Mitochondrial Eve - 200,000 Years Ago?

[Jaypeeto3]

Personally, I resent the fact that ANY topic is “banned” on the forums. I think there should be a Subforum for Sedevacantism, a Subforum for Evolution, and a Subforum for Atheism, so that the Apologetics forum isn’t overwhelmed by non-apologetics-related threads.
Jaypeeto3

 

[steveandersen]

Jaypeeto3:

Personally, I resent the fact that ANY topic is “banned” on the forums. I think there should be a Subforum for Sedevacantism, a Subforum for Evolution, and a Subforum for Atheism, so that the Apologetics forum isn’t overwhelmed by non-apologetics-related threads.
Jaypeeto3

there’s always “the Water Cooler” forum

 

[buffalo]

thistle:

Evolution is an accepted theory backed by plenty of scientific evidence which has been cited in the hundreds of threads in these forums about the subject. I accept it and I accept that God is the Creator. I see no conflict.

Except God could have 'inserted" human beings in the timeline wherevever He wished, no matter what may have been evolving at the time. It doesn’t have to be one or the other does it?

 

[deb1]

clmowry:

I’m guessing in the next 24 hours there will be a long detailed post explaining why there is no MRCA ancestor for all of man kind. (or at least a reference to said post.)

That should get the same arguments going again for the umpteenth time.

I vote for adding Evolution to the banned topics list. All in favor!

Chuck

Due to the fact that different people come to these forums at different times with widely varying needs we should not ban evolution topics.There are many who would be very pleasantly surprised that the members of the Catholic church are open to debating evolution. You have to remember that simply because the more established members of the forum are tired of this topic doesn’t mean that new members will be.

 

[PhilVaz]

Mark quoting article << Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998: 279:29, emphasis added) >>

Please don’t rely on creationist sites, whether TrueOrigin.org or CatholicIntl.com. Here is a short response from TalkOrigins on creationist Carl Wieland’s mistake. Also Alec with a detailed response to Wieland.

Read from the horse’s mouth, the geneticists themselves:

“…the fact that a single ancestor gave rise to all of the diversity present today does not mean that this was the only person alive at the time – only that descendent lineages of the other people alive at the same time died out…we are all the recent descendents of a single woman who lived in Africa less than 150,000 years ago. This result begs the question of where Eve actually lived – where in Africa was the Garden of Eden? In one sense this is a red herring, since we know that there were many women alive all over Africa at this time…the root of the male family tree was placed in Africa – exactly the same answer that mtDNA had given us for women. The shocker came when a date was estimated for the age of the oldest common ancestor. This man, from whom all men alive today ultimately derive their Y-chromosomes, lived 59,000 years ago. More than 80,000 years after that estimated for Eve! Did Adam and Eve never meet? No they didn’t, but the reason is fairly complicated…” (The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells [Random House Paperback, 2003], pages 32, 40, 54)

The best estimates are 150,000 for “Eve” and 59,000 for “Adam.” This is based on several genetics studies. Get this book, it explains the methods. These are not the biblical Adam/Eve taken literally since they date around the Upper Neolithic period from references in the Genesis text to animal and plant domestication, metal working, sophisticated musical instruments, cities, etc. See Genesis 4. Humanity definitely dates before the Upper Neolithic. Cro-Magnon skulls date to 40,000 years or more, the genetics evidence tells us homo sapiens go back 150,000 years or more. So perhaps a less literal interpretation of Genesis is appropriate, as Pope Benedict XVI (his book In the Beginning…) and John Paul II (see his Theology of the Body commentary) both suggest (I’ve quoted them before many times).

Also a new article uploaded to TalkOrigins authored by the expert on radiometric dating and originally written in 1984 for the U.S. Geological Survey, shows why creationists can’t be trusted, not then, and not now. The same demolished creationist arguments keep cropping up. We’ve known the earth is old well before Darwin as I keep pointing out.

How Old is the Earth: A Response to “Scientific” Creationism by G. Brent Dalrymple

Do Catholics care about truth?

