The Common Ancestor?

Genes are portions of long molecules.Molecules don't contain information about what reactions they undergo. Instead, molecules do what chemistry/physics laws require based on shape and electron configuration of the molecule.Would you say oxygen molecules contain information describing how iron is to rust? I would not.

Only to the most recent such person through the appropriate line. It's highly unlikely that this would link through to the first man. Think this through dude. If this were the case for everyone on earth, then the common y-chromosome traceback would necessarily be to a very recent person. There's no way you could trace this all the way back to the first humans on earth.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Wrong. The remarks about going back to the first man apply equally well to going back to Noah. If the story were true, it is likely that we are all related to a distance descendant of Noah. It is highly unlikely that Noah is the most recent such person.And let's be careful about the word "supports". Support is not generally used to mean, "not inconsistent with" some hypothesis I hold. Support means "provides evidence for" a hypothesis such that the evidence provides more support for your hypothesis than the accepted explanation.And 40,000 years is NOT within the range of dates given for the genetic MRCA. So even with your bogus definition of support, your off quite a bit.

Hmm, I wonder where I got the impression that you were claiming that Noah appeared 40,000 years ago. Oh hey, here is you saying exactly that:From Message 211If you are really dropping the tie between 40,000 years and 40 days, then you are distancing yourself from even this pathetically tenuous tie to Genesis.

Similar features, yes. But not necessarily nested hierarchy and even more, not a pattern of phenotype appearances and disappearances over time that suggests evolution.Now an omnipotent creator could mange any pattern, but Genesis claims some things about what God actually did, and those things are not consistent with what we see.

You don't need me come up with examples, but the entire fossil record, including for example, the lack of rabbits or lizards in the pre-Cambrian period is entirely inconsistent with the idea that all animals except humans were created in a one day period.However a time-sequenced appearance and disappearance of life forms is entirely what we would expect if animal life evolved from a common ancestor or ancestors.

Well you can surely try to make that case. The problem with doing that with regards to the pre-Cambrian is that the 'imperfection' is not just gaps in establishing some fossil evidence of common descent; essentially all of the higher order mordern life forms are missing from the pre-Cambrian strata. Yet there are enough lower order forms and primitive forms present to let us know life did exist at the time. In short there is both too much and too little there for the creationist.But yeah, you can equivocate and pretend that the 'imperfect fossil record' you need to explain the missing life forms in the pre-Cambrian is the same thing that evolution proponents point to.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, this is wrong. Sahelanthropus tchadensis is the oldest known ape in our line of ascent. Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not a human of any persuasion. And this is way past stupid and completely fabricated. You have absolutely no clue as to how many chromosomes the direct descendants of Sahelanthropus tchadensis had, but we do know that no human being was birthed or sired directly by Sahelanthropus tchadensis. The estimated time of fusion I've seen are about a factor of 10 less than you are claiming here.

No, that would be you. See for example:Biased clustered substitutions in the human genome: The footprints of male-driven biased gene conversion - PMC

quote:

---

We examined fixed substitutions in the human lineage since divergence from the common ancestor with the chimpanzee, and determined what fraction are AT to GC (weak-to-strong). Substitutions that are densely clustered on the chromosomes show a remarkable excess of weak-to-strong biased substitutions. These unexpected biased clustered substitutions (UBCS) are common near the telomeres of all autosomes but not the sex chromosomes. Regions of extreme bias are enriched for genes. Human and chimp orthologous regions show a striking similarity in the shape and magnitude of their respective UBCS maps, suggesting a relatively stable force leads to clustered bias. The strong and stable signal near telomeres may have participated in the evolution of isochores. One exception to the UBCS pattern found in all autosomes is chromosome 2, which shows a UBCS peak midchromosome, mapping to the fusion site of two ancestral chromosomes. This provides evidence that the fusion occurred as recently as 740,000 years ago and no more than ∼3 million years ago.

---

In either case, both estimates argue against the time of fusion happening during the existence of Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Accordingly science is not consistent with your claim that Sahelanthropus tchadensis is either Adam of the surrogate mother of Adam.

What does it mean to you to be Adam? Adam is the Hebrew word for 'man', and of course there was a first man. Is that enough? Is there some role described in Genesis that Adam must fill other than being first?

1. Genetics dates the fusion to be more recent than this period. estimates are between 0.7 and 3 Mya.2.Sahelanthropus tchadensis was not a man.3. My question clearly asked about anything foreveryoung needed for Adam other than being first. Thanks for playing though. 4. Grrr!

If you have anything meaningful to say, surely it's on topic in your own thread.