- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI thought you appreciated a chess reference? Kasparov believes that Anatoly Fomenko is correct. galveston75 rejects "experts" so who is to say that Fomenko is not right? If he is then both of you are the victims of an elaborate lie. How do you "know" that Caesar lived? I never met the man. All we have to go on is research. You may consider his views to be absurd but I am certain that he knows absolutely that you are wrong.
that would be all the anti semetical scriptures that they copied from the custodians of the ancient Hebrew text, the ancient Jews. feel your bum Jack, or get someone else to do it, just to make sure your pulse is still running.
As for Nin-ti, she was a goddess, a vision of earthly delight fashioned from the rib of the thunder-god (a rather jealous fellow they say.) An older story than the exploits of Gilgamesh (who built the walls of Uruk long before there were Babylonians.) But hey, that's just what the "experts" say and if they are wrong about Caesar and the new testament...
-Removed-That's pretty much the hypothesis that is being tested through DNA work that has identified a hypothetical Eve, likely in Africa some two million years ago (there are some decimals around this "two"--1.8? or 2.3?--that I cannot recall with sufficient accuracy).
As I understand it, all humans have enough DNA in common to have come from a single mother. Fatherhood, as we know, is always speculative.
Originally posted by WulebgrMitocondircal DNA goes from mother to child, as sperms doesn't have it.
That's pretty much the hypothesis that is being tested through DNA work that has identified a hypothetical Eve, likely in Africa some two million years ago (there are some decimals around this "two"--1.8? or 2.3?--that I cannot recall with sufficient accuracy).
As I understand it, all humans have enough DNA in common to have come from a single mother. Fatherhood, as we know, is always speculative.
X-chromosome DNA goes from father to child, as the mother doesn't have any X's.
However, Mitocondrical DNA is more stable than X-chromosome, but that doesn't say that there is one and one only mother ancestor. It is as much likely to say that there is one and only one father ancestor, but it's harder to show.
But, there is no single mother, nor any single father. It's as stupid as saying that the humankind started with only two inidivuals, one male and one female. The fact is rather that one group of people were separated from another group. Our group survived. That's us.
There were no first man and woman. There were no Adam and Eve.
Originally posted by TerrierJackLOL, what passes for a kilt now-a days is nothing of the sort. A real kilt, is termed 'a full plaid', and is made of a piece of cloth, 22 feet in length and must be folded appropriately. It is such because when lying outside under the stars amongst the heather, it could simply be pulled over ones head to protect one from the frost. What you see at weddings are nothing more than tartan skirts, invented by some Victorian dude in the 1800s.
At least the English wear make-up and underwear when they put on a dress.
Originally posted by FabianFnasASFAIK, the Eve theory remains a plausible hypothesis accepted by some archaeologists, but not all.
Mitocondircal DNA goes from mother to child, as sperms doesn't have it.
X-chromosome DNA goes from father to child, as the mother doesn't have any X's.
However, Mitocondrical DNA is more stable than X-chromosome, but that doesn't say that there is one and one only mother ancestor. It is as much likely to say that there is one and only one father ances ...[text shortened]... up survived. That's us.
There were no first man and woman. There were no Adam and Eve.
Eve, more likely than not, enjoyed the advances of Adam-1, Adam-7, Adam-12, ...
Originally posted by WulebgrI don't think that it is quite probable that the whole humankind stems from one and one women alone.
ASFAIK, the Eve theory remains a plausible hypothesis accepted by some archaeologists, but not all.
Eve, more likely than not, enjoyed the advances of Adam-1, Adam-7, Adam-12, ...
(1) It takes two to tango. There must be a man too.
(2) It should be equally probable that the humankind stems from one man only. Seems equally improbable.
(3) Suppose they were two, then the rest of the humankind would be the fruit of the incestuous actions by their children. This should have been shown in the todays DNA pool.
(4) Again, suppose they were only two. The result of this idea is that there would be a giant evolutionary leap from them (humans) and their parents (non-humans). Quite improbable, if you ask me.
I my opinion the mitocondrial DNA method shows the real facts quite well.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by FabianFnasTho I agree with you in general, number (3) seems well verified (at least in my country) by the number of people who have a problem with science!
I don't think that it is quite probable that the whole humankind stems from one and one women alone.
(1) It takes two to tango. There must be a man too.
(2) It should be equally probable that the humankind stems from one man only. Seems equally improbable.
(3) Suppose they were two, then the rest of the humankind would be the fruit of the incestuous ...[text shortened]... le, if you ask me.
I my opinion the mitocondrial DNA method shows the real facts quite well.
1 edit
There's a brief synopsis at http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html
And the controversy I remember from graduate school is referenced at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217913.100-science-dna-evidence-strengthens-eve-hypothesis-.html
Until this thread, I have not looked at this issue since the mid-1990s. My assumption is that DNA research has advanced a considerable distance since then.
Originally posted by WulebgrAnother explanation can be found in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
There's a brief synopsis at http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html
And the controversy I remember from graduate school is referenced at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13217913.100-science-dna-evidence-strengthens-eve-hypothesis-.html
Until this thread, I have not looked at this issue since the mid-1990s. My assumption is that DNA research has advanced a considerable distance since then.
This Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with any creationist legend. Eve is a symbol for our earliest ancestor, at the time 150,000 to 250,000 years ago, in the region of Tanzania. She is not even a person of her own. The story didn't start with this Eve, but in the small group of humans where this Eve belonged.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell go ahead and believe mans word which is wrong often and will proabaly change many times. Don't the encylopedias have to be updated every year? God word tells a different story that never changes.
Another explanation can be found in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
This Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with any creationist legend. Eve is a symbol for our earliest ancestor, at the time 150,000 to 250,000 years ago, in the region of Tanzania. She is not even a person of her own. The story didn't start with this Eve, but in the small group of humans where this Eve belonged.
Originally posted by galveston75Right, the story has been the same since they wrote the Genesis part of the bible.
Well go ahead and believe mans word which is wrong often and will proabaly change many times. Don't the encylopedias have to be updated every year? God word tells a different story that never changes.
Science evolves and take new findings into considerations.