Creationism is proved in 2003 year?

[questfortruth]

.....and anyone can write gibberish.

"Prove me wrong!" has been the cry of cranks and nutcases down the ages. It is up to the person making a claim to show he or she makes sense, not for readers to waste time on what looks like gibberish.

Prove, that you are right. If something is unclear to someone, that does not mean, that it is unclear to Albert Einstein or to God.

 

[exchemist]

Prove, that you are right. If something is unclear to someone, that does not mean, that it is unclear to Albert Einstein or to God.

Nope.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Prove, that you are right. If something is unclear to someone, that does not mean, that it is unclear to Albert Einstein or to God.

You're the one trying to make a point, the onus is on you to make it clear.

 

[questfortruth]

You're the one trying to make a point, the onus is on you to make it clear.

O.K. Do you understand the first 2 sentences of the article?

 

[gnostic]

Prove, that you are right. If something is unclear to someone, that does not mean, that it is unclear to Albert Einstein or to God.

Einstein was a physicist, not a biologist.

As far I know, Einstein didn’t contribute anything directly to biological science.

 

[siti]

It means, that mt-MRCA must be not 200 000 years old, but under 10 000 years old.

I don't even think you have to understand genetics (etc.) to figure out that our most recent common ancestor must have lived quite recently. Simple math will do - we have 2 parents, 4 grandparents...2^(n+1) n-grandparents...if you go back more than about 30 generations the number of our direct ancestors becomes greater than the population of the earth at that time. Of course you have to allow for liaisons between close relatives which were probably more the norm rather than the exception in times past, but even so, I doubt that could stretch the lineage from our MRCAs to more than a few thousand to perhaps tens of thousands of years - I don't believe it could be hundreds of thousands of years back...

...but so what? That MRCA of ours, was part of a huge population which also had its own MRCA thousands of years before that, and that MRCA of theirs was part of a population that had its own MRCA even more thousands of years before that...etc...

...so, so what?

I suspect perhaps one of the very much more ancient common ancestors of all humans was, in fact, a fish:

 

[Dell]

Hmm, I thought creationist believers have Adam from clay and Eve from Adam's rib, anyway thats how its reads in the bible. Adam was created prior to Eve. Creationist need to get off of the science playground before they hurt themselves....

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

O.K. Do you understand the first 2 sentences of the article?

"If Y-Chromosomal Adam lived many centuries before the Mitochondrial Eve, he
still knew the female Eve from whom the Mitochondrial Eve came. This female
Eve can be, then, called the common ancestor of the contemporary female
humankind. "

Those two sentences? I understand what they mean grammatically and semantically. The first sentence doesn't make logical sense, though. There is no reason to believe anyone "Y-Chromosomal Adam" ever encountered had anything to do with "Mitochondrial Eve".

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hmm, I thought creationist believers have Adam from clay and Eve from Adam's rib, anyway thats how its reads in the bible. Adam was created prior to Eve. Creationist need to get off of the science playground before they hurt themselves....

I've always found Creationists making scientific arguments to be rather like a hockey team complaining that the rules of chess are stacked against them when they try to play.

 

[questfortruth]

"If Y-Chromosomal Adam lived many centuries before the Mitochondrial Eve, he
still knew the female Eve from whom the Mitochondrial Eve came. This female
Eve can be, then, called the common ancestor of the contemporary female
humankind. "

Those two sentences? I understand what they mean grammatically and semantically. The first sentence doesn't make logical sense, though. There is no reason to believe anyone "Y-Chromosomal Adam" ever encountered had anything to do with "Mitochondrial Eve".

It is your problem. Perhaps somebody lies to troll me? Did M-Eve have parents?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is your problem. Perhaps somebody lies to troll me? Did M-Eve have parents?

No one's lying, and it is very much YOUR problem, because it is YOUR statement.

Sure M-Eve had parents. No reason to think THEY had anything to do with Y-Adam either.

 

[Polymath257]

It is your problem. Perhaps somebody lies to troll me? Did M-Eve have parents?

Yes, some ancestor of M-Eve was alive at the same time as Y-Adam. That doesn't mean they knew each other. It doesn't mean they were related. They may well have been thousands of miles away from each other.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, some ancestor of M-Eve was alive at the same time as Y-Adam. That doesn't mean they knew each other. It doesn't mean they were related. They may well have been thousands of miles away from each other.

Non geometric population growth isn't instantly obvious, in fairness. Of course, if you think you're about to reform the basic scientific method with your claims, it's probably reasonable to expect you have gone a little way past first impressions...

 

[`mud]

Round and around the circle without a bush !
I find that the books or the bushes haven't been written yet.

 

[Sapiens]

My CV is in

That is not a CV (Curriculum Vitae, Latin for "course of life"), that is a paper (or a thesis if one is generous). From your failure to grasp the difference between the two most important classes of documents in academia, one can quite reasonably infer that you know nothing of academic disciplines such as science (an inference born out by your bizarre and erroneous presentment of the science that is known).