Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
lets say a man died at sea.
then dna test proved two men who never met or knew each other , were actually brothers from their father side the man who died at Sea .
Can anybody or judge or the supreme court dispute that fact.
and do you need the body of the man who died at sea to prove the two men are really his descendents??
with the same analogy all humans are descendents of one man who lived 25000 years ago. That man existed regardless if you found his body or not, and he is the father of all the 7 billion people regardless if you find his body or not.
the undisputed evidence in the DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA comes from mother only. Y dna found in men only comes only from fathers.
Based on the variety of mutations amomng all the 7 billion humans their most common recent ancestor could not have lived before 25000 years ago. period(case closed)
25000 years if the SNA mutation rate is 0.004 (4 mutations every 1000 replications (a replication is birth, or a generation, so for one man to have a son with a mutaion the probability is 0.004 (one in 250 ) the son will will get the mutation or hthe man will get a descendent who have the muation for sure after 250 generations.

it was decided 10 years ago that mutation rate is 0.002 hence Y-chromosome Adam or Most Common Recent Ancestor lived 50000 years ago to have the variety of mutations in the current human populations, and they used to think that mutation rate for the Mitochondrial DNA is much slower hence Eve was 100 000 years ago. However it turned out that the mutation rate is 0.004 universal among human and birds and even outside the DNA realm . Birds frosen 40000 years ago in antarctic were found to differ from same living birds by only .004 mutation rate.
98.5% 0f our DNA is non recombining. half of that 98.5% is from viruses so how could possibly virus alien dna be useful? the other half is not from viruses but from other animals such as say germs, ameaba, worms, tsetse fly, etc etc
If a goat bites you some of his dna in his saliva will finally settle in one human cell in your body.
If that cell is a reproductive cell and out of the 70 million sperm cells in a cubic centimeter of sperm was the chosen one to mate with the egg from a woman then the child will have dna with little goat dna in it .




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


evolution does not work because evolution does not exist.
if there was evolution then we will find at least one gene that in time that gene mutated into a gene that is better than the good old gene. scientists been looking for such beneficial mutation (AKA evolution) for 60 years since discovery of dna and hundred years earlier and still have not found one.

just seeing a girafe and hypothyzing that a zebra changed a gene to make a long neck has no dna backing it.

dna accumulate in the cell nuclea not because of increased information and command structure, it is just junk most of it.
the very sparce genes are not essential, however any mutation in these genes cause disease, does not mean the original gene was causing health in the first place. actually most of the mutated genes that causes disease were actually alien dna causing no harm untill the mutation happened on them



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


all the genes that cause diseases are mutants of gnes (dna) that was not causing nothing.
mutations cause only disease, and a reverse mutation cancel the mutation that caused the disease.
the ancestors had better health, all the mutations happened between our time and the time of ancient ancestor. every mutated gene that cause disease had started sometime in the past. for example the mutation that cause eyes to become blue happened to a woman in central asia from the k haplogroup around 5 thousand years ago (k for katia =Cat-ia cat-eyes-woman) and so on. the only healthy outcome when breeding between humans cancel the bad mutation that arose earlier and was in one of the breeders.
that is not evolution. by definition evolution is caused by a mutation. give me a mutation that cause a man to be smarter???? or better at calculus???

evidence about all humans came from one man lived 25000 years ago check wikipedia MRCA or Y-Chromosomal Adam
edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


We have seen evolution in as little as 30 years in lizards...

Also watch this (you tube button not working for me so click and watch)

www.youtube.com...

Proves that we and chimps share a common ancestor.

Oh and stop replying to yourself.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


Also watch this (graphic) Giraffe autopsy following the Laryngeal nerve...

www.youtube.com...

Also proves evolution.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


that reference of yours got only a master degree in zoology (zoology is a pseudo science it is non other than anthropology paleontology two discplines that were rejected by scientists to be allowed into science)
it is not even his business to comment on such stuff. Molecular biology (dna studies) started being taught in the 1980s and it is like measuring the distance between two cities by person walking foot by foot (zoology) and measuring that distance ina split second by laser (molecular biology).
why do you need to go do zoology if you got molecular biology???

like I said dna lab test proves two men as brothers even though they never met each other and father died at sea.
it the real deal.
dinosaurs were proven to be chicken by molecular biology long before feathers discovered on the fossils.
with out the molecular biology evidence you will find zoologist bombarding us about how big and mighty those lizards were.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   

adnanmuf
reply to post by peter vlar
 


evolution does not work because evolution does not exist.
if there was evolution then we will find at least one gene that in time that gene mutated into a gene that is better than the good old gene. scientists been looking for such beneficial mutation (AKA evolution) for 60 years since discovery of dna and hundred years earlier and still have not found one.

just seeing a girafe and hypothyzing that a zebra changed a gene to make a long neck has no dna backing it.

dna accumulate in the cell nuclea not because of increased information and command structure, it is just junk most of it.
the very sparce genes are not essential, however any mutation in these genes cause disease, does not mean the original gene was causing health in the first place. actually most of the mutated genes that causes disease were actually alien dna causing no harm untill the mutation happened on them


Well of course there's no such thing as evolution when you completely change the definition to create a strawman argument.You can repeat the same BS in any number of configurations but it won't make it anymore true. Evolution is many things but what it is NOT is a linear progression towards improvement. 2 words- Punctuated Equilibrium. I really enjoyed the bit about goat dna, that was brilliant!



