There was no genetically proven "Eve"

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Bob, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung wrote:

    > Yes. There is actually scientific evidence at the genetic level for the existence of Eve.

    Chung is talking about what's become called the "Replacement Theory"=20 wherein the premise is that
    *one* early human female is the mother of=20 *all* living people as determined by mitochondrial DNA.
    The theory=20 gained a bit of support when the analyses were first reported, but=20 since then,
    other fossil records and nuclear DNA studies have put the=20 idea to rest. The mechanism that
    Replacement Theory posited was that=20 there must have been a global catastrophe or mass extinction
    of some=20 sort that killed all but a small group of humans which then went on to=20 populate the
    whole world. The contrasting findings are called=20 "Multiregional Evolution" (among other titles)
    that assert that early=20 humans dispersed across the world and evolved and interrelated from there=
    =2E

    This is about as shocking a "revelation" of Chung's anti-scientific=20 aberration as he's ever
    posted. The genetic information is scant=20 "evidence" for the belief, and, in any event, it's been
    debunked by=20 research and fossil evidence. Here are a few places to look, actual=20 universities
    with real scientists, not wacko religious cranks talking.

    "Even though the studies refer to a single man or woman in the past,=20 they do not imply that those
    people were a couple or even that they=20 were the only parents of all humans. Their primary
    significance is in=20 pointing to the time when anatomically modern human beings, Homo=20 sapiens
    sapiens, evolved from a more primitive ancestor, generally=20 thought to be an archaic form of Homo
    sapiens. Most experts think the=20 founders of the modern species numbered around 10,000."
    <http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/adameve.html>

    --------------------

    "Study puts =91Eve theory=92 of human evolution to rest" "Two million years ago somewhere in
    Africa, a small group of=20 individuals became separated from other australopithecines. This=20
    population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated=20 changes=97in body size, brain
    size, skeletal proportions and=20 behavior=97that jump-started the evolution of our species.

    "That is the conclusion of a new U-M study published in the January=20 2000 issue of Molecular
    Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad=20 range of genetic, fossil and archeological evidence
    to decipher the=20 most likely scenario for the start of human evolution."
    <http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9900/Jan17_00/12.htm>

    --------------------------

    "The findings are the latest evidence in the continuing scientific=20 controversy about the origin
    of modern Homo sapiens. Many scientists=20 believe that all living humans can trace their ancestry
    exclusively to=20 a small group of ancient humans, probably Africans, living around=20 100,000 years
    ago. This explanation=97known as the Eve hypothesis or=20 replacement theory=97means that all other
    early human groups, whose=20 fossils date from this time back to almost 2 million years ago, must=20
    have become extinct, possibly wiped out in a prehistoric genetic=20 holocaust.

    "Other scientists, including Wolpoff and his colleagues on this study,=20 maintain that there is
    little evidence that a small group originating=20 in a single geographic region replaced the entire
    population of early=20 humans.

    "The genetic evidence always has been unclear, Wolpoff and his=20 colleagues note, because different
    genes support different theories:=20 Mitochondrial genes support replacement theory, while nuclear
    genes=20 support the development of an older, worldwide species of human ancestors=
    =2E

    " 'In asking the question a different way and directly addressing the=20 fossils, this study
    provides compelling evidence that replacement is=20 the wrong explanation,' Wolpoff says. 'Instead,
    the findings support=20 the theory of multiregional evolution. Modern humans are the present=20
    manifestation of an older worldwide species with populations connected=20 by gene flow and the
    exchange of ideas. Modern human groups are very=20 much more similar than different because of
    comparable adaptations to=20 ideas and technologies that spread across the inhabited world and=20
    because of the dispersals of successful genes promoted by selection.'"
    <http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0001/Jan22_01/12.htm>

    -------------------------------

    Genetic Distance and Language Affinities Between Autochthonous=20 Human Populations "Part of
    this research was the theory of "Eve," a single female in=20 Africa, around 200,000 years
    ago, from whom every living human being=20 is now descended. This does not mean that there
    were not other human=20 females -- there were -- or that we are not descended from them too
    --=20 we are.

