Atheists are so funny!

PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, that can be contradicted by the simple fact that there aren't human beings type A,B,C,D, and E running around........DNA research established that we're all sprung by the same human female....what was it, around 40k years ago?.......

ah my mistake....it was 200k....
http://www.livescience.com/10015-age-confirmed-eve-mother-humans.html
Click to expand...

However, this doesn't mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.


 
Professor Baxter said:
The legal definition of marriage, of course, conveys the meaning of marriage in the legal context. Obviously, that meaning is the conditions, rights and responsibilities of marriage.



No, shitforbrains, evolution is not sheer random chance. Mutations filtered by natural selection are done through a process of causal relationships.
Click to expand...

.....lol, shit happens describes both evolution and your thought process.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
However, this doesn't mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.
Click to expand...


so are you saying you believe something for which there is no evidence?........in the old days, we called that faith......

why is it that half of us aren't descended from some other modern woman......or a third of us from each of three modern women?......three that evolved completely independently from each other?....why is it that there is one cradle of humanity......why not six?.......or thousands?......

is it because once there was one "modern man" who mated with one "modern woman" and we are the outcome?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so are you saying you believe something for which there is no evidence?........in the old days, we called that faith......

why is it that half of us aren't descended from some other modern woman......or a third of us from each of three modern women?......three that evolved completely independently from each other?....why is it that there is one cradle of humanity......why not six?.......or thousands?......

is it because once there was one "modern man" who mated with one "modern woman" and we are the outcome?.......
Click to expand...

No, I am quoting a part of the article YOU sourced that you either did not read or did not understand. The article and study does NOT say that this woman was the first woman or the only woman alive at any point during her life. They were careful to explain that so that dumbfucks would not misunderstand but they can't account for someone as stupid as you.

The study makes estimates about the time of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) who was female. This common ancestor does not preclude other common female ancestors that are older. In fact, we must have older common female ancestors, according to the science supporting this, as the male MRCA is believed to have lived 237000 years ago or more.

You have poor reading comprehension because you are searching for the first thing that will confirm your bias rather than trying to understand. That's why you are so often wrong about the bible too.
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, I am quoting a part of the article YOU sourced that you either did not read or did not understand. The article and study does NOT say that this woman was the first woman or the only woman alive at any point during her life. They were careful to explain that so that dumbfucks would not misunderstand but they can't account for someone as stupid as you.

The study makes estimates about the time of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) who was female. This common ancestor does not preclude other common female ancestors that are older. In fact, we must have older common female ancestors, according to the science supporting this, as the male MRCA is believed to have lived 237000 years ago or more.

You have poor reading comprehension because you are searching for the first thing that will confirm your bias rather than trying to understand. That's why you are so often wrong about the bible too.
Click to expand...

so, more shit happened to the competing first modern women?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
your mind will never evolve if you can't find something to mate your ideas to.....
Click to expand...

You are still being non responsive, chickenshit. You should learn to better practice your Grand Wizard's advice on being brief. You talked too much and put your foot in your mouth about mitochondrial Eve after demonstrating how lacking you are in a basic understanding of the science supporting evolution. Trollish slogans are about all you can master.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so are you saying you believe something for which there is no evidence?........in the old days, we called that faith......

why is it that half of us aren't descended from some other modern woman......or a third of us from each of three modern women?......three that evolved completely independently from each other?....why is it that there is one cradle of humanity......why not six?.......or thousands?......

is it because once there was one "modern man" who mated with one "modern woman" and we are the outcome?.......
Click to expand...

PMP is right....genetically have traced our most ancient parts of our DNA(don't ask me how they know what DNA is newer and older...I don't have a fucking clue) to a small area of Sub Saharan Africa.

Now, with that narrow of a focus, it could very well indicate....at the very least....one small tribe of prehistoric people laid the genetic groundwork for the rest of us. Did they look the same as we do today? No....almost definitely not.

But I see no conflict with my faith in thinking that God's days(as in creating the world in 7 days) could perhaps be tens of millenia here on Earth.
 
Steelplate said:
PMP is right....genetically have traced our most ancient parts of our DNA(don't ask me how they know what DNA is newer and older...I don't have a fucking clue) to a small area of Sub Saharan Africa.

Now, with that narrow of a focus, it could very well indicate....at the very least....one small tribe of prehistoric people laid the genetic groundwork for the rest of us. Did they look the same as we do today? No....almost definitely not.

But I see no conflict with my faith in thinking that God's days(as in creating the world in 7 days) could perhaps be tens of millenia here on Earth.
Click to expand...

He is not right. You might be more wrong than he is. The study is about the most RECENT common ancestor, not the oldest.
 
I should clarify, the study is about the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not necessarily the female mrca.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Okay, so with more consideration I am thinking maybe you are asking why the female MRCA is more recent than the male MRCA. Is that the gist of your question?
Click to expand...

no, I'm speculating about your confidence that there were other female MRCA's even though we have no evidence they ever existed......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, I'm speculating about your confidence that there were other female MRCA's even though we have no evidence they ever existed......
Click to expand...

Of course, there were other females. Where do you think Eve came from and how is it that the most recent common patrilineal ancestor or y chromosomal Adam was from 37000 years or more before Eve?

You are an idiot and you don't understand your source. Either you except it and evolution or you are just cynically misusing science and cherry picking to support your notions.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Where do you think Eve came from
Click to expand...

lol...where do you think I think Eve came from.....but in any event, I believe we're talking about Noah's wife at the moment....

Either you except it and evolution or you are just cynically misusing science and cherry picking to support your notions
Click to expand...

not at all....I'm just pointing out that your position is hardly as logical as you thought it was...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol...where do you think I think Eve came from.....but in any event, I believe we're talking about Noah's wife at the moment....
Click to expand...

Lol... I think you think something stupid like it's Noah's wife. You are a lot of fun when you actually offer an argument.

Assuming one accepts the story of Noah as literally true (which would make one a moron) it cannot be Noah's wife because mitochondrial Eve represents the last of an unending female line and the Bible says he took his three sons and their wives, no daughter. I don't expect you to understand that but, anyway... also, there is the issue y chromosomal Adam preceding her by 37000 years or more.

Are you dumber than you look?

not at all....I'm just pointing out that your position is hardly as logical as you thought it was...
Click to expand...

You are cherry picking and don't understand the data you are using.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....just pointing out the post-Eve interruption....but keep embarrassing yourself.....it makes it all the more fun.....
Click to expand...

You are demonstrating how little you understand the study. Even assuming it was a biblical figure it could not have been Noah's wife, idiot.

So are you as stupid as you look?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top