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


this guy got his degree in 1974 when there was no molecular biology and he claims to be an expert in molecular biology, how come? did he study molecular biology after 1974 without gertting a degree in it???



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 
.


what causes a human to be a human is all in the dna.
same goes for all animals.
from 1950 (dna discovery) till the present scientists discovered thousands of dna mutations that cause disease many of these mutations happened for the first time even after 1950, however not even one mutation was discovered that cause enhancemet or advancement to humans (or to any animal of all the animals existing).
so now we see the mutations darwin talked about they are in the dna which we can see even with our naked eyes under the scope, yet all mutations so far cause disater and peril and extinction.

edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)
why scientists were not able to find a useful mutation or induce a useful mutation???
the answer is because there is none. evolution does not exist , by accident or random at least ,(but by intelligent design/creation, yes)
edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


the first law of nature is that everything degrades in time and space/place, nothing gets better in time and space.
leave a chair in a room, and come back to it after 1000 years what do you see??
edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   

adnanmuf

what causes a human to be a human is all in the dna.
same goes for all animals.
from 1950 (dna discovery) till the present scientists discovered thousands of dna mutations that cause disease many of these mutations happened for the first time even after 1950, however not even one mutation was discovered that cause enhancemet or advancement to humans (or to any animal of all the animals existing).
so now we see the mutations darwin talked about they are in the dna which we can see even with our naked eyes under the scope, yet all mutations so far cause disater and peril and extinction.


Actually the vast majority of mutations are neutral. 10th grade biology teaches this. As far as beneficial mutations, the benefit or detriment is determined by the physical environment. What is beneficial in one ecosystem will not necessarily be so in a vastly different one. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).


edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)
why scientists were not able to find a useful mutation or induce a useful mutation???
the answer is because there is none. evolution does not exist , by accident or random at least ,(but by intelligent design/creation, yes)
edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.


the first law of nature is that everything degrades in time and space/place, nothing gets better in time and space.
leave a chair in a room, and come back to it after 1000 years what do you see??
edit on 4-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


Just exactly which law of nature are you referring to? It can't be from Hobbes 'Leviathon' because that states-

A "Law of Nature" is a general rule that is discovered through reason. Such a law affirms human self-preservation and condemns acts destructive to human life. Unlike a civil law, which must be written down and publicized in order to be known, a law of nature is natural and inherently known by all because it can be deduced by innate mental faculties (reason, philosophy). Having described the horrors of the state of nature, in which fear reigns supreme, Hobbes concludes that natural man, in order to preserve life, must seek peace. Thus the first law of nature is: "That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he can hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of Warre. The first branch of which Rule, containeth the first, and Fundamental Law of Nature; which is, to seek Peace, and follow it.


It's not

“The first law of nature is self-preservation. Cut off that which may harm you. But if it is worth preserving, and is meaningful, nourish it and have no regrets. Ultimately, this is true living and love of self...from within.” T.F. Hodge


so many to pick from...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


Our science when it comes to dating human history is only good as our historical records, methods to gather information, research and access known archeological data , I like how people can get into heated discussions, almost as if they themselves were expert authorities , but my question is where are they getting their data from ? when the actual experts are at odds and disagree on much or are split on such discussions, I think it comes down to this, we only know what we have been told, if we do not have first hand experience, or credible witnesses that were there when it happened everything else is speculation and educated guessing.

Please prove me wrong if you think I am incorrect on that.

I can't get into any arguments because I am no expert, and I feel stupid using things I would have to substantiate my argument that I do not even have a full grasp of to try and prove my point.

The only thing I have read concerning the dating of man's creations not man himself, from what I have been told and possibly proven, the oldest known structures are in Zimbabwe, South Africa, more than 250,000 years old, so he would have had to have existed at least some time before that to gain the knowledge of building, socializing etc.

Also one thing I always ponder on when it comes to dating man or human kind is the impact of the Atlantis theory, if we have land masses that are now submerged that either surpass or equal the amount of existing continental land masses, all equations to date human history can never be accurate you would have to factor in the possibility that the actual land mass that has the oldest anything is completely submerged, unreachable and forever lost.

It could be the missing link if there is truly one missing is not on any of the existing land masses to begin with, could it be that it is under the ocean ?



edit on 4-11-2013 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
One thing to remember, the reason why humans have such close DNA with each other with no offshoot of different humanoids is because we almost went the way of the Neanderthal and dodo bird. It was estimated that extremely low numbers of humans survived the bottle neck period of about 70k years ago. Most of those also splintered into dead ends so the humans we see today come almost from an Adam/Eve scenario.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Crap... You seem to have covered all the points but the one that perked my curiosity, the bit about the tsetse fly... what was that all about ? A quick web search did not register anything... well almost... there is this but it is more about parallel evolution...

