• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"No sex" law in Darwinism

questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago.
Does it matter that Adam and Eve didn't have sex with each other?

If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago, then the maternal ancestor of this Eve lived 100,000 years ago with Adam. So, there was sex.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth. The first life was a single being. A tribe of two individuals (for example, Adam and Eve) is believed not able to breed and survive until 2021 AD. Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual?
 
Last edited:
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago.
Does it matter that Adam and Eve didn't have sex with each other?

If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago, then the maternal ancestor of this Eve lived 100,000 years ago with Adam. So, there was sex.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth. The first life was a single being called LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). A tribe of two individuals (for example, Adam and Eve) is believed not able to breed and survive until 2021 AD. Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual (LUCA)?
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Nobody suggests LUCA was the first life. It is merely the last common ancestor of the life we see today and in the fossil record. There could have been other branches of the tree of life before LUCA, none of whose descendants have survived or left evidence: Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
questfortruth said:
Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual (LUCA)?
Click to expand...

It didn't.

The last universal common ancestor or last universal cellular ancestor (LUCA), also called the last universal ancestor (LUA), is the most recent population of organisms from which all organisms now living on Earth have a common descent—the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth.[1] A related concept is that of progenote. LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth, but rather the latest that is ancestral to all current existing life.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago.
Does it matter that Adam and Eve didn't have sex with each other?

If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago, then the maternal ancestor of this Eve lived 100,000 years ago with Adam. So, there was sex.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth. The first life was a single being. A tribe of two individuals (for example, Adam and Eve) is believed not able to breed and survive until 2021 AD. Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual?
Click to expand...

There's so much wrong here, I just don't have the energy..
I'm gonna leave it assuming many others will unpack the stupid out of it.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago.
Does it matter that Adam and Eve didn't have sex with each other?

If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago, then the maternal ancestor of this Eve lived 100,000 years ago with Adam. So, there was sex.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth. The first life was a single being. A tribe of two individuals (for example, Adam and Eve) is believed not able to breed and survive until 2021 AD. Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual?
Click to expand...


You are displaying a complete misunderstanding of generics genetics and the roles played by Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

But i am in no way surprised

Edit : spelling error fixed... Damn autocorrect
 
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
The Big Bang is much more remote from us, but we study it. So, we shall study the very first life
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, you completely missed the point of what @Valjean said.

He's saying that these "expectations" that say that populations of 2 aren't viable, apply to the complex multicellular organisms we know today.
They might not, and likely don't, apply to whatever it was that existed some 4 billion years ago.

Genders weren't even a thing then.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
He's saying that these "expectations" that say that populations of 2 aren't viable, apply to the complex multicellular organisms we know today.
They might not, and likely don't, apply to whatever it was that existed some 4 billion years ago.

Genders weren't even a thing then.
Click to expand...
Double standards.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Double standards.
Click to expand...
Not any more then it is a "double standard" to say that a hammer and a feather will not fall at the same speed when in a normal room, but will fall at the same speed when in a vaccuum.


:rolleyes:


The genetic difficulty of a population of just 2 being viable is a result of conditions that weren't present billions of years ago. Sexual procreation plays a large part in it, for starters. Requiring enough genetic variation to sustain a population is a problem of complex genetics. Complexity that wasn't always present.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
The genetic difficulty of a population of just 2 being viable is a result of conditions that weren't present billions of years ago. Sexual procreation plays a large part in it, for starters. Requiring enough genetic variation to sustain a population is a problem of complex genetics. Complexity that wasn't always present.
Click to expand...
Was your excuse peer-reviewed?
 
Spirit of Light

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
questfortruth said:
If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago.
Does it matter that Adam and Eve didn't have sex with each other?

If the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 100,000 years ago, and Mitochondrial Eve lived 50,000 years ago, then the maternal ancestor of this Eve lived 100,000 years ago with Adam. So, there was sex.

Adam and Eve were not the first life on Earth. The first life was a single being. A tribe of two individuals (for example, Adam and Eve) is believed not able to breed and survive until 2021 AD. Why then the very first life on Earth consisted of a "tribe" of one individual?
Click to expand...
According to the bible Eve was created from a rib from Adams body. So it would not be difficult for them to have sex.
If God can do tha5 he could keep humans alive
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Is this peer-reviewed?
Click to expand...

It's common sense.

The problem with the entire thing is inbreeding.
A population of just 2 mammals for example, a single breeding pair, is doomed to massive inbreeding to come up with a fairly sized population.
All that inbreeding is going to cause too much damage. This is why such a small population isn't viable.

Inbreeding however is a problem of sexual reproduction.
First life would not have reproduced sexually.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
It's common sense.

The problem with the entire thing is inbreeding.
A population of just 2 mammals for example, a single breeding pair, is doomed to massive inbreeding to come up with a fairly sized population.
All that inbreeding is going to cause too much damage. This is why such a small population isn't viable.

Inbreeding however is a problem of sexual reproduction.
First life would not have reproduced sexually.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, my notice needs to be published. If it is not published before, it needs peer-review.
It is not trivial: two bacteria have more chances to survive than two humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top