    "The theory is based on the circumstance that some human genetic=20 material is contained in the
    mitochondria, little organs in a cell=20 outside the nucleus (where most genetic material is
    contained). Sperm=20 cells do not pass on their mitochondria to a fertilzed egg and so all=20 human
    mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother. If a woman has=20 only sons (a highly desirable
    result in many traditional cultures),=20 then her own mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time,
    this seems=20 to have happened to all lines of descent of Mitochondrial DNA, except=20 one, the line
    from "Eve." Another interesting feature of the chart is=20 the closeness of American Indians to
    modern population across Europe,=20 the Middle East, and northern East Asia. Thus, curiously,
    Europeans=20 are more closely related to American Indians than to Polynesians.=20 Finally, it is
    noteworthy that skin color is not at all helpful is=20 providing clues to genetic affinity. The
    darkest colored people on=20 earth, in Africa, India, Melanesia, and Australia, are scattered=20
    between groups that are only distantly related. Dark skin color is=20 certainly a function of living
    under the equatorial sun for many=20 generations, but all human populations have the genetic
    wherewithal to=20 make that adaptation.

    "The final chart shows one view of human evolution, with various=20 species of genus
    Australopithecus back in the Pliocene, leading to=20 three species of genus Homo in the Pleistocene.
    Homo erectus had=20 already spread into Asia, as far away as China and Java, but the=20 archaic form
    of Homo sapiens, as seen in the genetic tree above,=20 spread into Asia all over again. The blue
    names and lines are for the=20 glacial episodes that characterize the Pleistocene."
    <http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm>

    The fundamentalist view that there was actually a single, historic,=20 flesh-and-blood Eve has no
    supporting proof.

    Bob
     
    Tags:


  2. Mozz

    Mozz Guest

    Hi Bob,

    Thanks for that, I had read some of the research you posted, but not all of it. I agree, Andrew does
    seem to exhibit an alarming disregard for such evidence.

    Take Care

    Mozz x

    >The fundamentalist view that there was actually a single, historic, flesh-and-blood Eve has no
    >supporting proof.
    >
    >Bob
     
  3. Brian Sandle

    Brian Sandle Guest

    "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:

    If a woman has
    > only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own mitochondrial DNA
    > is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of descent of Mitochondrial
    > DNA, except one, the line from "Eve."

    How many lines of mDNA would there have been?

    I have heard that modern human mDNA is very different from Neanderthal, may be more close to chimps?

    And you are saying the sons of other mDNA tribes may have had progeny with Eve's direct female
    descendants when there were no females with their tribal mDNA?.

    Or was it genocide of tribes with one supreme?

    But the question remains about the huge jump in the mDNA, which in my mind might amount to creation.
    Well I have to have that in mind, until there is a better explanation.

    A little aside, some humans are a fusion of two of their mother's eggs, a sort of siamese twin in
    which nothing is duplicated, I think. However they are not identical twins. So the blood can have
    different genetics from the eggs, and DNA testing produces faulty results. Also in some cases the
    father's DNA may be lost at the time of conception. Maybe no father is even needed.
     
  4. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Brian Sandle wrote:

    > "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>If a woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own
    >>mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of descent
    >>of Mitochondrial DNA, except one, the line from "Eve."
    >
    > How many lines of mDNA would there have been?

    Not possible to answer definitively. Best estimates is that the group that included mtDNA Eve was
    about 10,000 and some educated guesses could be made from that. But that's no more fixed than the
    projected rate and degree of mutation that was used to posit mtEVE. Further research into the
    subject indicates that the actual rate may be off by a minimum of a factor of ten, all the way up to
    several orders of magnitude

    > I have heard that modern human mDNA is very different from Neanderthal, may be more close
    > to chimps?

