Y chromosome Adam, Mitochondial Eve lived just 20 thousands years ago

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
It is known now that humands did not descend from monkeys million years ago, and that all 7 billion humans living on earth now are all from one man and one woman who definitly lived in Africa.

the fact that 10% of our DNA is Junk DNA that came only from the Tsetse fly (this tsetse dna found in Eskimo too )
this 10% across all humans chinese eskimo, etc is inherited from common ancestor/ancestors who definitly lived in the area of land where the Tsetse fly exist.
It is known that all flies and mosketoes don't immigrate. a fly can only wander randomely around its birth place untill it dies.
the finding of mosquetoes every where is caused by human migration. who transported flies and mosquitoes in ships or planes of recent times.
.
The mutation rate in DNA transcribing is found to be the same in all DNA human and not human and it is around 0.004. it used to be thought of as 0.002 when they decided that Y chromosome Adam lived 50 000 years ago. Now with Mutation rate of 0.004 is half that time ie 25 000 years ago.

all the anthropologists and paleontologists discoveries about million years old humans are lies based on junk science. There was never evolution. all species (foxes , bears) are replicas of original first fox/bear etc.
all the mutations observed in nature so far can only cause nothing or cause a disease. never a mutation caused so called evolution. Time can only accumulate disease and degradation in a species., never time cause enhancement (evolution).



+2 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


I think your Christian biblical agenda is very clear here. Why are you embarrassed to express it and couch your thread in pseudo science?

I think there is more evidence to support evolution and that homosapians have been around for much longer than 20,000 years ago.

www.nhm.ac.uk...
edit on 4-11-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


I think it more along the lines of a Genetic Bottleneck that occurred in your time frame.
Meaning that not much prehistoric DNA of any kind made it through all of the tougher times...
Like the Toba Eruption (which some think may have reduced human populations to near extinction), among other things.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   


It is known now that humands did not descend from monkeys million years ago, and that all 7 billion humans living on earth now are all from one man and one woman who definitly lived in Africa.


Couple questions here for you. First, how is this information now known? Do you have a link to some evidence of this, other than the bible please?

Second, could you please provide a source, other than the bible, as to where this man and this woman came from?

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken I did this awhile back...

Adam and Eve Origins



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

adnanmuf
It is known now that humands did not descend from monkeys million years ago, and that all 7 billion humans living on earth now are all from one man and one woman who definitly lived in Africa.

the fact that 10% of our DNA is Junk DNA that came only from the Tsetse fly (this tsetse dna found in Eskimo too )
this 10% across all humans chinese eskimo, etc is inherited from common ancestor/ancestors who definitly lived in the area of land where the Tsetse fly exist.
It is known that all flies and mosketoes don't immigrate. a fly can only wander randomely around its birth place untill it dies.
the finding of mosquetoes every where is caused by human migration. who transported flies and mosquitoes in ships or planes of recent times.
.
The mutation rate in DNA transcribing is found to be the same in all DNA human and not human and it is around 0.004. it used to be thought of as 0.002 when they decided that Y chromosome Adam lived 50 000 years ago. Now with Mutation rate of 0.004 is half that time ie 25 000 years ago.

all the anthropologists and paleontologists discoveries about million years old humans are lies based on junk science. There was never evolution. all species (foxes , bears) are replicas of original first fox/bear etc.
all the mutations observed in nature so far can only cause nothing or cause a disease. never a mutation caused so called evolution. Time can only accumulate disease and degradation in a species., never time cause enhancement (evolution).


Your science is sooooo flawed it's not even funny. First off, Y chromosome Adam and Mitocondrial Eve weren't related or married or whatever you want to call it. Second, just because all human life can be traced back to either of these two individuals, doesn't mean humans didn't predate them (again they didn't know each other). Third, those fossils from millions of years ago aren't humans like you or I. Notice how at the bottom of the list it says that Homo Sapiens Sapiens only date back about 200,000 years ago? Fourth, humans are descended from apes not monkeys. Please learn the difference. Fifth, evolution is the compounded result of MANY mutations working together to produce a change in an animal over many millions of years. These changes can be good or bad, the bad ones usually cause the animal to die out. Since evolution doesn't work as a singular line of development and actually has a tree pathway, this causes that evolutionary branch to die out. This is why you mostly see beneficial traits passing on. In other words, you are misusing the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Your entire argument is one giant strawman, and a poorly constructed one at that. How about going and studying actual science instead of just throwing some sciency terms together and making up your own definitions? Notice how I've backed up my claims with sources, while you just make a bunch of wild claims about science and try to pass it off as fact. You may want to take your OP back to the drawing board and try again. Actually better yet, just abandon it. It's wrong.
edit on 4-11-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Stopped reading after the first line.....
Gonna say this once...we share a common ancestor we did not come from monkeys.
Also It has been proven genetically that we share a common ancestor with Chimps....case closed.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


And then why is there only a 2% difference in the dna between chimps and humans?




and that all 7 billion humans living on earth now are all from one man and one woman who definitly lived in Africa.


