It is time to revise the Methodology of Science

[questfortruth]

And this is where you go badly wrong. At no point was there only a single couple.

So, there will be no peace on Earth ever: Bible is indestructible.

 

[questfortruth]

There is no such thing as mt-ACA. There is most recent common ancestor (MRCA), there is the ACA point and then there are mtMRCA and Y-MRCA, all of which are different things.

Explain how ACA is younger than Mitochondrial Eve?

 

[Polymath257]

So, there will be no peace on Earth ever: Bible is indistructible.

Why bring the Bible into this? I thought it was a discussion about M-Eve and Y-Adam. The science doesn't back up what you seem to want to prove.

 

[questfortruth]

Why bring the Bible into this? I thought it was a discussion about M-Eve and Y-Adam. The science doesn't back up what you seem to want to prove.

I wonna peace on Earth, without conflicts. The Science tells, that there is a chance, that Bible is true.
Why not then close and de-fund the alternative ways?

 

[Polymath257]

I wonna peace on Earth, without conflicts. The Science tells, that there is a chance, that Bible is true.
Why not then close and de-fund the alternative ways?

Are you really advocating censorship of all ideas that don't agree with your viewpoint?

Sorry, the search for truth has shown the Bible to be wrong here. Time to move on.

 

[questfortruth]

Are you really advocating censorship of all ideas that don't agree with your viewpoint?

Sorry, the search for truth has shown the Bible to be wrong here. Time to move on.

No, I am a good, peaceful person. I want the peace on Earth with no conflicts.
Making wars is so unjust. Bible is not wrong, because I have not seen the disproof of it.

 

[shmogie]

Please tell me when you want this thread moved to the Jokes section.

What ? , you can't respond civilly ? Or, is derision just the automatic response of arrogance and being of the superior mind. Dawkins would be proud of you.
Why not just explain why the current state of DNA science precludes his observations ?

His observations re matter anti matter are absolutely correct, why not, agree, or try to refute him ?

Typical, expected, well practiced tactic in the atheist quiver.

 

[shmogie]

I didn't vote because of the limited options. No, if I were an editor and received this paper submitted for publication, I would not even send it to a referee. I would consider it to be only worthy of the trash can, or, perhaps, to put up on the wall for jokes and snide commentary.

Why? Because it is trivial and not an insight missed by anyone doing research in the field. It is also largely irrelevant to anything else. Whether one of Mito Eve's great-gandmothers many times removed is a contemporary of Y-Adam isn't particularly relevant to anything: they almost certainly didn't know each other.

As for the methodology of science: it is precisely because of stuff along this line that we have peer review to eliminate the crud.

Ah, you are proposing peer review for posts in this forum ? Interesting. I thought it was just a place to discuss idea's, theoretically, in a civil manner.

Since we are here on RELIGIOUS forums, perhaps we should have a group of Deists peer review what is posted.

You wouldn't be here, since you apparently aren't a peer,

Why not just discuss, and leave the condemnation CRUD out ?

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, you are proposing peer review for posts in this forum ? Interesting. I thought it was just a place to discuss idea's, theoretically, in a civil manner.

Since we are here on RELIGIOUS forums, perhaps we should have a group of Deists peer review what is posted.

You wouldn't be here, since you apparently aren't a peer,

Why not just discuss, and leave the condemnation CRUD out ?

No, that was not at all what I was proposing.

The OP asked whether I would accept the 'paper' for the *science* journal Nature. That journal is a peer-reviewed journal, as it should be. I have acted as a referee for peer-review and I understand the requirements for publication in a journal like Nature.

And no, this would not get past the first step: the editor would almost certainly just throw it away. I know I would if it was submitted to me.

So, no, I do NOT think that we should be peer-reviewed in RF. That is not the purpose of RF, as you have pointed out. But it *is* the purpose of the journal Nature and of other scientific journals. And by the (very high) standards of that journal, what was given in the OP is not even close to being publishable.

 

[questfortruth]

.....
And no, this would not get past the first step: the editor would almost certainly just throw it away. I know I would if it was submitted to me.

You are so just! So, please explain me in baby English how Common Ancestor for All humans (ACA) is younger than Mitochondrial Eve?