    Neanderthals are recognized as a different species than modern humans with no DNA extant. There's a
    small group of scientists who say that there is a small European population that seems to have
    Neanderthal dentition, but that's not generally accepted. Nuclear DNA and fossil records are largely
    what has been used to chart the relationships with Neanderthal and other primates.

    > And you are saying the sons of other mDNA tribes may have had progeny with Eve's direct female
    > descendants when there were no females with their tribal mDNA?.

    Given that there were likely no taboos about incest, it's extremely likely that there were
    interbred and inbred families that mingled all the genetic markers, confusing the linearity of the
    theory. And, yes, it's extremely likely that many tribes and clans found their ways into each
    others gene pools.

    The recently discovered fact of retained male mtDNA skews the entire forecasted progression.

    > Or was it genocide of tribes with one supreme?

    Extremely unlikely given the sorts of numbers that typical hunter-gatherer clans form into. Not
    really enough to wage widespread warfare and not enough time to spare from hunting and gathering.

    Remember, there are no H-G cities and few permanent settlements except in the most generously
    fertile areas. The rift valley area around where "Lucy" was found wasn't that sort of free-
    food paradise.

    > But the question remains about the huge jump in the mDNA, which in my mind might amount to
    > creation. Well I have to have that in mind, until there is a better explanation.

    What "jump?" All hominids have had mtDNA. Nothing new. It's demonstrably clear that humans evolved
    in many places simultaneously from similar early progenitors. And given the provable ages of
    fossils, rocks and astronomical objects, creation had to happen billions of years ago. It's hard to
    explain where the people were until a couple million years ago when the first proto-humans appeared.

    The creation myths of all the major cultures attempt to explain the unknowable in earthly terms. How
    did self-aware humans get here? None offers a convincing picture of the actual process, and none
    offers an explanation that survives technological and historical analysis.

    But even the bible asserts that there were others besides Adam, Eve and the boys. Who was it that
    lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden with whom they hooked up? Other people. Different lineages.

    Here's the New American Standard version of the story from Genesis 4: "6 Then Cain went out from the
    presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. 17 Cain had relations with his
    wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the
    city Enoch, after the name of his son. 18 Now to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad became the father of
    Mehujael, and Mehujael became the father of Methushael, and Methushael became the father of Lamech.
    19 Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other,
    Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have
    livestock. 21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and
    pipe. 22 As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze
    and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. 23 Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah,
    Listen to my voice, You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech, For I have killed a man for
    wounding me; And a boy for striking me; 24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-
    sevenfold." 25 Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him
    Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."
    26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon
    the name of the LORD."

    Where did all those wives and husbands come from? We're looking at a group of at least 9 generations
    just in this passage. And Enoch built a city. Who builds a city if there's no one to populate it?
    References and inferences say there were many people around.

    > A little aside, some humans are a fusion of two of their mother's eggs, a sort of siamese twin in
    > which nothing is duplicated, I think. However they are not identical twins. So the blood can have
    > different genetics from the eggs, and DNA testing produces faulty results. Also in some cases the
    > father's DNA may be lost at the time of conception. Maybe no father is even needed.

    This is rather garbled and conflates several different notions. You've gathered parthenogenesis,
    mtDNA, cloning, nuclear DNA, mutation and a few other things into one hat. Not sure what you're
    trying to say here.

    Bob
     
  5. Brian Sandle

    Brian Sandle Guest

    "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Brian Sandle wrote:
    >
    >> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>If a woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own
    >>>mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of
    >>>descent of Mitochondrial DNA, except one, the line from "Eve."
    >>
    >> How many lines of mDNA would there have been?
    >
    > Not possible to answer definitively. Best estimates is that the group that included mtDNA Eve was
    > about 10,000 and some educated guesses could be made from that.

    You mean by dividing the whole world population by 10,000 to get the number of groups?

    But that's no more fixed than the projected
    > rate and degree of mutation that was used to posit mtEVE. Further research into the subject
    > indicates that the actual rate may be off by a minimum of a factor of ten, all the way up to
    > several orders of magnitude

    So we have from 1 to more than 1000 different human mDNA groups being reduced to 1.