And science discovered this.
Science, if given enough time, will also discover our true origins.
Whether or not it was evolution, god or aliens will be found out by scientists.




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


humans all are descendent s of one man who lived 25000 years ago.
this is dna science not the bible. it is based on simple mathematics as in 1 plus 1 equals 2.
it is not inferred conclusion but undisputable fact.
you must heard of dna evidence , it is more precise than finger print evidence.

if dna study showed that 2 men are brothers from same father, there is nothing the two men or anybody elso do to refute that.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


there is only 3% differnce btween man and deep sea germ.
the fact that 98% of human dna is junk dna that came from other animals (50% from viruses, rest from animals other than viruses)
the same thing goes for every animal (or germ or virus) on earth, their dna is also junk dna.
actually one germ hase more dna than human cell have (200 times more).
When a person gets the flu, the virus (a strand of DNA) insert itself in human dna (lets say Chromosome number 9) and replicate.
the flu is cured but the virus dna stays (junk dna) and all the descendents of that person will have that one time insertion of the alien virus dna on chromsome 9 for (EVER). that is why the common ancestor got hit with the tsetse fly, and now all his descendents after 500 generations (replications) have 10% of their dna from the tsetse dna insertion, not 9% not 11% but precisely 10% in eskimos 10% in europeans, etc).



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 





posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


you dont really believe yourself.
If all tigers in the world came down to one tiger and one female tiger , do you think the species of tiger will not go intinct??
scientists say at least few hundred tigers are needed as a minimum for the human intervention to prevent the extinction of tigers.

Now you tell me the most advanced species on earth (the humans) whose bones supposedly found on every corners on the earth, went down to one man and one woman, but nothing happened to the foxes and rabbits and all the other species on earth.

bottle neck?? my sphinx.
you must be seeing ships crossing your bottle neck on your table. haha



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


well sure why not,,,



it is what everyone is actually talking about,,,

remove if too offensive.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


you must be speechless.

science had recently proven that nuclea of a cell is not the central command but rather a trap to collect alien dna to transfer it into junk dna.
Only 1.5% of human dna is recombining (doing anything at all) while the rest in not (doing nothing at all).
of the 1.5 % only some are imporTANT for life while the rest is just producing junk protein to be recycled again and again.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


More unsourced nonsense. While you are correct about the 98% to 2% ratio, the term "junk dna" is archaic and isn't used anymore. The term you are looking for is called noncoding DNA and it is most certainly important for life.


Much of this DNA has no known biological function and at one time was sometimes referred to as "Junk DNA". However, many types of noncoding DNA sequences do have known biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences. Other noncoding sequences have likely but as-yet undetermined function, an inference from high levels of homology and conservation seen in sequences that do not encode proteins but appear to be under heavy selective pressure.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   

adnanmuf
It is known now that humands did not descend from monkeys million years ago, and that all 7 billion humans living on earth now are all from one man and one woman who definitly lived in Africa.


It's always been known and well established that humans did not descend from monkeys. we share a common ancestor with the other apes(chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, gorilla and gibbon) as for all current humans being direct descendants of 2 people living 25,000 years ago... absolutely not. care to provide a citation for your postulations?


the fact that 10% of our DNA is Junk DNA that came only from the Tsetse fly (this tsetse dna found in Eskimo too )
this 10% across all humans chinese eskimo, etc is inherited from common ancestor/ancestors who definitly lived in the area of land where the Tsetse fly exist.
It is known that all flies and mosketoes don't immigrate. a fly can only wander randomely around its birth place untill it dies.
the finding of mosquetoes every where is caused by human migration. who transported flies and mosquitoes in ships or planes of recent times.


Junk DNA? did i time travel to 1989 or something? we now know that most of what used to be called junk DNA actually has a purpose. Just because it's not coding doesn't mean it doesn't have another purpose like regulation. As for your hypothesis on how mosquitos and flies get around, do you really believe that they were geographically isolated until the advent of modern transportation?


The mutation rate in DNA transcribing is found to be the same in all DNA human and not human and it is around 0.004. it used to be thought of as 0.002 when they decided that Y chromosome Adam lived 50 000 years ago. Now with Mutation rate of 0.004 is half that time ie 25 000 years ago.


so many errors I don't even know where to begin...


all the anthropologists and paleontologists discoveries about million years old humans are lies based on junk science. There was never evolution. all species (foxes , bears) are replicas of original first fox/bear etc.
all the mutations observed in nature so far can only cause nothing or cause a disease. never a mutation caused so called evolution. Time can only accumulate disease and degradation in a species., never time cause enhancement (evolution).


Couldn't you have just started off with the premise that you don't understand how evolution works on the most basic level? Why save that for the end? Evolution is NOT about enhancement. It's about surviving and thriving. Just because something is alive today does not mean it is a better version of something from our past nor has that ever been uttered by an Anthropologist. Mutations do NOT only cause disease. Tell me, which million year old humans are you referring to? AMH have only been around approx 200,000 years.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


All of us are sheep being led by the information we have been taught, the truth is non of us KNOW, we have belief, hypothesis and theory.