 

[Polymath257]

You are so just! So, please explain me in baby English how Common Ancestor for All humans (ACA) is younger than Mitochondrial Eve?

Look at the definitions. M-Eve is the most recent female that is an ancestor of all currently living females in a direct female line.

The MRCA is the most recent common ancestor via *any* possible line of descent. Because it is less restricted, it is the more recent of the two: it happened more recently.

The ACA is the time when everyone around was either an ancestor of everyone currently living or has no descendants at all. The ACA is more restrictive than MRCA, so had to be prior to MRCA.

But, because M-Eve has to be in a direct female line, but the ADA does not enforce such but does require everyone at that time to be a common ancestor, there is no necessary order between ACA and M-Eve.


Read this: Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia

 

[Kirran]

Explain how ACA is younger than Mitochondrial Eve?

@Polymath257 has taken excellent care of this request.

 

[questfortruth]

The ACA is the time when everyone around was either an ancestor of everyone currently living or has no descendants at all.

How can there be two Adams in, say, 4 000 BC? How are we (all male part of Humankind) in 2018 brothers in Adam 1 and brothers in Adam 2? In such case I could have two or more moms and dads?

 

[Kirran]

How can there be two Adams in, say, 4 000 BC? How are we (all male part of Humankind) in 2018 brothers in Adam 1 and brothers in Adam 2? In such case I could have two or more moms and dads?

You and all your second cousins have identical ancestors when you go back three generations. It's kinda like that, but with all humanity.

 

[Polymath257]

How can there be two Adams in, say, 4 000 BC? How are we (all male part of Humankind) in 2018 brothers in Adam 1 and brothers in Adam 2? In such case I could have two or more moms and dads?

How can you have more than one grandfather? The answers are the same.

 

[shmogie]

No, that was not at all what I was proposing.

The OP asked whether I would accept the 'paper' for the *science* journal Nature. That journal is a peer-reviewed journal, as it should be. I have acted as a referee for peer-review and I understand the requirements for publication in a journal like Nature.

And no, this would not get past the first step: the editor would almost certainly just throw it away. I know I would if it was submitted to me.

So, no, I do NOT think that we should be peer-reviewed in RF. That is not the purpose of RF, as you have pointed out. But it *is* the purpose of the journal Nature and of other scientific journals. And by the (very high) standards of that journal, what was given in the OP is not even close to being publishable.

Agreed

 

[questfortruth]

Look at the definitions. M-Eve is the most recent female that is an ancestor of all currently living females in a direct female line.

The MRCA is the most recent common ancestor via *any* possible line of descent. Because it is less restricted, it is the more recent of the two: it happened more recently.

The ACA is the time when everyone around was either an ancestor of everyone currently living or has no descendants at all. The ACA is more restrictive than MRCA, so had to be prior to MRCA.

But, because M-Eve has to be in a direct female line, but the ADA does not enforce such but does require everyone at that time to be a common ancestor, there is no necessary order between ACA and M-Eve.


Read this: Most recent common ancestor - Wikipedia

Suppose the moment of History called ``ACA'' has happened at 5500 BC. Then at this year 5500 BC lived, suppose 20000 Adams, it means, that any single human in our time (2018 AD) can trace own origin to one (or more) of the Adams [for example, man Bob -- female Jane -- man Igor -- .... - man John - Adam number 1700]. But due to the direct male descendents line of Y-Choromosomal Adam (and line females of Mitochondrial Eve) is present also at 5500 BC, then ACA point must be more ancient, than time wnen M-Eve and Y-Adam were born. It means, that mt-MRCA must be not 200 000 years old, but under 10 000 years old. Need quote from Wikipedia?

 

[exchemist]

I wonna peace on Earth, without conflicts. The Science tells, that there is a chance, that Bible is true.
Why not then close and de-fund the alternative ways?

OK now you are coming out of the closet as someone who is, ahem, not entirely serious, shall we say?

 

[questfortruth]

No, that was not at all what I was proposing.

The OP asked whether I would accept the 'paper' for the *science* journal Nature. That journal is a peer-reviewed journal, as it should be. I have acted as a referee for peer-review

You have made hereby fatal error: trolling is not peer-review.

 

[exchemist]

You have made hereby fatal error: trolling is not peer-review.

This reply is mad.