Phil P

 

[rossum]

EnterTheBowser:

Let’s just say that God makes four people: Steve, Laura, Tom, and Barbara, and places them on an island. Steve and Laura have a daughter called Laurasteve. Tom and Barbara have a son called Tombarbara. Eventually, Laurasteve and Barbaratom have a daughter, who they name Laurastevebarbaratom. Now, all the parents die, and only LSTB is left. Who is the mito-Eve of this one-person population? It is her maternal grandmother, Laura. Is this her only female ancestor? No,LSTB is also descended from Barbara.

The Mitochondrial Eve on your island is Laura because Barbara is related to LSTB through a son (Tombarbara) who will (probably) not pass on Barbara’s mitochondria to LSTB. A mito-Eve is an ancestor through the all female line, your mother’s mother’s mother’s … mother. All mothers, no fathers.

One of the points of the article referenced in the OP is that in some cases a child can get mitochondria from the father. There is still a common mother^n but it may now be more difficult to determine when and where she lived due to the extra mixing of some mitochondrial DNA from the male line.

The “Y-chromosome Adam” is similarly through the exclusively male line. On your island it is Tom, LSTB’s father’s father.

rossum

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I know… I answered my own question. The point I was making is that the existence of a mito-Eve does not imply that we are descended from one and only one woman.

 

[steveandersen]

deb1:

Due to the fact that different people come to these forums at different times with widely varying needs we should not ban evolution topics.There are many who would be very pleasantly surprised that the members of the Catholic church are open to debating evolution. You have to remember that simply because the more established members of the forum are tired of this topic doesn’t mean that new members will be.

you’re right Deb1

think about all the “Catholics worship Mary” or “call no man father” threads that continually pop up.

there are billions of internet users
if the forum gets 1000 new viewers each day it will take more than 8,000 years before half the planet has visited once.

so no matter how settled/tiresome a topic may seem, it is new to someone.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Just to clarify, I am not a “creationist” if, by creationist,
you mean that God created the entire Universe and the human race in 6 24 hour days barely 6,000 years ago.

I consider myself an Old-Earth Creationist, which is basically the same thing as a Theistic evolutionist when you boil it right down to brass tacks.

Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3 on my office computer)

 

[PhilVaz]

And once again, this article is more honest

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

It too has problems, but it is at least better than the lies from creationist sites like TrueOrigin.

“Truth cannot contradict truth” and the truth is humanity is much older than 10,000 years. We’ve known this for at least 150 years. The first Neanderthal remains were found in the 1850s if I’m not mistaken.

Here is some audio by real scientists and paleoanthropologists you can listen to:

Science Friday on anthropology

Some of these Real Audio are quite old, and if you listen to the older ones Real Player may require a small download of an older “codec” from the Real.com site.

All the Science Friday archives by date

Science Friday programs by topic

Maybe we don’t want a science forum, but how about a “philosophy and science” forum, or simply “philosophy” forum where all the evolution, existence of God, and problem of evil threads can go. The real problems Catholics or Christians have with evolution are philosophical or theological. All the science objections are bogus and have been shown to be bogus at least 4.5 billion times in here.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

jaypete << I consider myself an Old-Earth Creationist, which is basically the same thing as a Theistic evolutionist when you boil it right down to brass tacks. >>

Actually there is a distinct difference between them. The main defender of old earth creationism is Hugh Ross of Reasons.org, and Ross rejects macroevolution. Neither plants, nor animals, nor human beings evolved according to him. They accept “microevolution” but they reject common ancestry or “macroevolution.” If you accept an old earth, and reject macroevolution, you are an old earth creationist.

Theistic evolutionists accept macroevolution, that is descent with modification by natural selection. They accept it because ALL the scientific evidence points that direction. God guides that evolution, somehow, someway according to theistic evolution. Another name for that is evolutionary creationism.

Phil P

 

[cathologos]

That’s an article trying to disprove evolution.

Big deal. The scientists quoted at length in the article are themselves evolutionist scientists, that’s what’s important.

Why? Because it gives folks whose faith is weak a straw to cling to?

