What does the fossil record say?

[Dan4reason]

Lets take simple MtEve. The raw data simply acknowledges that all living homo sapiens sapiens today are all decendant from one female. Creation supported. It takes the addition of convoluted hypothesis to say there were other females also at the time of Eve, they just ended up not leaving any sign of themselves because they all had lines that went through males or something and their DNA was lost. You can see, a huge convoluted hypothesis to turn simple and clear information into a nightmare. Then we are expected to swallow the same scenario when it comes to Y chromosome Adam.

Where is the evidence that we came from one female?

 

[outhouse]

Where is the evidence that we came from one female?

search mitochondrial eve

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey there Wilsoncole, just popped in to see what's happening.

These researchers like to put things into neat little boxes so they do separate the origin of the universe, abiogenesis and evolution into different fields.

The Universe is far more ancient than life, so of course it is a different matter. Abiogenesis is different from evolution basically because it has not yet been proven in the same way that evolution has.

I really don't understand what is your difficulty with those matters.

Steven Hawkins put his lifes work into getting to the singularity that resulted in a mathematical dilemma resulting in the creation of dimentions and multiple hypothesis, and who knows what, to make it work.

Abiogenesis has many models yet none can be mimicked in a controlled laboratory to produce life, the best they can do is synthesise life by using an already living cell as activation.

Sort of true (you are ignoring coacervates, for instance), but essentially unremarkable. Evolution itself is a very recent discovery, so there is no reason to expect the recreation of abiogenesis to occur so quickly after that.

Evolutionists still have problems turning lizards into birds and the cladistic phylogenic tree supports this.

Ugh. You could research a bit better, you know. It would lend your statements a bit of sorely needed credibility.

 

[Autodidact]

Ugh. You could research a bit better, you know. It would lend your statements a bit of sorely needed credibility.

Fortunately for newhope, she has no credibility. If she did, we would all think her a looser. [sic]

 

[outhouse]

 

[outhouse]

This one is so true lol

 

[wilsoncole]

its just that photo of all the skulls from chimp to human thats floats around weekly



im sorry you feel that way because your alone in a corner.

He is not alone - not by a looong shot!

 

[outhouse]

He is not alone - not by a looong shot!

thats true how could i think like that

I forgot all about the

stork
witches
leeches

LOL and a handfull of other myths to go along with creation

 

[DeistPrimate]

Sir/Ms,
Whoever you are - would you like me to respond to you?

I'd love to see you respond to ImmortalFlame's excellent post.

I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed, though not suprised.

 

[Nepenthe]

Lets take simple MtEve. The raw data simply acknowledges that all living homo sapiens sapiens today are all decendant from one female. Creation supported. It takes the addition of convoluted hypothesis to say there were other females also at the time of Eve, they just ended up not leaving any sign of themselves because they all had lines that went through males or something and their DNA was lost. You can see, a huge convoluted hypothesis to turn simple and clear information into a nightmare. Then we are expected to swallow the same scenario when it comes to Y chromosome Adam.

Where is the evidence that we came from one female?

search mitochondrial eve

Mitochondrial Eve was an incredibly misleading term to dub the finding (I'm not sure if Allan King actually coined the phrase or if some science popularizer did- either way it's inaccurate and doesn't quite convey the findings of the original paper "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution" in '87 which was an elaboration of Allan Walker and company's paper from '83.)

Mitochondria have their own private DNA, it's personal genome- we get all of our mitochondria from the egg so it's obviously the sole purveyor of mothers (well, in very rare cases it is passed on paternally in humans. Extremely rarely.). The idea that modern humans are descended from a single woman (or man) is preposterous. Studies on alleles in polymorphic loci show early human populations around 10,000 and anything less than 1,000 individuals suggests serious bottlenecking. Nuclear DNA shows that early human populations never dropped below the thousands much less two individuals. (see Allelic Genealogy and Human Evolution).

One way to think of it is that your father's mother passed her mtDNA to her daughters, but not her son (your father). Your grandmother is not matrilineal to you yet she certainly existed. Mito' Eve wasn't the most recent common ancestor, but the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today in terms of matrilineal descent. She is not our lone female ancestor, she was not the only living woman on the planet during her lifetime; thousands of other females co-existed with her but they did not leave descendants on the matrilineal line that are detectable today.

