B
bobperk
Guest
Video store down the block! I have not evolved into streaming video yet.
Last edited:
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
So, you are telling us that the Bible story is wrong. According to the Bible, M-Eve could be Eve, but Adam was definitely not Y-Adam. Y-Adam is actually Noah, since Noah originated every Y-chromosome on earth today. Eve and Noah did not live at the same time.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
The Bible says Eve and Noah lived in a relatively close time. That fits, too
I mentioned it being Noah many many posts ago as a possibility…
A
Aloysium
Guest
Mutations in DNA have been found to occur today at a certain average rate. Those in mitochondrial DNA are estimated to occur at a rate of 1% per million years or one every 3,500 years per nucleotide. This is much faster than that occurring in nuclear DNA for reasons of which I am not aware. The variation of DNA mutations between different people in different areas of the world, assuming a certain average rate of mutation, can be used to estimate the time back to a common ancestor, be it M-Eve or Y-Adam. I believe the current age of M-Eve is 125 +/- 25 millenia. That of the Y-Adam is estimated at 138,000 +/- 18,000 years. Determining which areas of the world have the widest range of unrelated mutations, we can propose that region as being where Eve lived.
It is an assumption that the current rate of change in DNA is more or less the same as that in the past. The current age estimates could vary greatly depending on the actual rate, which is not known.
M-Eve would be human if in fact all women carry that DNA, but it could also represent a collection of women at the beginning, sharing this physical trait with Eve, their mother, before the ravages of sin really set in, resulting in random genetic mutation and the distribution of DNA variants we see today.
The same issues play into analyses derived from studies into the structure of the Y-chromosome. Y-Adam is not necessarily Noah, since that Y-chromosome would also be carried by his sons and possibly many generations before him. It might be that Noah was the progenitor of all males in subsequent generations. But, in spite of all the detail, there is more to that story than that which was necessary to have been revealed to us.
It is an assumption that the current rate of change in DNA is more or less the same as that in the past. The current age estimates could vary greatly depending on the actual rate, which is not known.
M-Eve would be human if in fact all women carry that DNA, but it could also represent a collection of women at the beginning, sharing this physical trait with Eve, their mother, before the ravages of sin really set in, resulting in random genetic mutation and the distribution of DNA variants we see today.
The same issues play into analyses derived from studies into the structure of the Y-chromosome. Y-Adam is not necessarily Noah, since that Y-chromosome would also be carried by his sons and possibly many generations before him. It might be that Noah was the progenitor of all males in subsequent generations. But, in spite of all the detail, there is more to that story than that which was necessary to have been revealed to us.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Erm… if you were a strict Biblical literalist, and you therefore believe that the Noah narrative is literally, historically true, and moreover, that the flood was global… wouldn’t that mean you’d have to hold that Noah’s wife was m-Eve?buffalo:
So, you are telling us that the Bible story is wrong. According to the Bible, M-Eve could be Eve, but Adam was definitely not Y-Adam. Y-Adam is actually Noah, since Noah originated every Y-chromosome on earth today. Eve and Noah did not live at the same time.
rossum
G
Glark
Guest
You believe in billions of years of evolution and an earth that is even older, so surely the “six days” of creation correspond to several billion years.
Why did God provide biblical accounts that are so obscured in the mystery of “figurative language” that they are effectively rendered meaningless to the reader?
In Genesis 1:14-18, what is the relationship between your figurative “night” and your figurative “day”?
How interesting … on this point, your “figurative” interpretation sounds just like the literal one.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
You are making the same mistake as paragraph 283 of the CCC … “knowledge” and “understanding” are totally dependent on FACTS, not a theory, a belief or a superstition.
It is my experience that evolution science and its carriers have trouble distingusihing facts from non-facts.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
In the spirit of Piltdown and Nebraska Man, this looks like another attempt at a hoax perpertrated by some mad, sad evolutionist … however, it’s not very convincing. It took me only about 12 hours to realize it’s just a dressed-up pug, and a not the missing-link between dogs and cows.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Yeah, well, me ‘n’ the Catholic Church, we often differ from the omnipotent Church of Glark. Clumsy bunch, aren’t we?
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Conflatiing a theory with a fact is worse than clumsy; in this case, it is an inexcusable error, considering the intellects involved. Sadly, it is typical of the irrationality found in a cult.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Yeah, well, me ‘n’ the Catholic Church, not much more than a cult. Probably won’t last. Not like the Sempiternal Church of Glark.
A
Aloysium
Guest
New word, Hopefully, that’s the reason why I don’t recall ever coming across it. Thanks.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Only if you’re forcing one particular interpretation that asserts a linear function of x days = y years. (It’s kind of ironic – even in looking at allegories, you’re demanding a rather rigid, literalistic interpretation!)
Two thoughts:
- Why did God provide a Son who spoke in parables – that is, ‘figurative language’ – in order to obscure His message from the people?
- The message isn’t “meaningless to the reader”, but rather, only confusing to folks who demand that God follow their rules of interpretation.
You keep coming back to this. I’ve already answered: an interpretation of an analogy doesn’t require a one-to-one correspondence of each individual element. There doesn’t have to be a response to the question “what does ‘one day’ represent? what does ‘one night’ represent?”
M
mVitus
Guest
Mitochondrial DNA gets passed down from the mother. So Noah’s sons would have his wife’s mitochondrial DNA but Noah’s grandchildren from those sons would have mitochondrial DNA from their mothers and those mothers would not be directly related to Noah’s wife. So that’s why Rossum didn’t put Noah’s wife as m-Eve if a literalistic interpretation was correct.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Ahh… thanks!!!
G
Glark
Guest
Please do not use this word ever again. It is an ex-word, as no one on earth has used it since 1956, and even then it was only once. Plus it contains more than ten letters, which is just stupid.
B
bobperk
Guest
Most of us English speakers have an evolved vocabulary and no longer use this word.
G
Gorgias
Guest
‘Creationism’ contains more than ten letters, too.
B
bobperk
Guest
Ancient dogs became bears after developing an affinity for honey and invading campsites. Then a bear fell into the ocean, desperately gasping for nourishment as it swam in vain looking for food. Fortunately, it became a whale, which then walked onto land to become a cow. So, the mechanism is there. Guess you weren’t looking hard enough!
B
Bradskii
Guest
Save your comments to old Johny-one-topic for a couple of months. He’s been sent to the naughty corner. Perhaps to consider posting on topics other than evolution.
- Status