Look…believe what you want to believe. If you want to be an Old Testament literalist, that’s fine. The Church hasn’t got a problem with that, and neither do I.

But why do folks who believe this try to defend their beliefs with stupid, badly presented “science”? Why do they feel the need to try to justify their faith with “rational” arguments, which they present poorly (if at all). Where is their faith???

The Church doesn’t try to defend Old Testament literalism and a young earth – because she cannot do so. Catholic scholars long ago concluded that this case cannot be credibly made.

Watching rank amateurs attempt to do this – and do it so badly – is rather sad.

Science cannot validate faith. If science could explain everything, there would be no need for, and no room for, faith. Desperate attempts by folks to use what they (usually wrongly) perceive as “science” to justify their beliefs only suggests to me that their faith must be weak, or they would not feel the compulsion to grasp at these straws.

 

[buffalo]

cathologos:

Why? Because it gives folks whose faith is weak a straw to cling to?

Look…believe what you want to believe. If you want to be an Old Testament literalist, that’s fine. The Church hasn’t got a problem with that, and neither do I.

But why do folks who believe this try to defend their beliefs with stupid, badly presented “science”? Why do they feel the need to try to justify their faith with “rational” arguments, which they present poorly (if at all). Where is their faith???

The Church doesn’t try to defend Old Testament literalism and a young earth – because she cannot do so. Catholic scholars long ago concluded that this case cannot be credibly made.

Watching rank amateurs attempt to do this – and do it so badly – is rather sad.

Science cannot validate faith. If science could explain everything, there would be no need for, and no room for, faith. Desperate attempts by folks to use what they (usually wrongly) perceive as “science” to justify their beliefs only suggests to me that their faith must be weak, or they would not feel the compulsion to grasp at these straws.

The Catholic Church takes a literalist interpretation of the Bible, Protestants take a literal view.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Cathologos, I don’t understand what that rant was about.
My quote that you referred to, referred to the fact that the statements were made by evolutionary scientists, not by “creationists.”

As for my hyperliteral reading of the bible, I do not do that.
I believe (and have no reason not to) that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the Universe is around 15 billion years old.
I have no problem with evolution.

What I have a problem with is statements that fully-Human beings have been around for 200,000 years.
Let me define what I mean by fully-Human beings.
I mean not merely biological entitities, but persons WITH AN IMMORTAL AND RATIONAL SOUL as defined by the Catholic Church. These are what I mean by “fully” Human beings.
Not humanlike creatures with genetic similarities great or small.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Jaypeeto3:

…

What I have a problem with is statements that fully-Human beings have been around for 200,000 years.
Let me define what I mean by fully-Human beings.
I mean not merely biological entitities, but persons WITH AN IMMORTAL AND RATIONAL SOUL as defined by the Catholic Church. These are what I mean by “fully” Human beings.
Not humanlike creatures with genetic similarities great or small.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

I’m curious - I don’t mean to argue with you; I’d seriously like to know - how would we distinguish between two individuals who were alike in physical aspect, though only one had an immortal soul?

 

[Jaypeeto3]

We don’t even have to worry about that.
It was WAAAAY before our time.
Apes, for example, are remarkably similar to us, but they do not have rational immortal souls and are not made in the Image of God.
Jaypeeto3

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I’m just curious how we would do it - whatever criteria there are would probably be hard to apply to someone who’s been dead for two hundred thousand years.

 

[hecd2]

Jaypeeto3:

Cathologos, I don’t understand what that rant was about.
My quote that you referred to, referred to the fact that the statements were made by evolutionary scientists, not by “creationists.”

As for my hyperliteral reading of the bible, I do not do that.
I believe (and have no reason not to) that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the Universe is around 15 billion years old.
I have no problem with evolution.

What I have a problem with is statements that fully-Human beings have been around for 200,000 years.
Let me define what I mean by fully-Human beings.
I mean not merely biological entitities, but persons WITH AN IMMORTAL AND RATIONAL SOUL as defined by the Catholic Church. These are what I mean by “fully” Human beings.
Not humanlike creatures with genetic similarities great or small.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3

I’m not sure who says that fully-human beings have been around for 200,000 years. The fact that the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor (also known as Mitochondrial Eve) dates to about 175,000 years BP doesn’t mean that that individual was ‘fully human’.