Regardless, mitochondrial Eve lived approximately 50,000 to 75,000 years before Y-Adam so these populations make a bad match for the Adam and Eve story whether interpreted poetically or literally. The research simply indicates that groups of genes inevitably coalesce to an ancestral common origin- It is a mathematically derived consequence for the:

"...idea of tracing the ancestry of a gene backward in time and building up the family tree of the genes (at a particular locus) in a population sample back to the point at which they have a single common ancestor."
​

There's nothing Biblically supported by Mitochiondrial Eve. Yes, mtDNA is obviously matrilineal, yes, the most recent Y-chromosome ancestor is passed on by the father, but the genetic evidence bears as much similarity to the Biblical account as it does to Athene wiping Haephastus' semen from her leg with a rag and when throwing it it to the ground up sprang Erichthonous. It would be just as accurate and just as elucidating to call it Mitochondrial Athene and Y-chromosome Haephastus.

 

[wilsoncole]

Wilson, it's you who doesn't get it!!
His statemant was "Building that's already been built" by whatever means! We are studying a structure that has existed in tack on whatever foundation for millions of years to determine "HOW" it's built, not "WHO" built it! Kind of like looking at a cliff of the Grand Canyon, noticing the shear wall and all it's layers, then determining how they were layed down and what they are made of. What they are setting on is not that important or even needed to determine each layers composition! Wouldn't you agree?
Just Wondering

Something's not right here.
What do you mean "not WHO?"
If you were in a very hostile desert environment and you came across a house, well built, well stocked and with all the comforts you could imagine, are you telling me that you are not going to wonder, not just HOW it got there, but WHO put it there?
Are you going to start tearing it apart in an effort to find out HOW it was made?
This earth is like that house in the desert, with all conveniences for comfortable living and with a hostile environment all around it.
You are tearing it apart!

Let's illustrate this a little bit more:
If you are moving into a new house and your moving company dumped all your furniture on the front porch, how will your kitchen utensils get into the kitchen?

Let's go a little further:
You leave that jumbled mess on the porch and go to get a sandwich. Upon returning, you find your kitchen well arranged and functioning. Aren't you going to wonder WHO put it in order? Will you not try to find out WHO's hiding in your house?

It is generally agreed that the Big Bang actually did occur, setting both time and our universe in motion.
Was it orderly or was it chaotic?
If it was chaotic, how did the universe get to be in such remarkable order?
If it was orderly, WHO set it in order?

Don't talk silly.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is generally agreed that the Big Bang actually did occur, setting both time and our universe in motion.
Was it orderly or was it chaotic?
If it was chaotic, how did the universe get to be in such remarkable order?
If it was orderly, WHO set it in order?

Don't talk silly.

It may be difficult to accept, but the fact is that order does indeed establish itself in nature (to a degree) spontaneously out of chaos without any sign of an active will.

Why so? Because physical laws are coherent and predictable, and physical circunstances end up being shaped by those laws. One can hang a messed shirt in a room with enough vapor for enough time and it will become more presentable and ordered after some time. One can mix a variety of kinds of sand and dust into water and shake it for a time; the solids will spontaneously organize themselves due to gravity, and end up in fairly tidy, distinct levels according to their respective weights.

Similar occurrences of spontaneous self-organization happen in many other situations due to forces such as chemical affinity and eletromagnetic attraction. It is simply the way things happen. Stars and planets are formed because that is what happens when matter of a certain quantity and temperature cools down and slows down. Primitive cells, being more rudimentary, have an unstable, unreliable mechanism of self-reproduction. They generate a considerable variety of mistakes, and naturally enough, many of those mistakes will simply not last many generations at all, while others will turn out to reproduce better than the previous generations. That is simple natural selection of primitive cells, and it really doesn't imply a conscious will in action, although of course it doesn't rule out such a hypothetical will either.

 

[outhouse]

allot like the reason our nose is right above our mouth and eyes not far away either.

 

[Big_TJ]

It does not matter if I do not uphold any JW view. I think that phrase applies to the many churches that have changed their ideology to suit the public..and I am as free to think that as any other interpretation of scripture, including yours. JW's are advised by the 'descreet slave' to not visit these sites, yet there are many here.

I see many refutes to my post here. All I say is that the many refutes have addressed side points which is a great way to evade the main point I was making which is...

