Some people here talk about the miss-use of science. How do they know it’s miss-used?
I thought about it
Exactly which cited speciation do you disagree with and why?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.
What I said still stands, unless you can propose some way to stop changes from occurring after a certain point then you’re stuck. They will continue to occur and add up
Then what exactly are you saying?
The dating method is a mis use of science. Please look it up. It depends upon the placing of a finding within the so called fossil record. From the fossile record location they determine an intial mass then they use that assumed initial mass and calculate the time based upon radioactive decay. A mis-assumption of the initial mass can place the dating off by thousands if not millions of years. The dating is junk science because the assumptions made make the analysis circular.
M-Eve and Y-Adam have nothing at all to do with any genetic bottleneck. Perhaps a family tree might help:
Alan Bette Charlie Dee Ed Faye Gary Helen
| | | | | | | |
+--+--+ +---+----+ +-+-+ +--+--+
| | | |
Ian Jane Kevin Louise
| | | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
| |
Mark Nicola
| |
+-----------+-----------+
|
OwenThey all do, that just leaves all the other chromosomes to be shared out among the rest of the population at the time.
They are relevant because they contributed to the great bulk of our DNA that is found in the neucleus of our cells rather than in the mitochondria. Around one percent of our DNA is in our mitochondria, the rest is in the cell nuclei. M-Eve only gave us 1%, the other 99% is from her contemporaries.
I am dismissive of your attempts to turn the existence of M-Eve into evidence of a genetic bottleneck. M-Eve is evidence neither for nor against a genetic bottleneck.
The problem is that is a little time you get cancer which is observable and repeatable. Your long long long long long long long time has a lot of short short short short short times that kill the animal. At least that is scientifically what is observable and repeatable.
I’m not sure what you mean
Mutations are very common IIRC we each have 2 on average
Hardly, since the paper was written by scientists.
The “others” being all working professional scientists and all philosophers of science. You can bleat to your heart’s content, but the fact remains that the term science, as we use it today, represents a method for finding out how the natural world works by purely natural means. Miracles and the supernatural fall outside science. You might not like it, and you might claim, impotently, that your definition is different, but the fact is that you are wrong and no-one who knows anything about the subject agrees with you. Attempts to include supernatural explanations within science inevitably lead to nonsense conclusions such as the conclusion that astrology is science (cf Dover case, Michael Behe’s testimony). You can claim that science should include the supernatural and you can claim that the moon is made of green cheese, but these claims are equivalent and equally wrong.
We each have about 100 mutations on average. Of these more than 95% are neutral so they have no effect on the phenotype. Two is about right for the number of mutations that actually have some effect on us.
“baffle”, no. The old theory was incorrect because it did not fit the new data. The theory will be amended to include the new data.
*H. habilis* --> *H. erectus* --> *H. sapiens*Either:
*H. habilis* --+--> *H. habilis*
|
+--> *H. erectus* --> *H. sapiens*
or:
*H. ???????* --+--> *H. habilis*
|
+--> *H. erectus* --> *H. sapiens*hecd2:
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.This also shows how little you understand of mtEve - the concept is not one that is open to belief or disbelief - as long as we accept that humans have common ancestry (which we all do), all genes or groups of genes which are inherited together - ‘linked’ in the scientific parlance (such as the mitochondrial genome) MUST coalesce back to a most recent common ancestor - in the case of the mitochondrial genome, mtEve. Other, totally compelling evidence, disallows a bottleneck in the human lineage of less than 10,000 individuals since humans diverged from the common human-chimpanzee ancestor.
You mean they’re now sure how one species dissapeared and how they all fit into place? Hardly!
So they’re not ‘baffled’ but they don’t know which one?
The problem you keep missing is that Mark would also get that, through his mother, and so on. They’re all, boys and girls, getting back to one hypothetical woman - M-Eve.
That’s conjecture then as to ‘why’ I’m using it. You have indeed stated what I said, but then guessed why I said it.
M-Eve is not hypothetical, she was real. A real member of a real population.
Agreed, but she is not the single ancestor of them all. She only accounts for 1% of our DNA. The rest of our DNA comes from her contemporaries.