1. 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!

Featured It is time to revise the Methodology of Science

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Nov 15, 2018.

?
  1. Yes, the paper has truth in it.

  2. No, I do not like even truth.

  3. No!!!

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    33,775
    Ratings:
    +28,997
    Religion:
    None
    Its not just you
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And both Y-Adam and M-Eve had a common ancestor a million years before. In fact ancestors both male and female. So what? That is neither the point of Y-Adam nor M-Eve. Calling *one* of M-Eve's ancestors alive at the same time as Y-Adam the 'Original' is, at least, problematic. For example, there is no reason to think O-Eve and Y-Adam knew each other.

    Again, nothing here comes anywhere close to what would be required for a legitimate journal article.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  3. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Why not to call the grand-grand-grand-grand-mother of M-Eve as Original? Do you argue with the word? It is simply respect for the Religion. You can still use term "pre-original Eves" for example.
     
  4. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Well, because she would have had other ancestors with just as much claim to being 'Original'. Also, since it is unlikely that she and Y-Adam knew each other, what special reason is there to single her (or them) out? Remember that there would likely be *several* ancestors of M-Eve alive when Y-Adam was. It is far from clear there was one that came only through the female line.
     
  5. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    "Dr.Kaku teaches that
    reality does not exist and that the Science got it all wrong"

    I never realized science and math was actually literally in the business of "REALITY". Since when did something happen?
     
  6. fantome profane

    fantome profane Keep safe, and keep your neighbours safe.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,228
    Ratings:
    +7,658
    What is not clear is what your point is. Yes, there was a female ancestor of Mitochondrial Eve living 600 years before her. And there was one living 1000 years before her, and 1100 years before her, or whatever numbers of years you want to pick.

    What is your point?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Look, from the M-Eve (she is known to Science, the Science in Wikipedia
    talks about her: she is the real person) at least 3 500 000 000 female lines
    follow into the future: these lines connect every women in our 2018
    year with M-Eve by blood (all females in 2018 are blood-relatives, all
    are ``sisters in Eve").
    But from M-Eve only single female line follows into the past. And if
    the Y-Adam lived 600 years before M-Eve was born, then he was walking
    on the planet, with the female blood relative(s) of M-Eve.
    Moreover, from Y-Adam the single male line could follow into the past. However,
    due to human-monkey population becomes more and more small in numbers
    (while our mind motion into past), is expected, that past-directed Y-line and past
    directed M-line are converging to just one couple: original couple of
    Adam and Eve. Think about them, are they looking in your imagination
    as monkeys, alien biorobots, or a simple one-cell organisms? Oh my dear!
    What are your problems with the Absolute Truth?!

     
    #27 questfortruth, Nov 15, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  8. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    9,914
    Ratings:
    +7,998
    If I think about Y nucleus Adam and Mitochondrial Eve I picture one of those early sub species that appears on the chart my old primary school class had.
    They didn't live at the same time. In fact isn't there like a bunch of lineages like that. The most recent mitochondrial line broke like a decade or so ago? I vaguely remember hearing about that during biology class back in the day.
     
  9. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
     
  10. Riders

    Riders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,241
    Ratings:
    +1,971
    Religion:
    Unitarian Universalism,Pagan,Zen
    Let us assume says it all !
     
  11. frbnsn

    frbnsn Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2018
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +37
    Religion:
    İslam
    According to me, as a muslim, Adam who was the first homo sapiens, had a mother and father.
     
  12. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    25,919
    Ratings:
    +11,228
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    IMHO, there is nothing wrong with that. We all contribute to the gene pool. Every one is a potential Y-Chromosomal Adam or Mitochondrial Eve whenever wherever they may have lived. We humans (as all other animals too) are evolving constantly, it is happening even now. We do not know what human kind will look like after a few million years (if we survive that long). Did the Lorisidae know 80 million years ago that a branch of their descendants will change into Humans?
    Strepsirrhini - Wikipedia, Lorisidae - Wikipedia.

    [​IMG]
     
    #32 Aupmanyav, Nov 16, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
  13. frbnsn

    frbnsn Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2018
    Messages:
    187
    Ratings:
    +37
    Religion:
    İslam
    According to you,what is the reason of the evoluation? What force beings to evoluate?
     
  14. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    12,259
    Ratings:
    +11,561
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Do not adjust your set. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. Kirran

    Kirran
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    10,692
    Ratings:
    +6,391
    Like, I can see why you follow the reasoning there, but actually a population is always a pool, and there would always have been multiple genetic lineages going on. Maybe look into the Identical Ancestors Point?
     
  16. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,827
    Ratings:
    +444
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Have onyone noticed here the logical mistake? Why mt-MRCA is older than mt-ACA?

     
  17. Kirran

    Kirran
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    10,692
    Ratings:
    +6,391
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  18. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    25,919
    Ratings:
    +11,228
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    #38 Aupmanyav, Nov 16, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
  19. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    25,919
    Ratings:
    +11,228
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    "However, a 2012 study in Iceland of 78 children and their parents suggests a mutation rate of only 36 mutations per generation; this datum extends the separation between humans and chimps to an earlier period greater than 7 million years ago (Ma). Additional research with 226 offspring of wild chimp populations in 8 locations suggests that chimps reproduce at age 26.5 years, on average; which suggests the human divergence from chimps occurred between 7 and 13 million years ago. And these data suggest that Ardipithecus (4.5 Ma), Orrorin (6 Ma) and Sahelanthropus (7 Ma) all may be on the hominid lineage, and even that the separation may have occurred outside the East African Rift region."
    Human evolution - Wikipedia

    "Furthermore, analysis of the two species' genes in 2006 provides evidence that after human ancestors had started to diverge from chimpanzees, interspecies mating between "proto-human" and "proto-chimps" nonetheless occurred regularly enough to change certain genes in the new gene pool:

    A new comparison of the human and chimp genomes suggests that after the two lineages separated, they may have begun interbreeding. .. A principal finding is that the X chromosomes of humans and chimps appear to have diverged about 1.2 million years more recently than the other chromosomes.

    The research suggests: There were in fact two splits between the human and chimp lineages, with the first being followed by interbreeding between the two populations and then a second split. The suggestion of a hybridization has startled paleoanthropologists, who nonetheless are treating the new genetic data seriously."
    Human evolution - Wikipedia
     
    #39 Aupmanyav, Nov 16, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2018
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And this is where you go badly wrong. At no point was there only a single couple.
    There were always hundreds in the population of early humans (if not thousands).
    There is no 'converging' to a single couple.

    I have no problem with truth. But what you offer isn't that.

    I've explained why your 'paper' would not get past the editor of any respectable
    journal. Sorry, but what you have written isn't interesting scientifically and is actually
    pretty trivial. That is, except for the parts you get wrong, which are also trivially
    wrong.
     
Loading...