There is sufficient evidence to which I have spoken in previous posts here that suggests that anyone that does not accept the fossil evidence as convincing has good basis to do so. That does not mean you also should not accept it. You are free to do as you choose, as am I and all.

If you think you have the answers to the dilemmas I have posted, and there are any more, please tell the researchers because they have obviously missed something and you can tell 'em what's what.

If everything you find supports Toe, even if it contradicts the last most commonly held view eg human evolution from knuckle walkers, then basically what I say is that this is not convincing at all. As you have seen many times in toe and fossil evidence commonly held views of the majority change and researchers can irrefutably speak to convincing evidence for whatever...until that changes.

Actually, my response was intended for Wilsoncole. You, on the other hand is a separate case. I would suggest that you try to do two things before your posts are really taken seriously:

1) try to LEARN and UNDERSTAND what Evolution and the Theory of Evolution says. In this, you will also LEARN that TOE does not posit that human descended from Chimps (or the other way round)

2) try to UNDERSTAND the items that you post (supposedly in objection of TOE).
A quick glance on majority of your postings shows that there may be disagreements surrounding specifics of evolutions; I am at a lost in understanding why you post them as opposition to TOE

 

[wilsoncole]

I'd love to see you respond to ImmortalFlame's excellent post.

I'm pretty sure I'll be disappointed, though not suprised.

The flame went out!
Just so you know - I do not respond to people who think they can talk to me any way they wish. That amounts to enabling abuse and it doesn't work with me. I show respect to people and I am entitled to it in return.

You got a point to make?

(Your sarcasm did not go unnoticed.)

 

[Big_TJ]

Before you build a high-rise structure, it it necessary to build a foundation - right?
If that requirement is ignored, the entire structure will collapse.
The evolutionary structure is collossal. Yet - it has no foundation!
For that reason alone, any defense of evolution is inadequate. And unreasonable.
You cannot account for the arrival of that first unicellular organism, yet you insist that it existed and blossomed in what we are today.
Like you suggest, abiogenesis is impossible and proven to be so.
If the Miller experiment of 1953 had succeeded, it would only have proved that life was created - in this case, by Miller.

Man, reading this analogy was like reading Kent Hovind's Dissertation!
Had you known ANYTHING about TOE, you would have known that it starts somewhere like "in the middle." It requires a starting point, but is not concern with what that starting point looks like. So, if GOD, or Santa Claus, or Wilsoncole provided the "starting point" that fine for evolution. Therefore, your analogy would be more useful if you compare it with standing at the first or second floor and looking out; from the "foundation" looking up.:no:

 

[wilsoncole]

It may be difficult to accept, but the fact is that order does indeed establish itself in nature (to a degree) spontaneously out of chaos without any sign of an active will.

Why so? Because physical laws are coherent and predictable, and physical circunstances end up being shaped by those laws. One can hang a messed shirt in a room with enough vapor for enough time and it will become more presentable and ordered after some time. One can mix a variety of kinds of sand and dust into water and shake it for a time; the solids will spontaneously organize themselves due to gravity, and end up in fairly tidy, distinct levels according to their respective weights.

Similar occurrences of spontaneous self-organization happen in many other situations due to forces such as chemical affinity and eletromagnetic attraction. It is simply the way things happen. Stars and planets are formed because that is what happens when matter of a certain quantity and temperature cools down and slows down. Primitive cells, being more rudimentary, have an unstable, unreliable mechanism of self-reproduction. They generate a considerable variety of mistakes, and naturally enough, many of those mistakes will simply not last many generations at all, while others will turn out to reproduce better than the previous generations. That is simple natural selection of primitive cells, and it really doesn't imply a conscious will in action, although of course it doesn't rule out such a hypothetical will either.

Are you sure you want to get into this?
If you are, then start with this:
Where did the sand, the dust, the cells, the water, the electromagnetism, the physical laws, the chemistry, the elements, the mathematics and the intellect that put them all together come from?

Remember:
"NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING!
We all know it is impossible for something to spring out of nothing and that everything that has a beginning was caused by something that existed before it.
With this in mind, imagine a point in the past when nothing existed - no planets, no stars, no galaxies - nothing! Not even God.
If this was the case at some time in the past, what would exist today? NOTHING! For we know that nothing comes from nothing - right?
The fact that something exists today tells us that something or someone MUST have always existed.
That which has always existed must, therefore, be that which created everything else.
Either God, or the universe must have always existed."
(Youtube/watch?v+WUMOxvFw4Rk)

Which is it?

Nothing comes from nothing - nothing!
If you think otherwise, please demonstrate! No theories, please!

Uh! "Circumstances end up being shaped?" How does a circumstance get shaped? What did it start out as? What is its purpose?
Stars and planets are "formed?" By whom and for what purpose?

 

[Autodidact]

Something's not right here.
What do you mean "not WHO?"
If you were in a very hostile desert environment and you came across a house, well built, well stocked and with all the comforts you could imagine, are you telling me that you are not going to wonder, not just HOW it got there, but WHO put it there?
Are you going to start tearing it apart in an effort to find out HOW it was made?
This earth is like that house in the desert, with all conveniences for comfortable living and with a hostile environment all around it.
You are tearing it apart!

Let's illustrate this a little bit more:
If you are moving into a new house and your moving company dumped all your furniture on the front porch, how will your kitchen utensils get into the kitchen?

Let's go a little further:
You leave that jumbled mess on the porch and go to get a sandwich. Upon returning, you find your kitchen well arranged and functioning. Aren't you going to wonder WHO put it in order? Will you not try to find out WHO's hiding in your house?

It is generally agreed that the Big Bang actually did occur, setting both time and our universe in motion.
Was it orderly or was it chaotic?
If it was chaotic, how did the universe get to be in such remarkable order?
If it was orderly, WHO set it in order?

Don't talk silly.

You may go wonder this and try to solve it another thread. It has nothing--absolutely nothing--to do with this one. Do you understand why? If not, I'll explain it to you.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you sure you want to get into this?
If you are, then start with this:
Where did the sand, the dust, the cells, the water, the electromagnetism, the physical laws, the chemistry, the elements, the mathematics and the intellect that put them all together come from?

Remember:
"NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING!
We all know it is impossible for something to spring out of nothing and that everything that has a beginning was caused by something that existed before it.
With this in mind, imagine a point in the past when nothing existed - no planets, no stars, no galaxies - nothing! Not even God.
If this was the case at some time in the past, what would exist today? NOTHING! For we know that nothing comes from nothing - right?
The fact that something exists today tells us that something or someone MUST have always existed.
That which has always existed must, therefore, be that which created everything else.
Either God, or the universe must have always existed."
(Youtube/watch?v+WUMOxvFw4Rk)

Which is it?

Nothing comes from nothing - nothing!
If you think otherwise, please demonstrate! No theories, please!

Uh! "Circumstances end up being shaped?" How does a circumstance get shaped? What did it start out as? What is its purpose?
Stars and planets are "formed?" By whom and for what purpose?

You seem interested in debating atheism, and may wish to start a thread to do so. It has nothing to do with this one, which is about fossils and evolution. If you have nothing to say about fossils and evolution, would you please stop cluttering up this thread with irrelevant issues? Thank you.

 

[JustWondering2]

Are you sure you want to get into this?
If you are, then start with this:
Where did the sand, the dust, the cells, the water, the electromagnetism, the physical laws, the chemistry, the elements, the mathematics and the intellect that put them all together come from?

Remember:
"NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING!
We all know it is impossible for something to spring out of nothing and that everything that has a beginning was caused by something that existed before it.
With this in mind, imagine a point in the past when nothing existed - no planets, no stars, no galaxies - nothing! Not even God.
If this was the case at some time in the past, what would exist today? NOTHING! For we know that nothing comes from nothing - right?
The fact that something exists today tells us that something or someone MUST have always existed.
That which has always existed must, therefore, be that which created everything else.
Either God, or the universe must have always existed."
(Youtube/watch?v+WUMOxvFw4Rk)

Which is it?

Nothing comes from nothing - nothing!
If you think otherwise, please demonstrate! No theories, please!

Uh! "Circumstances end up being shaped?" How does a circumstance get shaped? What did it start out as? What is its purpose?
Stars and planets are "formed?" By whom and for what purpose?

There you go again!! Man get it through your head! Science says nothing of the WHOM, In fact it doesn't matter to science!! For GODS sake get that through your head! Science is about the HOW!!!

OBTW, try this, worshop GOD, not the book man wrote about him!!