Y-Adam and M-Eve lived tens of thousands of years apart. They were both individuals in larger populations. All of us have our mitochondrial DNA from M-Eve. The male half of us have our Y chromosome from Y-Adam. The rest of our DNA is from the rest of the populations that were alive at the time.
The modern idea of the growth, development, and survival of ideas, institutions, and cultures via “memes” can be described in evolutionary terms. However since memes and cultures are not biological the analogy is not a complete one.
That would be eugenics. It is unnatural selection.
(a) Just because Darwin said something doesn’t make it true or right or necessarily part of modern biology. Although the breeding of pigeons did make a convenient explanatory tool it was just that. As for his social views…. He was a man of his time. Again nothing to do with modern biology. This isn’t religion. Science doesn’t have holy books or prophets. Darwin had some great insights in certain areas and it is perfectly ok for him to be dead wrong in others.
The micro/macro distinction is a false one
Well, we shouldn’t really be surprised that montalban, like almost every other creationist on earth, misunderstands and misuses the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, either deliberately and maliciously or through ignorance. The fact is that creationists, either through deceit or ignorance make a habit of misrepresenting scientific concepts. And Mitochondrial Eve, or the Most Recent Common Ancestor in the purely matrilineal descent is a concept that has been misrepresented by creationists as long as it has existed.Sorry you missed that implication, that undermines your objections as you said…
That still is a bottle-neck!
Sorry, but you missed the point. I realise it says that there may have been other persons about, but that is totally irrelevant to us by virtue that none of us are descendant from them, therefore all of us are descendant from her, and thus she is exactly as Eve was.
Having other persons about is simply irrelevant
a) as no one on earth is descendant from them
and
b) it shows that all of us, as diverse as we are can come from one woman.
That is the ‘bottle-neck’. It wouldn’t even matter if there were 1,000,000 people at the time, for all of use come from the one person. C
I mean this with all due respect, but that is just silly if you think about it for 30 seconds. Saying change and/or mutations happen within a species, which is observable, non speculative science and saying one species makes the vast leap into an entirely different species is speculative and has never been observed Speciation has never been observed - TalkOrigins verbal gymnastics aside.The micro/macro distinction is a false one
Once you admit that small changes do occur, unless you can propose a mechanism that somehow stops the process at some set level of micro changes so that they don’t continue to add up to a macro change then your stuck with evolution. You can’t just be a little bit evolved.
Besides speciation, your definition of a “macro” change has been observed in both the lab and the field.
You can’t even get your own characterisation of your own position right. When you say these things: "I thus do not support ‘creationism’ per se, which is an attempt to describe creation in scientific terms. " and “I offer NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for this whatsoever because it is not the Orthodox way to tie our faith to science” and then you offer your (extremely misunderstood and erroneous) interpretation of Mitochondrial Eve in support of a Biblical Eve, were you just misrepresenting your position in the post above for effect, or are you genuinely so confused that you can’t maintain a consistent approach from one day to the next?
No-one says our grandparents were llamas - that is quite silly.I mean this with all due respect, but that is just silly if you think about it for 30 seconds. Saying change and/or mutations happen within a species, which is observable, non speculative science and saying one species makes the vast leap into an entirely different species is speculative and has never been observed Speciation has never been observed - TalkOrigins verbal gymnastics aside.
The difference remains huge despite this new strategy of dismissing the huge differences and blurring obvious scientific lines. The difference is as big as saying our generation is generally taller than our great grandparents generation and saying our great grandparents were Llamas.
Bashing and flaming people who believe what God has said in Genesis as ‘fundies’ and ‘Sola Scriptura’ protestants isn’t necessarily the best way of moving these discussions forward.
I called no one a “fundy” or a "sola scriptura protestant. I said that the arguments used are uncannily similar to sola scriptura arguments used by fundamentalists against the Church, i.e., “If it ain’t in the Bible literally, then it ain’t true.”Bashing and flaming people who believe what God has said in Genesis as ‘fundies’ and ‘Sola Scriptura’ protestants isn’t necessarily the best way of moving these discussions forward.
