secularists do not want the truth

when christians present it, they dismiss or reject it without consideration but whenthey see the evidence for themselves, and as a result of their own work, they still reject it and make up stories to hide from the fact.case in point:http://news.yahoo.com/...ageconfirmedforevemotherofallhumanshere is what they found: yet this is the story they make up to avoid the truth and cling to even though there is no evidence for its legitimacy: the first true female was Eve Gen. 3:20 states-- "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living...'even when secularists have the evidence rightin frontof them, they will not accept it. it becomes pointless for christians to present any evidence because if it is not what the secularist wants to hear, then it is ignored, dismissed, rejected and followed by more calls for more evidence.the evidence is there that proves the Bible true, it is up to you to make your choice to accept or rejectit but you cannot keep demanding more for it will not come.

Where is the evidence?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

There is no story. Every allele in the genome will have a most recent common ancestor, and those MRCA's will not be the same person. Genes like the DRB1 gene have hundreds of different alleles within our population. This much variation requires that there had to be other women alive along side mitEve to pass on this genetic variation.

The evidence is that it is logically and obviously true that the ancient woman who sits at the apex of a mitochondrial family tree is herself not the only woman who was alive at that time, and she must have inherited her mitochondria from her mother, and her from hers.And, of course, the other piece of evidence is that you can trace male lineage through Y chromosomes (which only men inherit from men) back to another single individual "Y Adam", who lived almost 100,000 years after mitochondrial "Eve."So, mitochondrial Eve had to mate with someone to have children, that someone was a man, that man must have had a mother. That mother would have been a woman necessarily older than mitochondrial Eve.I mean, you can deny it, but you're simply denying the facts of life at that point - children are younger than their parents, men and women procreate. How is mitochondrial "Eve" evidence for the Eve of the Bible, when the Bible says Eve lived 10,000 years ago and mitochondrial "Eve" lived over 200,000 years ago? There's just nothing to deny, here - you've become confused by the use of the name "Eve", but of course we have no idea what mitochondrial "Eve"'s name was, we just call her that. If the Bible is true, why wouldn't more evidence come?

Why do you accept these findings when they show that Mitochondrial Eve lived some 200,000 years ago? I thought you rejected any dating method that implies an Earth older than 10,000 years? If you can't trust the data, then why use it to further your argument?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Are you trying to say that Genesis 3:20 is evidence for anything other than that a creation story was written down by a Hebrew scribe once? You have not presented evidence for much of anything past your ignorance of science since you showed up here. "Mitochondrial Eve" is certainly evidence for something, but it's for the existence of humans about 30 times as long ago as the age that you creationists typically claim for the universe!Read your limk before you post it, Arch.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Hi Archy, Not true. For instance, you have provided us, right here in this thread, with compelling evidence that you are not a real archaeologist. And I believe it. Simple. Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

The report that archaeologist used as his link is yet another very great example of why science works and creationism is just a bad joke. It looks at ten different, separate and independent studies, each looking at different factors and based on different assumption, yet all end up independently confirming a date around 200,000 years ago.The truth is that science works and pretending the Bible is historical or science doesn't.AbE:Another thing that is important about the study archaeologist provided is that it again refutes the factuality of Genesis 2&3 that we are descended from the mate of the Mt Eve. The most recent common male ancestor was not concurrent with the most recent common female ancestor.Edited by jar, : add genesis info.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Arch, this is how mitochondrial descent occurs: Sorry.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi archaeologist, Here's another piece of information from genetic studies:Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only). Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in Africa and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he lived much later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.[1]

---

See Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia for similar wiki article on mDNA-EveAlso see The Genetic Genealogist: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam ( July 20th, 2007)So "Mitochondrial Eve" is older than "Y-chromosomal_Adam" ... much older ... way too much older to have lived at the same time, so how'd that rib thing work?Science minded people (whether theistic or secular) pay attention to all the evidence, not just the evidence that suits their opinion/s.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Quote mine much? You left out a major point in the article:

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

quote:

---

, and can be traced back to one woman.

---

I'm willing to bet this was the only line that was important to you and you didn't bother to read the rest of the article No... It didn't say it came from one genetic origin period. Please go back and read the article completely.

BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario, which means that the evolutionist will not be honest in their assessment of the evidence. for one thing i doubt the date offered and the same for adam. to have 1 set of parents for all we do not need 200,000 years. those of you who accept these large dates for adam and eve, where are the links to your evidence? i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.we already know that man has not lived on this earth for longer than 10,000 years but secularists will accept something that cannot be proven as long as it comes from their own side and refuse to be discerning about the information.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

The evidence for the date of 200,000; and the evidence for the existence of "mitochondrial eve" are the same evidence. If the date is wrong*, then the technique is flawed and the evidence for "mitochondrial eve" is invalid.And, in fact, if you read the paper, mitochondrial eve is assumed and the date determined from the evidence.* - to within suitable margins of error, etc.

quote:

---

BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario, which means that the evolutionist will not be honest in their assessment of the evidence.

---

As anyone who reads the article can see NO PROOF or EVIDENCE to the contrary is offered either. So, if you only know what is written in the article you cannot say which side the evidence supports.Of course, the fact is that the article is merely a news report, not a scientific paper and the subject of the paper it deals with is merely an age estimate for the so-called "mitochondrial Eve". So you should not expect the evidence to be there either.Of course anyone who knows even the basics will be aware of the fact that a "mitochondrial Eve" is a statistical necessity. There is no problem with other women preceding her or other women being alive at the same time, just as there is no problem with other men preceding or living alongside the "Y-chromosome Adam". (If the Bible were literally true then the "Y-chromosome Adam" would be Noah or maybe someone even later).So a truly honest interpretation does not get us to the conclusion you desire. All you do is jump to a conclusion - and accuse others of dishonesty for daring to disagree.

quote:

---

for one thing i doubt the date offered and the same for adam. to have 1 set of parents for all we do not need 200,000 years. those of you who accept these large dates for adam and eve, where are the links to your evidence?

---

The evidence for the age of the "mitochondrial Eve" would be in the paper discussed in the article. Have you read it ?

quote:

---

i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both

---

And again we see completely groundless accusations of dishonesty. You do realise that Christianity doesn't really regard tha sort of thing as acceptable behaviour ?

quote:

---

. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.

---

The data in the article doesn't point to any such thing. Your point is simply false. And I hope you mean that the details are sketchy because you got it from a news site instead of reading the original paper, because that's the real reason. And if you choose to cite a source that only gives sketchy information - and should be expected to give only sketchy information - that really is your problem.