize you're not in an echo chamber. At least the thread can get back on topic now.
A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms. The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.
originally posted by: Boadicea
So let's get back to the OP.
Age Confirmed for 'Eve,' Mother of All Humans
A maternal ancestor to all living humans called mitochondrial Eve likely lived about 200,000 years ago, at roughly the same time anatomically modern humans are believed to have emerged, a new review study confirms. The results are based on analyses of mitochondrial DNA. Found in the energy-producing centers of cells, mitochondrial DNA is only passed down the maternal line, and can be traced back to one woman.
One woman. Not two. Not half a dozen. Not a hundred. One. Where did she come from? Maybe she was a mutant. Maybe she was a product of evolution. Maybe she was created by our Creator out of thin air, and this is why her mitochondrial DNA cannot be traced back to a mother. She was the first. There is no evidence to prove her origins one way or another. I do know that she was created... and she obviously came from somewhere... and we all came from her. Given that we know that various "humans" have been identified -- homo-erectus, homohabilis, homosapiens -- and that she did not evolve from those subspecies, and that other subspecies have become extinct, there is much room for hypothesizing... including creationism.
Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution.[37][38][39] However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:
is not a fixed individual
had a mother
was not the only woman of her time, and
Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her sexual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.
And, of course, given that evolution cannot explain her existance
In human genetics, Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA), in a direct, unbroken, maternal line, of all currently living humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, in an unbroken line, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".
Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living person in the present day.
but creationism can,
creationism therefore becomes the default position... for me.
It is actually far more complex in my head, but I put it in the simplest terms possible for you.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: GetHyped
You haven't once shown a "logical" reason for this opinion to be taken seriously either...
Cry to someone else that I won't play your silly game of "opinion over study".
& I've spent far too much time pointing out the pointlessness of such a "Godless liberal's" measly opinion on something they had no involvement in whatsoever!!!
On the other hand, because the Genetic Code does not evolve in any major way, it allows for the rest of the genome to evolve, and to do so in very dramatic, unpredictable ways. We don’t know where this research will go, but even at this early point, we can be sure that once understood it will not support biblical creation.
...
David Warmflash is an astrobiologist, physician, and science writer.
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: THEatsking
Creationism is to be taught in religious classes alongside other stories from the bible. It has nothing to do with Science, and therefore it is idiotic to teach alongside scientific theories.
Got it. All ways are secular fundamentalist ways... we will impose our views on everyone else... and then accuse everyone else of doing exactly what we are doing.
Gotcha!
(But not really... I won't lump all evolutionists in the same box -- just those who do.)
originally posted by: THEatsking
I never said creationism must not be taught.
Don't put words in my mouth, bro.