It’s actually quite offensive and rather contradictory to scriptures admonition that we speak the truth to one another in love.
Evolution could very well be true. I think that most people who disbelieve it, deep in their hearts, feel that way as well. The problem most Christian people have is that the whole concept of creation that evolution puts forth is just so radically contradictory to anything we would conceive of an Almighty Creator God doing. Isn’t that the main reason why mainstream atheistic authors like Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris use it so powerfully in their arguments?
More than that, it seems to me that the folks who are so eager to embrace evolutionary theory as an explanation for life’s origin avoid dealing with all the theological pitfalls that accompany it. Was death part of the creation from the beginning? Did physical death come upon human beings because of sinning against their creator or was it just the natural process that had been taking place for billions of years?
Just one more question. How would you respond to a Roman Catholic who rejected evolution? One who thought that evolution was an affront to the God he/she has encountered in Jesus Christ? Or, now that the infallible leader of the communion has spoken, is he/she demanded to confess faith in evolution as well?
Perhaps, but you still miss the point that we can all be descendant from one woman.
Firstly, social evolution pre-dates the ‘modern idea of the growth…’ etc.
So what? “Survival of the Fittest” was coined by Spencer. Darwin took it up. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t invent it, but that he used it.
You assume that the Nazis misappropriated it.
They are vastly different things. Chemistry is not a way of engineering a society’s norms, its very members.
It does, if you choose to use the theory of evolution to control/direct evolution. You seem to accept that Nazism is a misdirection, and I assume therefore one can criticise it.
That’s what I just noted!
NO. Evolution is about change in species, ‘naturally’. Eugenics is about change of species, 'artificially. They are both about change of species.
Exactly how I feel about evolution!
That’s not the argument I made. I didn’t say “Some modern biologists think…” but I linked Darwinism to Social Darwinism, you argue they’re nothing to do with each other, now your best argument is that they did, in the past have something to do with each other.
That’s wishful thinking on your part. So science then was shaped by its times, but not now? That itself is to put science on a pedestal. Science is still strewn with sexism, racial and cultural bias, etc.
It certainly just says that which survives is fit to survive, making it a tautology
That’s what science still does.
Have I said "Evolution is false because it has been miss-used?
That’s not true. I don’t offer M-Eve to support the Biblical Eve. I offer it to support the possibility that we can all be descendant from one woman. That’s what the evidence suggests. A possibility.
No. One form of science does not need God; that’s simply accepted by you and others to BE science.
God is the explanation. God is also the cause. Knowing God did something we know that it has a reason for being. And, those who believe in a loving God would know that the reason for being is one of being ‘good’.
You are missing that point that only our mitochondrial DNA is descended from one woman. Males’ Y-chromosome is descended from only one man - who never ever met the woman. The rest of our DNA is descended from the rest of the population alive at the time. That there is only one m-Eve is due to us having only one mother. To get down to one female we have to ignore fathers, just as to get to one male ancestor we have to ignore mothers. If we include both fathers and mothers then we go back to a population of ancestors - at no time is there a single couple.
No, for me and my conversion it truely was the science of it. For some reason I have ingrained in me that science comes first, which just isn’t true. We know too little. When you really look at it, evolution theory truely is junk science. I noticed that engineers are more likely to see through asumptions and what is supported or not supported by emperical data than most people. It’s unfortunate that people can’t understand all the assumptions and the probability of those assumptions being true within a theory. I thank God that I have a little more of a questioning attitude and for His Grace in seeing the lie of evolution.
I don’t miss that at all. You wanted to say that there was no ‘bottleneck’, this proves a possible ‘other’ way.
That’s not the issue either. All of the Y-chromosones could possibly come from one man.
As pointed out, it doesn’t matter if there were others around her, they didn’t contribute to the mitochondria we have today, and therefore irrelevant.