The way to think of this is to go back before the Eve and ask how
those lines disappeared. Every time a new human is created, it'll have
the mitochondrial DNA of its mother's mother and that of its father's
mother isn't passed on. Every role of the dice loses 50%. So, over
time, the probability
Shane wrote:
And the contradiction is crucial, because the hypothesis of
constancy for the rate of change in mitochondrial DNA depends on the
assumption of constancy in the environmental conditions determining
that rate of change, and such gradualism would guarantee the survival
of more than
, 2009 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Tweaking of DNA dating on human evolution
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu
Mage shm...@pipeline.com
To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Tweaking of DNA dating on human evolution
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send
sartes...@earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Tweaking of DNA dating on human evolution
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set
In a nutshell:
* modern humans separated from Neanderthals around 300-400,000 years
ago rather 500-600,000 years.
* modern humans migrated out of Africa between 55-60,000 years ago
rather than 70-80,000 years.
* our African ancestral mother, the mitochondrial Eve lived around
110-130,000 years
Mark Lause wrote:
The second point, revising the out of Africa timing is of particular interest.
Could you elaborate on this?
Greg McD
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to:
In a message dated 9/6/2009 6:32:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
saboca...@gmail.com writes:
The second point, revising the out of Africa timing is of particular
interest.
Could you elaborate on this?
Greg McD
Comment
They also got more recent dates for other crucial events such as the
On Sep 6, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Mark Lause wrote:
* our African ancestral mother, the mitochondrial Eve lived around
110-130,000 years ago, rather than 150,000-200,000 years ago.
I have no idea how solid this idea of a mitochondrial Eve is.
However, assuming that it is valid, what follows is
You're right, you have no idea how solid this idea is. And your
catastrophe theory proves it.
First the mitochondrial Eve and the primal Adam did not exist at the same
time.
Secondly, the mitochondrial Eve is not every human's common ancestor. She
is the Most Recent Common Ancestor of all
Again, I claim to be nothing but a rank amateur in following these
things. And I'm not entirely sure what the point of confusion is
here...
Let's start by throwing out the entire Biblical language the media
used to spin the original story. The term Eve was in the post
because it was in the
I have no idea how solid this idea of a mitochondrial Eve is.
However, assuming that it is valid, what follows is that at some time
in the evolution of *homo sapiens sapiens* there occurred such an
enormous catastrophe that in the whole world only one *hss* couple
survived, and so all the
-
From: Shane Mage shm...@pipeline.com
To: David Schanoes sartes...@earthlink.net
Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Tweaking of DNA dating on human evolution
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message
On Sep 7, 2009, at 12:06 AM, S. Artesian wrote:
Yes, Eve had sisters-- guess what? They all had the same
mitochondrial DNA.
And if they did, they all had the same female ancestor. You may send
us from Eve to Lilith, but the Lilith and her sisters problem remains
the same as the Eve
Of course it can, Shane.
The way to think of this is to go back before the Eve and ask how
those lines disappeared. Every time a new human is created, it'll have
the mitochondrial DNA of its mother's mother and that of its father's
mother isn't passed on. Every role of the dice loses 50%. So,
In a message dated 9/7/2009 12:07:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
shm...@pipeline.com writes:
But what is the probability that, out of an interbreeding population
large enough to speciate, all but *one* maternal line will gradually
become extinct? Darwinian evolution can't handle the
16 matches
Mail list logo
