The YECs' Dilemma

[nPeace]

That's the common ancestor for mitochondrial DNA not humanity itself. She wasn't the first woman at all. In fact, she is younger than many Homo Sapiens fossils. She was the common ancestor of all current living female human beings meaning that our descendance is linked to her and she lived millennia apart from the eldest male genetic ancestor. Finally, she existed about 150 000 years ago, in another continent than where your Bible is set place... talk about confirmation of the biblical narrative.

the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

 

[nPeace]

These theories, while they all have merits, have been largely discredited since they don't account for the particulars of the Moon's orbit. That's why the collision hypothesis is the currently the one accepted by the scientific consensus.

So what. That's irrelevant.

 

[ppp]

There goes your science.

In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

Which does not make her the first human woman. You get that right? And Y-chromosomal Adam was not the first human man. Which means that it is likely that they did not live within thousands of years of each other.

 

[epronovost]

the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman.

BUT NOT THE FIRST ONE. IT SAYS IT CLEARLY SHE IS THE MOST RECENT ONE.

She didn't live alone either.

 

[nPeace]

No, that's true. He never created the waters; he only separated between the water that forms the sky (which is of course not a thing, but Genesis describe the world as flat and under a dome) and those forming the oceans and seas. Find my the verse where God creates the ocean or the waters.

False. That's your faulty understanding.

 

[nPeace]

Which does not make her the first human woman. You get that right? And Y-chromosomal Adam was not the first human man. Which means that it is likely that they did not live within thousands of years of each other.

back until all lines converge on one woman Oh my head.

 

[epronovost]

False. That's your faulty understanding.

Oaky than quote it; when did God created the waters?

 

[ppp]

back until all lines converge on one woman Oh my head.

Yes, which again does not make her the first woman. It makes her the most recent woman who is the ancestor to everyone living today. She would have had peers in her generation who also had children, but their lines of children all died off at various times.

*Edited for clarity.

 

[nPeace]

Oaky than quote it; when did God created the waters?

(Genesis 1:1, 2) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

Now use your head.
The narrator did not include the creation of the heavens.
The Bible speaks of heavens- where God dwells; where the heavenly bodies reside; earth's atmosphere.
Obviously the earth is one of the heavenly bodies, like the other planets.
So the narrator takes up from after these bodies exist - the earth being one of those formless and covered with water.

Should be easy to follow from there.... Should be.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, which again does not make her the first woman. It makes her the most recent woman who is the ancestor to everyone living today. She would have had peers in her generation who also had children, but their lines of children all died off at various times.

*Edited for clarity.

So? Who said she was? What's the point?
You seemed to have missed it.

 

[ppp]

So? Who said she was? What's the point?
You seemed to have missed it.

Perhaps. You seemed to take issue with this point "They have also understood very instinctively that trying to make a genealogy from two individuals, ancestors to all humans, was very stupid as it's impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals, especially not a species as large and diverse as humanity."

And you seemed to be attempt to refute it with, "In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman."

But perhaps you were simply agreeing that "...it's impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals" No?

 

[nPeace]

Perhaps. You seemed to take issue with this point "They have also understood very instinctively that trying to make a genealogy from two individuals, ancestors to all humans, was very stupid as it's impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals, especially not a species as large and diverse as humanity."

And you seemed to be attempt to refute it with, "In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all living humans. In other words, she is defined as the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman."

But perhaps you were simply agreeing that "...it's impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals" No?

"impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals" means what?
That the human species could not possibly come from a male and female. Correct?
According to the article, is that statement true, or false?

 

[epronovost]

(Genesis 1:1, 2) 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

Now use your head.
The narrator did not include the creation of the heavens.
The Bible speaks of heavens- where God dwells; where the heavenly bodies reside; earth's atmosphere.
Obviously the earth is one of the heavenly bodies, like the other planets.
So the narrator takes up from after these bodies exist - the earth being one of those formless and covered with water.

