Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 06 Aug '13 22:13
    Researchers believe they've traced the original genetic ancestors for most modern humans by studying the male, or Y, chromosome. Nearly all modern men can trace their lineage back to one man who roamed Africa between 125,000 and 156,000 years ago, according to LiveScience. And the same is true for women, who are linked to one woman who lived at the same time. But "Adam and Eve," as these two ancient people are being called, likely never met, let alone mated and populated the earth. Instead, according to LiveScience, both humans simply had DNA that survived, unbroken, resulting in many modern heirs of their mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA.

    Again, survival of the fittest DNA. Evolution at work. And for you who are theists, there is no reason why a higher being (god for want of a better word) might not have put this in motion.
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    06 Aug '13 23:25
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Researchers believe they've traced the original genetic ancestors for most modern humans by studying the male, or Y, chromosome. Nearly all modern men can trace their lineage back to one man who roamed Africa between 125,000 and 156,000 years ago, according to LiveScience. And the same is true for women, who are linked to one woman who lived at the same time ...[text shortened]... reason why a higher being (god for want of a better word) might not have put this in motion.
    It is obvious to me that they are wrong.

    The Instructor
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Aug '13 14:45 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is obvious to me that they are wrong.

    The Instructor
    Show me your scientific evidence for your obviousality. You are a troll.
  4. 07 Aug '13 14:59
    Originally posted by Phranny
    And the same is true for women, who are linked to one woman who lived at the same time.
    I thought there was significant difference between the dates of the two.
    Wikipedia gives fairly significant differences in the estimates: 237,000 to 581,000 for Adam.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Aug '13 17:49
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I thought there was significant difference between the dates of the two.
    Wikipedia gives fairly significant differences in the estimates: 237,000 to 581,000 for Adam.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
    That would have made it difficult to arrange a date
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    08 Aug '13 08:31
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I thought there was significant difference between the dates of the two.
    Wikipedia gives fairly significant differences in the estimates: 237,000 to 581,000 for Adam.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
    They just pull those dates out of their arse.

    The Instructor
  7. 08 Aug '13 13:29
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    They just pull those dates out of their arse.

    The Instructor
    I thought you had agreed to go away and leave us alone. If you want to discuss science then there is no problem, but if you are just here to make that sort of comment, then I don't think you should be here.