Is Mitochondrial Eve proven or theory?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Seems like fact to me (it makes me disbelieve in creationism even though neither evolution nor creationism have been proven false).

I think it's fact because all humans have MtDNA. However, what I don't understand in relation to Mitochondrial Eve is how everyone alive today has mtDNA that is said to be descended from her, yet she wasn't a neanderthal (some people are more neanderthal than Cromagnon).
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
My thought has always been that people are too fundamentally different culturally and physically to have all come from a single mother.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
Well the idea is that the MtDNA is passed 100% from mother to child - there's no half father and half mother mashup you get with the nuclei DNA. This means that large portions of the population share the same MtDNA - and while there is no "Eve" that we are all descended from, there are bottlenecks if you were to trace the lineage of every living person back in time indefinitely.

This doesn't mean that at the era in which the bottleneck was alive that she was the only woman / one of just a few women. It just means her progeny was more lucky than the other women's progeny and more of them are alive today.

Of course, over the years I'm sure there have been plenty of mutations that have altered the MtDNA for different groups of people.
 

busydude

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2010
8,793
5
76
My thought has always been that people are too fundamentally different culturally and physically to have all come from a single mother.

Keep your thoughts to yourself.. because people think you got the derp.
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
I challenge you to present one single falsifiable prediction of creationism (that is mutually exclusive with evolution) that has not been proven false.

Creationism isn't about prediction. Creationism and evolution can co-exist, since evolution does not evaluate the beginnings of life but rather the process of changes that occur between the beginning to today. Creation was an event, not a process.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
Creationism isn't about prediction. Creationism and evolution can co-exist, since evolution does not evaluate the beginnings of life but rather the process of changes that occur between the beginning to today. Creation was an event, not a process.
Agreed, depending on your definition of 'creationism'. In this case I (and I assumed the OP) was talking about the flavour of creationism that crazy Americans are constantly trying to push into science classes, the one that masquerades as a scientific theory. This is generally the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old and follows a non-denominational creation myth that coincidentally happens to correspond closely with the Christian bible.
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
Agreed, depending on your definition of 'creationism'. In this case I (and I assumed the OP) was talking about the flavour of creationism that crazy Americans are constantly trying to push into science classes, the one that masquerades as a scientific theory. This is generally the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old and follows a non-denominational creation myth that coincidentally happens to correspond closely with the Christian bible.

The 6,000 year old thing is based on genealogy, which may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, there is literally no way to ever know these things and any discussion is moot.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
The 6,000 year old thing is based on genealogy, which may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, there is literally no way to ever know these things and any discussion is moot.
Really? There's literally no way to know that the Earth is over 6,000 years old? Really? Wow. That's some amazing willful ignorance.
 

Malak

Lifer
Dec 4, 2004
14,696
2
0
Really? There's literally no way to know that the Earth is over 6,000 years old? Really? Wow. That's some amazing willful ignorance.

All the reasons we think anything is of a certain age are not necessarily accurate. There are too many variables to affect such things that we can't actually know any of it is true.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
All the reasons we think anything is of a certain age are not necessarily accurate. There are too many variables to affect such things that we can't actually know any of it is true.
All of them are inaccurate? You think that some factor other than yearly seasons cause tree rings? Apart from counting errors can you give me any reason why counting tree rings would produce an inaccurate result? Because we can prove using this very simple and flawless method that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old. And you know what's cool about it? The times from our other methods like radiometric dating line up perfectly.

So go on, Malak. Please tell me which variables you are referring to that make tree rings inaccurate. I'll wait right here.

Oh, and if you have some kind of problem with tree rings we can use exactly the same technique using ice cores or sediment deposits. Oh, and they line up perfectly with tree ring and radiometric dating too.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
So go on, Malak. Please tell me which variables you are referring to that make tree rings inaccurate. I'll wait right here.
My money's on Jesus and velociraptors.
 

Karl Agathon

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2010
1,081
0
0
Mitochondrial Eve is the daughter of Karl and Sharon Agathon. They and the rest of the colonial fleet arrived at and settled on Earth roughly 150,000 years ago.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,182
5,646
146
All of them are inaccurate? You think that some factor other than yearly seasons cause tree rings? Apart from counting errors can you give me any reason why counting tree rings would produce an inaccurate result? Because we can prove using this very simple and flawless method that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old. And you know what's cool about it? The times from our other methods like radiometric dating line up perfectly.

So go on, Malak. Please tell me which variables you are referring to that make tree rings inaccurate. I'll wait right here.

Oh, and if you have some kind of problem with tree rings we can use exactly the same technique using ice cores or sediment deposits. Oh, and they line up perfectly with tree ring and radiometric dating too.

You're wasting your time.
 

Juked07

Golden Member
Jul 22, 2008
1,474
0
76
All of them are inaccurate? You think that some factor other than yearly seasons cause tree rings? Apart from counting errors can you give me any reason why counting tree rings would produce an inaccurate result? Because we can prove using this very simple and flawless method that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old. And you know what's cool about it? The times from our other methods like radiometric dating line up perfectly.

So go on, Malak. Please tell me which variables you are referring to that make tree rings inaccurate. I'll wait right here.

Oh, and if you have some kind of problem with tree rings we can use exactly the same technique using ice cores or sediment deposits. Oh, and they line up perfectly with tree ring and radiometric dating too.

You think you're rebutting someone who represents the views of ignorant masses, but I think you're grossly overestimating the % of "creationists" that are young earth proponents (lol).
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
cuz wiki has everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
"Common fallacies

[edit]Not the only woman
One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. There may be many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, those lines of descent included at least one male, who do not pass on their mother's mitochondrial DNA, thereby breaking the line of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[10]

[edit]Not a contemporary of "Adam"
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.[12]

[edit]Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans
Main article: Most recent common ancestor
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestry of modern human populations:

The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[13]
The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans was the time at which all humans who were then alive either left no descendants alive today or were common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors" alive at the "Identical ancestors point" in time. This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[13]
"Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line common ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.
Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent female-line common ancestor of all living people."
 
May 11, 2008
20,068
1,294
126
All of them are inaccurate? You think that some factor other than yearly seasons cause tree rings? Apart from counting errors can you give me any reason why counting tree rings would produce an inaccurate result? Because we can prove using this very simple and flawless method that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old. And you know what's cool about it? The times from our other methods like radiometric dating line up perfectly.

So go on, Malak. Please tell me which variables you are referring to that make tree rings inaccurate. I'll wait right here.

Oh, and if you have some kind of problem with tree rings we can use exactly the same technique using ice cores or sediment deposits. Oh, and they line up perfectly with tree ring and radiometric dating too.

You will not win. For some it is easier to accept that a mere man can walk on water without modifying physics(even modifying physics to be able to walk on water is an impressive feature even today) than it is to accept physics. Therefore, for those people physics does not exist. For some creationists it is difficult to accept that some models work good enough to explain a phenomena but that it is still a model and does not have to be the reality. But then again, some atheist scientists exhibit the same fundamental behavior as fundamental religious nuts by assuming that models are the real and definite answer and not just a model to explain phenomena where the model only works in certain specific situations. And even claiming that theories are the real and pure truth. C'est la vie.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
The problem I have with the rejection of the young earth theory is that the measures used to measure the age of the earth could possibly be inaccurate.

I'm not saying that I agree with the young earth theory, but there has to be a higher power, although I think that higher power was good, since I'm a Deist and since I believe in the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. That higher power could just be the universe, I don't know. However, if the universe is the higher power (the creator transformed themself into the universe, which is Pan-Deism), then abiogenesis would have to have occurred, and I don't understand how life could've come from non-life.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |