- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chromosome Study: All Men Can Be Traced to One Man
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:22 am to Korkstand
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:22 am to Korkstand
quote:
that's just the way it happened.
Funny, if I say the same thing about the Bible, I'm called an idiot.
quote:
Many organisms self-replicate, and sexes are not necessary.
Have two males ever populated a species?
2
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:23 am to Lg
quote:
Lg
Out of curiosity, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:34 am to JakeTheDog
I have to laugh, because Fun Bunch correctly points out that "Evolution" doesn't think, guide anything, etc. I agree with that.
Yet, when I pointed out that, sans Intelligent Design, a guiding force, etc,....it would mean that the origin of mankind and everything else just happened randomly, Roger disagreed and said that was stupid. He mumbled something about 'Survival of the fittest' as if that explained everything.
You can't have it both ways, people. If there was no Supreme Being or Intelligent Design guiding the genesis of everything, then that means that everything we know and experience happened by chance, or randomly.
Imo, everything from the design of the human body, to the miracle of procreation (two genders happened by chance?) to the unbelievably complex solar system in which we exist simply scream out to us every day that none of this happened by chance.
Thanks for helping me make my point, Fun Bunch. I'll let you and Roger debate what the word random means.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:35 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
You have a very feeble understanding of how these things work.
I've never claimed to be as smart as you are and some others on here. You can only explain what already exist and is known, but you're going to tell me "mutations happen" and think that is an explanation.
Korkstand says that the heart came first. Can the heart continue beating without brain function without outside help? Isn't the goal of evolution is for the species to "survive"?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:41 am to JakeTheDog
quote:It could have been her, but it's not likely. But, chances are, this male mated with many females. But if any of his mates had all female children, then that direct male lineage would have ended, and one of his other mates' branches had to continue the direct male lineage.
Why not the female that this male mated with?
The same thing happened on the female side, with a direct female lineage being passed on. It has to do with the way the X and Y chromosomes are passed on to our children.
quote:Ah, I see why you are confused. Why are you making an assumption like "only mated with one another"? What you need to understand is that they have not claimed to have found everyone's ancestors as a couple. They have narrowed down the time period in which everyone's most recent common ancestors might have lived. This means that, if you and I were the only two people on earth today, that you and I could share a grandfather in common, but not a grandmother (our grandpa was a ladies' man). So our most recent common male ancestor was 2 generations back, but our most recent common female ancestor might be 3 generations back (consider if our grandpa had slept with 2 sisters, and I was descended from one and you were descended from the other, so we would share a great-grandmother and great-grandfather). So, we would actually have our great-grandparents in common, as a couple, but we would only share a grandfather in the following generation. That's what the article means by "most recent common ancestor".
Same thing, why not the male that this female mated with? I see you keep bringing up the family tree thing. OK., Now imagine if you're looking at your family tree and there is your great grand parents and someone tries to tell you that you are descended from your great grandfather but not your great grandmother despite the fact they only mated with one another their entire lives. Instead some woman on the other side of the sate who lived 200 years before your great grandfather was born is your real great grand-mother but somehow her husband, who was the only male she mated with, is not one of your great grandfather.
Make sense?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:48 am to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
I don't know how you keep replying to these guys...I'm exhausted by just reading them.
Kudos to you
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:49 am to TK421
quote:
Out of curiosity, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread?
Nothing really, except that maybe if more scientists would start asking the question of "Why did God do it this way?" instead of trying to remove Him out of everything, that more of His secrets would be revealed.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:53 am to Lg
quote:
except that maybe if more scientists would start asking the question of "Why did God do it this way?" instead of trying to remove Him out of everything, that more of His secrets would be revealed.
What makes you think there aren't scientists that think this way? You are making assumptions about a community based on self-identified experts that spend countless hours being assholes on an internet message board.
Do you think any of the guys responding to you in this thread are the ones making waves in the scientific community?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:00 am to TK421
quote:
Do you think any of the guys responding to you in this thread are the ones making waves in the scientific community?
No. But when is the last time you heard a prominent scientist in the MM declare that "We are trying to unlock the secrets of God"?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:00 am to Lg
quote:
Have two males ever populated a species?
What? In organisms that reproduce asexually, there are no genders. Some of them can, however, transfer genes to and from one another through various mechanisms, though apparently these methods do not work well once an organism evolves to reach a certain size or complexity.
Think about this (extremely simplified) example about how a primitive asexual species could have evolved to have genders. We have a bunch of single-celled, self-replicating organisms. They happily go about consuming nutrients, replicating, and transferring genes horizontally, which sort of helps to spread the advantageous genes. Mutations happen all the time, so here and there some of these organisms have a trait that makes transferring their genes faster or easier in some way, and others mutate in a way that makes it faster or easier to receive genes in some way. As these organisms continue to intermingle, eventually some of the two opposites run into one another and instead of just transferring a trait or two, they transfer nearly all of their traits. Now, when that efficiently receptive organism replicates, its offspring will have the combined advantageous traits of its "parents". Some of the offspring might have the "giver" trait, and some might have the "receiver" trait. Now, also, since these new mutants have the combined adaptations of both their parents, they could be even more likely to survive than their non-mutated distant relatives. So they continue on, maybe even being able to self-replicate AND "mate". And on and on it goes, through the generations, and the giver and receiver traits live on as they provided an advantage as far as sharing and spreading genes.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:04 am to KCT
quote:
Basically, this study concluded that the DNA of all men can be traced back to a single man, and that he existed at the same time as the mother of all women.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:07 am to Lg
quote:
when is the last time you heard a prominent scientist in the MM declare that "We are trying to unlock the secrets of God"?
the only goal of science is to uncover truths
if you want to call them "secrets of God" then go ahead, it will not make them any more or less true
so why should a scientist need to think that way? What difference would it make?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:09 am to Lg
quote:
But when is the last time you heard a prominent scientist in the MM declare that "We are trying to unlock the secrets of God"?
That would be professionally inappropriate. Whether that is their personal motivation or not, ascribing that motivation to their colleagues would be presumptuous.
At the same time, if you hear a scientist claim to have made some discovery that disproves God, they should be equally ignored.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:14 am to Lg
quote:
Korkstand says that the heart came first. Can the heart continue beating without brain function without outside help? Isn't the goal of evolution is for the species to "survive"?
Modern earthworms have hearts, and their primitive "brains" are simply a group of nerves. They also don't have actual eyes, but they do have primitive photoreceptors to sense light. They also have both sexes in one animal (they are hermaphrodites), so they can reproduce alone or with a mate.
So, I'm sure you will ask, why are such primitive creatures still around? Well, apparently what they have is good enough to allow them to continue to reproduce. Just because some of them evolved advantages hundreds of millions of years ago and split the lineage, doesn't mean that the older model was going to die off. It simply means that other traits were advantageous enough to also allow them to survive and reproduce.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:18 am to Korkstand
quote:
So, I'm sure you will ask, why are such primitive creatures still around? Well, apparently what they have is good enough to allow them to continue to reproduce. Just because some of them evolved advantages hundreds of millions of years ago and split the lineage, doesn't mean that the older model was going to die off. It simply means that other traits were advantageous enough to also allow them to survive and reproduce.
And this is what I was getting at. If humans and everything else evolved from some kind of primordial soup or whatever for that matter, if the pressure wasn't enough to make an earthworm evolve into more than an earthworm why or what pressure would make us evolve into what we are today? Does that make sense?
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 11:22 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:27 am to KCT
quote:
Chromosome Study: All Men Can Be Traced to One Man
We discussed this study in my genomics and applied genetics class. From what I understand it, this "sperm Adam" is the just "mitochondrial eve". It is not a particular person as much as a female population living in a certain time that we can say hey we all came from this group. It has been over a yera since I read the study so I could be rusty.
quote:
Now, I have always found this to be very interesting. If the Theory of Evolution is correct, doesn't it seem strange that a random process would've created only one man and one woman? I think this study raises a lot of questions, none of which were addressed in the other thread.
No since computers and sequencing techniques have improved. Scientists are pretty much adopting the Out of Africa theory vs the multiple origin theory (may not be the exact name). Actually evolution would have created a human from a human like ancestor but our DNA would have been close enough where the new human could still mate with the previous ancestor but the humans would have an advantage due to adaptions and over the course of thousands of years humans overtake the ancestors.
quote:
Note: I think the person who wrote this article may have taken a liberty or two with what the findings of this study actually are, but regardless, the results of the study are illuminating, imo
Oh yeah, but now time to go read ten pages of Christian vs Atheist bs
ETA: I see OP is getting torn a new one on page 1-2 already
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 11:35 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:31 am to Lg
quote:
if the pressure wasn't enough to make an earthworm evolve into more than an earthworm why or what pressure would make us evolve into what we are today?
random mutations over eons
Posted on 2/7/14 at 11:47 am to Lg
quote:
And this is what I was getting at. If humans and everything else evolved from some kind of primordial soup or whatever for that matter, if the pressure wasn't enough to make an earthworm evolve into more than an earthworm why or what pressure would make us evolve into what we are today? Does that make sense?
Yes, it makes sense, and it's a valid question. The answer lies in the fact that it's pretty apparent that this planet is large and diverse enough to support an extremely wide variety of organisms. And, with the exception of extinction events, the further back into the fossil record we look, in general the less diversity we find. It is very apparent that life on earth took many paths as time went on.
And there are many different pressures that select for various adaptations. Consider deep-sea worms that have little use for light-sensing cells. Sure, many of them likely have just such a mutation, but it offers little advantage where there is no light, so they are no more likely to survive and reproduce than the non-mutants. Now consider what might happen as they continue to grow in population and spread, and some of them find shallower water near land where they can get some sunlight. Now, sunlight offers a source of energy and warmth, so those deep-sea worms might benefit from a taste of it, but they can't tell when it is daytime and don't particularly care. They happily continue to live on the sea floor. But the population that lives near a shoreline might benefit greatly from such an abundant source of energy, and of this population, the mutants who can sense light "know" when it is daytime and are at a distinct advantage. They can live their usual life in deeper waters, and in the daytime they can swim up and collect that sweet sunlight. So, among this population, these mutants with light-sensing cells DO have a selective advantage, and might reproduce at a faster rate than those without it, and this new population would take hold.
TL;DR: The same random mutations in the same species in different environments will cause a shift in the number of creatures in the population that pass along a particular trait.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:05 pm to Lg
quote:
more scientists would start asking the question of "Why did God do it this way?" instead of trying to remove Him out of everything, that more of His secrets would be revealed.
Which god?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 12:07 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Which god?
The One that created everything.
Page 9 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News