Should be easy to follow from there.... Should be.

Except that's not the case. The authors didn't knew of the existence of other celestial bodies like the Earth. They had no telescope nor the mathematical insight to make a difference between the various celestial bodies and their exact nature.

Heaven and earth is literally the sky and the earth itself. The other says God did that and then proceeds to explain how he did so. He was surfing above the waters and separated them. He specifically calls at the heights verse that "heaven" is the name he gave to the firmaments which is made of the body of water he suspended above the Earth. Then he shifted the water bellow the firmaments to make land appear.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

[epronovost]

"impossible to create an entire species out of only two individuals" means what?
That the human species could not possibly come from a male and female. Correct?
According to the article, is that statement true, or false?

The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to the biblical Eve, which has led to repeated misrepresentations or misconceptions in journalistic accounts on the topic. Popular science presentations of the topic usually point out such possible misconceptions by emphasizing the fact that the position of mt-MRCA is neither fixed in time (as the position of mt-MRCA moves forward in time as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages become extinct), nor does it refer to a "first woman", nor the only living female of her time, nor the first member of a "new species".[note 4]

That's from the article and it does present the idea that it's indeed false. It simply means that all (female) humans have a one precise female ancestor in common between them; and the same thing for men, but these two need not have been related or ever meeting in their lives. It's perfectly possible for all modern people to have distant ancestor in common; it does not follow that humanity started from a single pair of individual that reproduced between them to create all of humanity; that's not supported neither by the article neither by genetics.

See that's what MtDNA Eve is; not the first, the common female ancestor to all other living women, not the first nor the only one and who knows for the men. We know who is the common male ancestor for all men, but they didn't meet.

 

[nPeace]

Except that's not the case. The authors didn't knew of the existence of other celestial bodies like the Earth.

Heaven and earth is literally the sky and the earth itself. The other says God did that and then proceeds to explain how he did so. He was surfing above the waters and separated them. He specifically calls at the heights verse that "heaven" is the name he gave to the firmaments which is made of the body of water he suspended above the Earth. Then he shifted the water bellow the firmaments to make land appear.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Your faulty assumption, this time.
Do your homework. Read the books of Genesis, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, etc.,, and hopefully correct your mistaken view.

Because you are ignorant of the facts, doesn't make others ignorant.
The heavens already existed. The writer knew it, and clearly stated it. You quoted it. God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth...
What's giving you trouble understanding?

 

[nPeace]

The name "Mitochondrial Eve" alludes to the biblical Eve,

Maybe to you, but please don't drag me in that. I am not gullible.

 

[epronovost]

The heavens already existed. The writer knew it, and clearly stated it. You quoted it. God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth...
What's giving you trouble understanding?

Where does the water comes from; its neither the earth nor the heavens and makes up both later on.

 

[nPeace]

Where does the water comes from; its neither the earth nor the heavens and makes up both later on.

You are either changing the focus, or trying to distract... i.e. create a strawman.
Where the water came from is irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Genesis 2:4 uses the word 'yom'. So if YECs believe that day means 'a 24 hour day', that would mean that God created the heavens and the earth, in literally 24 hours, according to their reckoning.
Any YECs would like to explain that?

It doesnt only say yom, it also explains the day that's spoken in it. It is a normal day with sun rise, and sun set, and every day is explained that way. Its not just the word yom you have to consider.

 

[epronovost]

You are either changing the focus, or trying to distract... i.e. create a strawman.
Where the water came from is irrelevant.

No it is; if it wasn't created then it always was there and your creation myth does begin like most other creation myth; if some parts of the universe already in place or in a different universe altogether. Again, the Veda seems to do a better job at representing a complete creation myth:

1. Then even non-existence was not there, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the space beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic fluid, in depths unfathomed?

2. Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

3. At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of knowledge.

4. In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is, is kin to that which is not.

5. And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

6. But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

7. Whence all creation had its origin,
the creator, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
the creator, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.