Expression of the human RNA‐binding protein HuR in Trypanosoma brucei increases the abundance of mRNAs containing AU‐rich regulatory elements

Trypanosoma brucei Trypanosoma brucei = what causes TseTse fly disease.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

phinubian
? when the actual experts are at odds and disagree on much or are split on such discussions, I think it comes down to this, we only know what we have been told, if we do not have first hand experience, or credible witnesses that were there when it happened everything else is speculation and educated guessing.

Please prove me wrong if you think I am incorrect on that.


which "experts" are at odds and or are split on this?
All observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits, how far away it is, and so forth. To dismiss absolutely everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous. Most of the evidence of evolution is not the sort about which interpretation is in question. The evidence consists of such things as the following:
certain trilobite species are found in certain geological formations;
many more varieties of marsupials are found in Australia than elsewhere;
bacteria in test tubes have been seen to change in certain ways over time;
flies share some traits that other insects do not;
and millions of other such facts, none of which are in dispute.

The sort of interpretation to which creationists object is how all the evidence fits together. They do not deny the evidence (not most of it, anyway); they deny that it is evidence for evolution.


The only thing I have read concerning the dating of man's creations not man himself, from what I have been told and possibly proven, the oldest known structures are in Zimbabwe, South Africa, more than 250,000 years old, so he would have had to have existed at least some time before that to gain the knowledge of building, socializing etc.


the oldest known manmade structures are the "African Stonehenge" which is in S. Africa but is only 75,000 years old. that gives modern humans well over 100,000 years to get up to speed.


Also one thing I always ponder on when it comes to dating man or human kind is the impact of the Atlantis theory, if we have land masses that are now submerged that either surpass or equal the amount of existing continental land masses, all equations to date human history can never be accurate you would have to factor in the possibility that the actual land mass that has the oldest anything is completely submerged, unreachable and forever lost.


Show some evidence for large submerged landmasses with an associated civilization and I'm sure people would jump over each other to get to it. Clearly, at the end of the last glacial maximum a lot of coastline worldwide as well as smaller islands,slowly disappeared as the ice melted. There's no question of it. When you say "Atlantis" I'm not sure if you mean an entire continent disappearing(which there is NO evidence of) or an ocean or sea dependent civilization. If you're referring to something more coastal then I would say that there's not a lot more likely chance of finding fossilized remains in the deluged area than you would further inland as any survivors would have moved as the water rose bringing remnants of whatever civilization they had with them. If you're referring to something continent sized then I think its far less likely as the continents have been in roughly their current configuration for 10's of millions of years, long before the advent of Genus Homo.


It could be the missing link if there is truly one missing is not on any of the existing land masses to begin with, could it be that it is under the ocean ?




edit on 4-11-2013 by phinubian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Just a random factoid: Something like 9% of Asian and 3% of the world human's DNA can be traced to Genghis Kan.
edit on 5-11-2013 by FlyingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   

peter vlar

phinubian
?
the oldest known manmade structures are the "African Stonehenge" which is in S. Africa but is only 75,000 years old. that gives modern humans well over 100,000 years to get up to speed.




edit on 4-11-2013 by phinubian because: (no reason given)


dating is wrong. you can not date stones or bones, you can date light plants, cotton tissue, animal soft tissue, by carbon dating, because radio active carbon comes from the air a plant or animal breathes. a fire soot could be carbon dated too.
70k is jazzedup

as for reference for a species not to go extinct it has to be above a number 50 for pandas etc.
a bottle neck on one man is impossible according to scientists

en.wikipedia.org...

as for most of our dna are junk from viruses and germs

en.wikipedia.org...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)


also
Astonishingly, only 1.5% of the genetic material in our cells codes for human life. Half of the rest is sometimes described as "junk DNA" with no known function, and the other half consist of genes introduced by viruses and other parasites
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17809503
edit on 5-11-2013 by adnanmuf because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


As a bona fide ape I represent your remarks.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by adnanmuf
 


I like how you've completely ignored my posts with sources and CORRECT information about what you are talking about only to continue to talk about your made up theory. Deny ignorance and all.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


You and me and all other 7 billion great ape humans



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
We can "share"sequences of DNA with other creatures without having been bitten by or eaten on of said creature.
You mentioned eskimos having tsetse fly DNA-we share that part of out DNA with the fly,yes-but that does not have to mean eskimos were bitten-rather they already had that particular part of DNA in common with the tsetse fly.
All life follows the same rough blueprint-but individual species also have their own specific DNA sequences.
That is the 2% differencee between man and mouse-or man and bananna.

We share a common part of our DNA with hibernating animals-but that does not mean we were bitten by,or ate those animals to get it-were already running off the same operating system.

And humans have been here far longer than 20,000 years BTW.
Here is one of a few trillion articles on the matter:

www.newscientist.com...





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join