    >> I have heard that modern human mDNA is very different from Neanderthal, may be more close to
    >> chimps?
    >
    > Neanderthals are recognized as a different species than modern humans with no DNA extant. There's
    > a small group of scientists who say that there is a small European population that seems to have
    > Neanderthal dentition, but that's not generally accepted. Nuclear DNA and fossil records are
    > largely what has been used to chart the relationships with Neanderthal and other primates.

    The point is the significant difference. More than for nuclear DNA.

    >> And you are saying the sons of other mDNA tribes may have had progeny with Eve's direct female
    >> descendants when there were no females with their tribal mDNA?.
    >
    > Given that there were likely no taboos about incest, it's extremely likely that there were
    > interbred and inbred families that mingled all the genetic markers, confusing the linearity of the
    > theory. And, yes, it's extremely likely that many tribes and clans found their ways into each
    > others gene pools.

    You referred to tribes losing the mDNA because mothers with it had no daughters. Was it gradually
    they were replaced by women with other mDNA who did have daughters? Or when Abraham was circumcised
    and threaded around in his camelcade spreading his seed on the ground did his followers neglect
    their own women at home? Parallel to earlier times?

    > The recently discovered fact of retained male mtDNA skews the entire forecasted progression.

    I was not familiar with that. Are you sure it was not the result of something chimeric as I was
    describing?

    >> Or was it genocide of tribes with one supreme?
    >
    > Extremely unlikely given the sorts of numbers that typical hunter-gatherer clans form into. Not
    > really enough to wage widespread warfare and not enough time to spare from hunting and gathering.

    When food is short then fights can start. NZ Maori talk of extinction of tribes. `Dead as the moa'.

    Agriculture started, around 20,000 to 30,000 years ago, associated with emergence of blood group A.
    Less stomach acid so my little guess is the salivary enzymes work longer on grain starch before the
    stomach acid neutralises them.

    > Remember, there are no H-G cities and few permanent settlements except in the most generously
    > fertile areas. The rift valley area around where "Lucy" was found wasn't that sort of free-food
    > paradise.

    Some became nomads herding milking animals, with the emergence of blood group B some 10,000 to
    15,000 years ago.

    >> But the question remains about the huge jump in the mDNA, which in my mind might amount to
    >> creation. Well I have to have that in mind, until there is a better explanation.
    >
    > What "jump?" All hominids have had mtDNA. Nothing new.

    A bigger jump in mitochondrial than nuclear DNA.

    These jumps are still going on with the more recent AB blood grouping as a little example. Is there
    an adaptational survival factor for AB blood group, or has it appeared because people of A and B
    blood wished to interbreed? The latter seems to allude to what the Gods or beliefs of the time
    tolerate - a thin connection to one of the techniques for so-called creation perhaps.

    It's
    > demonstrably clear that humans evolved in many places simultaneously from similar early
    > progenitors. And given the provable ages of fossils, rocks and astronomical objects, creation had
    > to happen billions of years ago. It's hard to explain where the people were until a couple million
    > years ago when the first proto-humans appeared.

    > The creation myths of all the major cultures attempt to explain the unknowable in earthly terms.

    Yes.

    [..]
    >
    > Where did all those wives and husbands come from? We're looking at a group of at least 9
    > generations just in this passage. And Enoch built a city. Who builds a city if there's no one to
    > populate it? References and inferences say there were many people around.

    They are maybe talking of special types, `Sons of God' going with daughters of men.

    >> A little aside, some humans are a fusion of two of their mother's eggs, a sort of siamese twin in
    >> which nothing is duplicated, I think. However they are not identical twins. So the blood can have
    >> different genetics from the eggs, and DNA testing produces faulty results. Also in some cases the
    >> father's DNA may be lost at the time of conception. Maybe no father is even needed.
    >
    > This is rather garbled and conflates several different notions. You've gathered parthenogenesis,
    > mtDNA, cloning, nuclear DNA, mutation and a few other things into one hat. Not sure what you're
    > trying to say here.

