Christians Believing Badly

[jordanriver]

Tassman, I was only addressing your 200K (or 195K) number. That seems to come from the disputed geochronology of the Omo remains.

was there DNA evidence to back up that number(s)

[Tassman]

cherry-picking??

Tassman, YOU are the one who cited the omo fossils in POST 202

so I addressed that

Yes, you're right. Apologies.

Nevertheless the Omo fossils are merely one component of a huge collection of evidence as my links in #238 indicate.

[jordanriver]

Yes, you're right. Apologies.

Nevertheless the Omo fossils are merely one component of a huge collection of evidence as my links in #238 indicate.

ok, one at a time. Lets go to the next Smithsonian link:

“From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils”.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

ok, I clicked the "here" to see the "humans" Smithsonian is referring to
I notice it includes Australopithecus branch members, and Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus kadabba and Ardipithecus ramidus from the Ardipithecus branch, and the three members of the Paranthropus branch.

so I clicked their "open the family tree"

Notice, that the branches of Australopithecus and Ardipithecus and Paranthropus are all 'side branches'
they don't have descendants, IOW, we aren't their descendants, IOW, they aren't our ancestors.

That's three of the branches. There's only 4 branches represented there and 3 of them , as far as I am concerned, do not involve us modern humans.

The whole point was supposed to be .... that we are descended from some other species.

So whats the point of including that big "6,000 individuals" number if it includes 3 out of the 4 branches that didn't even lead to us?

[Tassman]

ok, one at a time. Lets go to the next Smithsonian link:




ok, I clicked the "here" to see the "humans" Smithsonian is referring to
I notice it includes Australopithecus branch members, and Orrorin tugenensis and Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus kadabba and Ardipithecus ramidus from the Ardipithecus branch, and the three members of the Paranthropus branch.

so I clicked their "open the family tree"

Notice, that the branches of Australopithecus and Ardipithecus and Paranthropus are all 'side branches'
they don't have descendants, IOW, we aren't their descendants, IOW, they aren't our ancestors.

That's three of the branches. There's only 4 branches represented there and 3 of them , as far as I am concerned, do not involve us modern humans.

The whole point was supposed to be .... that we are descended from some other species.

So whats the point of including that big "6,000 individuals" number if it includes 3 out of the 4 branches that didn't even lead to us?

ALLa genealogical chart showing the ancestry, descent, and relationship of all members of a family or other genealogical group.http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidencehttp://phys.org/news97857326.html#jCp

[jordanriver]

ALL the branches are interconnected to a greater or lesser degree. This is what’s meant by a Family Tree, namely a genealogical chart showing the ancestry, descent, and relationship of all members of a family or other genealogical group.

“Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.”

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

ok, I don't count the side branches that are not our ancestors, and you do.
nothing I can do about that.

And:

“…all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them”.

http://phys.org/news97857326.html#jCp

you can have the y chromosome claim, which does not take into account stress induced mutation rates but assumes an unrealistic 'uniformitarian' rate of mutations for tens of thousands of years

but you cannot have their mtDNA claims.


there is recombination in the mtDNA after all.

if you want to take the time, starting HERE for about 3 pages of debate and citation about the so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis

[Tassman]

ok, I don't count the side branches that are not our ancestors, and you do.
nothing I can do about that.

you can have the y chromosome claim, which does not take into account stress induced mutation rates but assumes an unrealistic 'uniformitarian' rate of mutations for tens of thousands of years

but you cannot have their mtDNA claims.


there is recombination in the mtDNA after all.

if you want to take the time, starting HERE for about 3 pages of debate and citation about the so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

[jordanriver]

Actually, the 'Mitochondrial Eve' theory/hypothesis had nothing to do with Bible-Eve.

[Tassman]

Actually, the 'Mitochondrial Eve' theory/hypothesis had nothing to do with Bible-Eve.

http://creation.com/mitochondrial-ev...e-is-premature

[jordanriver]

No it didn't but this didn't stop some Creationists trying to link the two together:

“Creationists have enthusiastically welcomed the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ hypothesis (i.e. that all modern humans can be traced back to one woman) because it clearly supports biblical history and contradicts evolutionary scenarios”.

http://creation.com/mitochondrial-ev...e-is-premature

In any event the “so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis” has been superseded; it's is no longer an issue.

and your phys org link from POST 244 bases its "DNA" evidence from they hypothesis, even though it doesn't name it by that name, it simply cited mitochondrial DNA ,

I believe that's where the whole "200,000" year deal originated to begin with, Rebecca Cann and Mark Stoneking's research
(albeit good scientific work, I do have to concede that much, they just didn't know mtDNA was not as purely female as was generally assumed at the time)

...that's why I kept egging you on about where you got the 200,000 (thereabouts) figure.

[Tassman]

and your phys org link from POST 244 bases its "DNA" evidence from they hypothesis, even though it doesn't name it by that name, it simply cited mitochondrial DNA ,

I believe that's where the whole "200,000" year deal originated to begin with, Rebecca Cann and Mark Stoneking's research
(albeit good scientific work, I do have to concede that much, they just didn't know mtDNA was not as purely female as was generally assumed at the time)

...that's why I kept egging you on about where you got the 200,000 (thereabouts) figure.

I don't understand the point you're making. The “so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis” is no longer relevant, it has been superseded

[jordanriver]

I don't understand the point you're making. The “so called Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis” is no longer relevant, it has been superseded

its relevant, you cited phys.org that used it.

.....wait, its superseded alright, but I thought I was the only one who knew that

oops, I don't know if "superseded" is accurate term, ...I don't know if its been 'replaced' by anything else.

...I know it superseded/replaced multiregional hypothesis, but as far as I know, it still stands in the current scientific literature.

[shunyadragon]

Needs more explanation.

[shunyadragon]

its relevant, you cited phys.org that used it.

.....wait, its superseded alright, but I thought I was the only one who knew that

oops, I don't know if "superseded" is accurate term, ...I don't know if its been 'replaced' by anything else.

...I know it superseded/replaced multiregional hypothesis, but as far as I know, it still stands in the current scientific literature.

As I asked Tassman, need more references and clarification. In publications as late as 2014 the Mitochondrial Eve Hypothesis is still valid, but changing as more information and research is available. Maybe a Natural Science thread is more appropriate.

[shunyadragon]

I have started a thread in Natural Science concerning the Mitochondrial Eve Hypothesis

[Tassman]

As I asked Tassman, need more references and clarification. In publications as late as 2014 the Mitochondrial Eve Hypothesis is still valid, but changing as more information and research is available. Maybe a Natural Science thread is more appropriate.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...s/homo-sapiens

If I've got this wrong shuny please correct me. This is more your area than mine.