How do we tell whether beings were ‘fully human’? One way is to look at what they have left in terms of art, technology, craft artefacts, and religious symbolism. It’s a fact that the emergence of anatomically modern humans do not coincide with evidence of human cognition. A recent paper dating fossils from the Kibish Formation in Ethiopia pushes back the date of the oldest known anatomically modern humans (the fossils known as OMO I and OMO II) to 195,000 years BP (McDougall et al, Nature 433, 733 - 736 (2005) ). However the earliest known evidence of modern human behaviour and cognition is about 40,000 years BP. Between these dates, human artefacts are little different in sophistication from what we see in the previous million years.

When artefacts and art indicating human modernity emerge at about 40,000 years BP, they do so suddenly and without transition. We are instantly translated from a world where the very simple flint and fire technology has hardly changed for a million years, to one in which the full flower of human sensitivity, invention and self awareness is obvious. We are translated to world of dazzling technological invention, moving art, religious symbolism. The humans of 40,000 years BP are fullly human, all of a sudden and without transition - they are clearly one with us. The fascinating thing is that there is no fundamental anatomical or genetic change at this time - the emergence of modern anatomy and the emergence of modern thinking and self-awareness simply do not coincide. We really don’t know why this is. Is it the emergence of language that stimulates this profound transformation? Perhaps, although many scientists date the emergence of language much earlier. We simply don’t know - this non-coincidence of anatomy and cognition is a fascinating puzzle, and a very moving one. No-one who studies the artefacts that show the full flower of humanity emerging suddenly 40,000 years ago can fail to feel kindred with those people who lived so long ago and to be moved by the emergence of our species from the long shadowy and slow apprenticeship that preceded it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Jaypeeto3:

I didn’t say that there WAS a conflict.
I merely pointed out that just because an article is contra-evolution is not reason to a-priori reject the evolutionary scientists quoted at length in the article.

No, but getting up to date with the actual science rather than relying on creationist propaganda is rather important:
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

As for the evidence supporting evolution, personally I find it tenuous and rather elastic. What is accepted today as a transitional form will likely be rejected tomorrow. This has happened over and over again.

REALLY?? Could you give us some examples of ‘transitional forms’ accepted in the past that are rejected as such today?

Incidentally, do you actually think that the fossil record is the most powerful evidence for evolution? Not many practising scientists think that it is.

So, while I see no inherent conflict between evolution and the Bible, I am still not convinced that the Evolutionists have proven their case.

And that’s based on a deep study of evolutionary biology, I’m sure.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[wildleafblower]

PhilVaz:

jaypete << Theistic evolutionists accept macroevolution, that is descent with modification by natural selection. They accept it because ALL the scientific evidence points that direction. God guides that evolution, somehow, someway according to theistic evolution. Another name for that is evolutionary creationism.

Phil P

Hi Phil,

I located this information in the Talk.Origins - Archives:

*Evolutionary Creationism

Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a* literal *** Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one. . .

Theistic Evolution

*Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980) **

talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
These are my issues:

1. I agree with peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports
   ‘evolution’ to be a fact…
2. I don’t accept a totally ‘literal’ Genesis or a God of the gaps.
   Wholeheartedly agree with Father Coyne’s article 2005
   acknowledging that God ‘wills’ existence and supernatural
   events to occur (ex. soul).
3. The Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church issued in 1962
   a monitum degree on this particular book by Teilhard de
   Chardin, *The Phenomenon of Man *. The book was
   published after Teilhard’s death and Julian Huxley (neo-
   darwinist) wrote an intro for the book. Of course, we know
   that Huxley wasn’t fond of the Catholic Church.

By the way, neo-darwinists died a long time ago. However, they did play a significant role by contributing to what we know today about evolution!



Another cup of java for the road. Before I forget, I would like to mention that bigotry in any shape, size, or form doesn’t suite me well. I care far more about people than their belief systems. Always have and always will.