    In the 1970s I heard of mats and rice, chimeras of rats and mice. The technologists were messign
    with the cell division and joining bits of embyroes of the two. It is not cloning. It was pointed
    out at the time that a number of humans are known to be natural chimeras of two separate sperm-
    egg events.

    Maybe it could explain virgin birth.
     
  6. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Brian Sandle wrote:

    > "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Brian Sandle wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>If a woman has only sons (a highly desirable result in many traditional cultures), then her own
    >>>>mitochondrial DNA is actually lost. Over time, this seems to have happened to all lines of
    >>>>descent of Mitochondrial DNA, except one, the line from "Eve."
    >>>
    >>>How many lines of mDNA would there have been?
    >>
    >>Not possible to answer definitively. Best estimates is that the group that included mtDNA Eve was
    >>about 10,000 and some educated guesses could be made from that.
    >
    > You mean by dividing the whole world population by 10,000 to get the number of groups?

    No. The estimate is that the localized population from which mtEve emerged was a group of 10,000.

    >>But that's no more fixed than the projected rate and degree of mutation that was used to posit
    >>mtEVE. Further research into the subject indicates that the actual rate may be off by a minimum of
    >>a factor of ten, all the way up to several orders of magnitude
    >
    > So we have from 1 to more than 1000 different human mDNA groups being reduced to 1.

    Not quite. The confounding fact of paternal mtDNA being retained on occasion coupled with the other
    confounding facts of misjudged evolutionary interval and generational mingling makes the arithmetic
    literally impossible.

    >>>I have heard that modern human mDNA is very different from Neanderthal, may be more close to
    >>>chimps?
    >>
    >>Neanderthals are recognized as a different species than modern humans with no DNA extant. There's
    >>a small group of scientists who say that there is a small European population that seems to have
    >>Neanderthal dentition, but that's not generally accepted. Nuclear DNA and fossil records are
    >>largely what has been used to chart the relationships with Neanderthal and other primates.
    >
    > The point is the significant difference. More than for nuclear DNA.

    I don't understand these two statements.

    >>>And you are saying the sons of other mDNA tribes may have had progeny with Eve's direct female
    >>>descendants when there were no females with their tribal mDNA?.
    >>
    >>Given that there were likely no taboos about incest, it's extremely likely that there were
    >>interbred and inbred families that mingled all the genetic markers, confusing the linearity of the
    >>theory. And, yes, it's extremely likely that many tribes and clans found their ways into each
    >>others gene pools.
    >
    > You referred to tribes losing the mDNA because mothers with it had no daughters. Was it gradually
    > they were replaced by women with other mDNA who did have daughters?

    Mothers who have no daughters don't pass on their mtDNA. That's all.

    > Or when Abraham was circumcised and threaded around in his camelcade spreading his seed on the
    > ground did his followers neglect their own women at home?

    What kind of question is that?

    > Parallel to earlier times?

    Cryptic.

    >>The recently discovered fact of retained male mtDNA skews the entire forecasted progression.
    >
    > I was not familiar with that. Are you sure it was not the result of something chimeric as I was
    > describing?

    It is the result of retained male mtDNA.

    >>>Or was it genocide of tribes with one supreme?
    >>
    >>Extremely unlikely given the sorts of numbers that typical hunter-gatherer clans form into. Not
    >>really enough to wage widespread warfare and not enough time to spare from hunting and gathering.
    >
    > When food is short then fights can start. NZ Maori talk of extinction of tribes. `Dead as
    > the moa'.

    New Zealand is slightly smaller than Africa and the Middle East. Tribes have become extinct for any
    number of reasons including bad leadership, drought, ice ages, population decline below sustainable
    thresholds, etc.

    > Agriculture started, around 20,000 to 30,000 years ago, associated with emergence of blood group
    > A. Less stomach acid so my little guess is the salivary enzymes work longer on grain starch before
    > the stomach acid neutralises them.