Now I am a christian but as for that the living clay and the spirit of god, maybe modern human transcendance is of divine paranormal infusion of the spirit into the formerly base human form thus elevating it above the dust of mere animal, Still atheists believe in the off switch and I am one whom has experienced it and found it is not all but that is another argument.

I can not define god but have experience that there is something, I believe in Christ and that is my faith and devotion, I do support evolution but do accept that species adapt to there environment including mankind but this in no way rules out the creator, Atheism can be comforting to some as they think they will never have to answer for there mistakes though many Atheists are actually humanists and good people whom I value though I disagree with them, I would share my experience but some thing's can never be put into word's.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

LABTECH767
Atheism can be comforting to some as they think they will never have to answer for there mistakes though many Atheists are actually humanists and good people whom I value though I disagree with them, I would share my experience but some thing's can never be put into word's.


Neither Atheism nor Agnosticism have anything to do with who we answer to for our mistakes. For that matter, who decides whether an action I take is or is not a mistake? Is that an implication that not believing in a divine creator makes one more morally ambiguous? If so I wholeheartedly disagree. For most, the crux of it has to do with taking on a rational, evidence based world view. What that means is that in the opinion of that person, there is more evidence to support scientific theories than there is to support an omnipotent creator as described in Abrahamic texts. If that evidence ever presented itself I think you'd have a longer wait to get into church.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Well I wont get BOOLEAN on you but you exist, explain it, You have conscious mind (not the thought process of newtonian synaptic feedback but consciousness) explain it, mediums in the 1800's and as early as the 1700's claimed to draw on earlier esoteric sources, they claimed there were other worlds and it had to do with the souls vibrational frequency and it being higher than matter, now we have quantum mechanics and parralel world theory as well as mass oscillation and each element has a unique radio emission that it emits all the time so it is oscillating, how did a bunch of charletains know this eh.

Open your eyes, scientific observation is all well and good but only when an impartial mind compares and analyses, without absolute proof which does no exist all observations turned into facts by the observer are pure belief based on speculative judgement.

In short an atheist is not more correct than a religious fanatic, they are merely using different and NOT more correct interpretations, we are tool users and tend to think that because we can crack a rock with a piece of iron that we know the rock but the rock will still be there but in smaller parts long after we put the tool down and science is just like that, an ever onward passage with no end in sight, one theory leads to another two which spin off another four, so which is correct.
edit on 4-11-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

LABTECH767
Well I wont get BOOLEAN on you but you exist, explain it, You have conscious mind (not the thought process of newtonian synaptic feedback but consciousness) explain it, mediums in the 1800's and as early as the 1700's claimed to draw on earlier esoteric sources, they claimed there were other worlds and it had to do with the souls vibrational frequency and it being higher than matter, now we have quantum mechanics and parralel world theory as well as mass oscillation and each element has a unique radio emission that it emits all the time so it is oscillating, how did a bunch of charletains know this eh.


correlating two events isn't the same as showing the cause is equitable. OK some mediums postulated something that science mirrors today. The end result appearing similar does not mean the 19th century medium was talking to extradimensional spirits. A few years ago the Heavens Gate church group thought that Aliens were coming to rescue them from Earth before they destroyed it, were they right? What about all the religious predictions over the years that have never come to be? were they too correct and the world at large missed it somehow?


Open your eyes, scientific observation is all well and good but only when an impartial mind compares and analyses, without absolute proof which does no exist all observations turned into facts by the observer are pure belief based on speculative judgement.


Ahhhh... the mother of all assumptions, that nobody working in science has an open mind and are in fact completely partial to their previously indoctrinated line of thinking like a pre-programmed automaton. Not true in my experience.


In short an atheist is not more correct than a religious fanatic, they are merely using different and NOT more correct interpretations, we are tool users and tend to think that because we can crack a rock with a piece of iron that we know the rock but the rock will still be there but in smaller parts long after we put the tool down and science is just like that, an ever onward passage with no end in sight, one theory leads to another two which spin off another four, so which is correct.


I never claimed the atheist is correct in his assumptions, merely described how they see the world. Arrogance is more the province of Christians than in those who don't believe. In your rock analogy you seem to imply that once the rock is broken that is where the observation ends. Again, in my own experience, this is the opposite of what I have encountered. Yes, one hypothesis can lead to a theory. when new evidence is discovered it doesn't necessarily lead to a new hypothesis or theory but more often is used to fill in the puzzle pieces that we don't have. new data gives a more clear picture of what we currently understand and enhances it. Sometimes this will lead to tossing aside outdated material and occasionally a new theory could emerge but generally that isn't the case. You say that science goes on and on with no end in sight but that isn't really the case and appears to be the foundation for a strawman argument.

Now, I asked earlier if you thought that agnostics or atheists were morally ambiguous because they don't believe in an omnipotent creator and who decides what actions I make are mistakes or not. I'm genuinely curious.





 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join