    Depending on the definition of "agriculture," the likelihood is that it began as a large-scale
    endeavor about 8,000 years ago in the Tigris-Euphrates valley.

    As for blood type A, read this: "Oh, yes..... one more thing on the subject of evolution. Many
    published studies over recent years have shown that chimpanzees mostly have Blood type A, almost no
    Blood type O, but never Blood type B. The other great ape, the gorilla has Blood type B, almost no
    Blood type O, but never Blood type A. In these 'man-apes' species, said to be the ancestors of man,
    there is NO Blood type AB in either. Generally speaking, man has both Blood types A and B, and Blood
    type AB. Blood type O, in man is by far the most common in virtually every racial group." http://www.bloodbook.com/type-
    facts.html

    >>Remember, there are no H-G cities and few permanent settlements except in the most generously
    >>fertile areas. The rift valley area around where "Lucy" was found wasn't that sort of free-food
    >>paradise.
    >
    > Some became nomads herding milking animals, with the emergence of blood group B some 10,000 to
    > 15,000 years ago.

    Blood types predate humans. The ABO system exists in other primates which are older than humans.

    Here's a chart that looks at many different cultures and geographic distributions. In the light of
    these figures and the facts surrounding types in primates, the idea of emergence over time of human
    blood types is simply not possible. <http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html>

    >>>But the question remains about the huge jump in the mDNA, which in my mind might amount to
    >>>creation. Well I have to have that in mind, until there is a better explanation.
    >>
    >>What "jump?" All hominids have had mtDNA. Nothing new.
    >
    > A bigger jump in mitochondrial than nuclear DNA.

    What jump? What do you mean by jump?

    > These jumps are still going on with the more recent AB blood grouping as a little example. Is
    > there an adaptational survival factor for AB blood group, or has it appeared because people of A
    > and B blood wished to interbreed? The latter seems to allude to what the Gods or beliefs of the
    > time tolerate - a thin connection to one of the techniques for so-called creation perhaps.

    You haven't explained about "jumps" and the blood type information here is simply wrong. I
    can't make sense of your sentences. The thoughts aren't developed sufficiently for me to grasp
    the meanings.

    Look at these charts that offer graphic pictures of blood type distribution around the world.
    <http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm>

    >> It's demonstrably clear that humans evolved in many places simultaneously from similar early
    >> progenitors. And given the provable ages of fossils, rocks and astronomical objects, creation had
    >> to happen billions of years ago. It's hard to explain where the people were until a couple
    >> million years ago when the first proto-humans appeared.
    >
    >>The creation myths of all the major cultures attempt to explain the unknowable in earthly terms.
    >

    > Yes.

    That means that they're imaginative rather than factual.

    >
    > [..]
    >
    >>Where did all those wives and husbands come from? We're looking at a group of at least 9
    >>generations just in this passage. And Enoch built a city. Who builds a city if there's no one to
    >>populate it? References and inferences say there were many people around.
    >
    > They are maybe talking of special types, `Sons of God' going with daughters of men.

    What can this mean? The sons are sons of the people named. Did you read the passage I quoted where
    their names and lineages were given?

    >>>A little aside, some humans are a fusion of two of their mother's eggs, a sort of siamese twin in
    >>>which nothing is duplicated, I think. However they are not identical twins. So the blood can have
    >>>different genetics from the eggs, and DNA testing produces faulty results. Also in some cases the
    >>>father's DNA may be lost at the time of conception. Maybe no father is even needed.
    >>
    >>This is rather garbled and conflates several different notions. You've gathered parthenogenesis,
    >>mtDNA, cloning, nuclear DNA, mutation and a few other things into one hat. Not sure what you're
    >>trying to say here.
    >
    > In the 1970s I heard of mats and rice, chimeras of rats and mice. The technologists were messing
    > with the cell division and joining bits of embyroes of the two. It is not cloning. It was pointed
    > out at the time that a number of humans are known to be natural chimeras of two separate sperm-
    > egg events.

    In biology, an organism composed of tissues that are genetically different. Chimeras can develop
    naturally if a mutation occurs in a cell of a developing embryo, but are more commonly produced
    artificially by implanting cells from one organism into the embryo of another.
    <http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0019174.html>

    > Maybe it could explain virgin birth.

    That's what parthenogenesis is. Chimeras can be formed by the fusion of two early blastula stage
    embryos, but I would think that presupposes fertilization.

    The ideas here about blood type and the implied notion of the *literally described* creation as
    offered in Genesis just aren't in keeping with the science of our times. The creation stories in
    Genesis are fanciful and require rather large leeway in interpretation for them to fit into anything
    approaching the detailed information about the age of the universe and it's formation, and the
    sequences of events since then.

    Bob
     
  7. Brian Sandle

    Brian Sandle Guest

    "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Brian Sandle wrote:
    [various snips]
    >
    > What kind of question is that?

    Abraham had not had great success procreating with
    Sarai. Then he was commanded to go forth and be a father
    in many nations.
    >
    > As for blood type A, read this: "Oh, yes..... one more
    > thing on the subject of evolution. Many published studies
    > over recent years have shown that chimpanzees mostly have
    > Blood type A, almost no Blood type O, but never Blood type
    > B. The other great ape, the gorilla has Blood type B,
    > almost no Blood type O, but never Blood type A. In these
    > 'man-apes' species, said to be the ancestors of man, there
    > is NO Blood type AB in either. Generally speaking, man has
    > both Blood types A and B, and Blood type AB. Blood type O,
    > in man is by far the most common in virtually every racial
    > group." http://www.bloodbook.com/type-facts.html

    Then maybe the groups A and B were dormant in humans, being
    activated in need. Peter D'Adamo claims, if I remember, that
    agriculture and increased population density coincided, with
    increased infection risk like influenza which A antigens are
    better at dealing with.

    But I thought chimps were more meat eaters than gorillas,
    which seems to have the groups back to front from that
    perspective.
    >
    > Blood types predate humans. The ABO system exists in other
    > primates which are older than humans.
    >
    > Here's a chart that looks at many different cultures and
    > geographic distributions. In the light of these figures
    > and the facts surrounding types in primates, the idea of
    > emergence over time of human blood types is simply not
    > possible. <http://www.bloodbook.com/world-abo.html>

    Search for paleoserological. Also PCR can help in concert
    with it. I haven't found work done on apes. If diseases jump
    form humans to apes or vv it might be presumed that similar
    defence mechanisms might arise, too.

    >
    > What jump? What do you mean by jump?

    quantum leap in sturcture.

    >> They are maybe talking of special types, `Sons of God'
    >> going with daughters of men.
    >
    > What can this mean? The sons are sons of the people named.
    > Did you read the passage I quoted where their names and
    > lineages were given?

    Genesis 6.2.
    >
    > In biology, an organism composed of tissues that are
    > genetically different. Chimeras can develop naturally if
    > a mutation occurs in a cell of a developing embryo, but
    > are more commonly produced artificially by implanting
    > cells from one organism into the embryo of another. <htt-
    > p://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson-
    > /m0019174.html>
    >
    >> Maybe it could explain virgin birth.
    >
    > That's what parthenogenesis is. Chimeras can be formed by
    > the fusion of two early blastula stage embryos, but I
    > would think that presupposes fertilization.

    But at the next stage when you have an offspring with
    ovotestes, or does one testovary ever occur?

    >
    > The ideas here about blood type and the implied notion of
    > the *literally described* creation as offered in Genesis
    > just aren't in keeping with the science of our times. The
    > creation stories in Genesis are fanciful and require
    > rather large leeway in interpretation for them to fit into
    > anything approaching the detailed information about the
    > age of the universe and it's formation, and the sequences
    > of events since then.

    I call it funzy logic.

    Allegory, metaphor, parable merge in various nodes in
    various levels.
     
Loading...