Why does evolutionary science seem to be

No, you're missing the facts. Neanderthals are either a very closely related species or a subspecies - we don't know which. So even if you limit "kin" to the same species they could be "kin" and certainly they are very close relatives in evolutionary terms.And no we are not descended from a single couple. We are decended from a population - but only a single mitochondrial line has survived. Mitochondria are inherited from the mother so a if a woman has only sons none of her grandchildren will continue her mitochondrial line.This is all quite common knowledge so I don't see how you can be surprised by any of it. If you know enough to be so certain then you already know all this.

Paul If you haven't figured it out yet I could care a less about theories, whether they be of creation or evolution I am only after the facts. What do the facts say? One woman; enough said. Why must you go on a speculative population rant? What facts are you basing your assumptions on? Just the facts...[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-12-2004]

No, the facts do NOT say one woman. I explained exactly why you cannot conclude "one woman" - it is because the mitochondrial lines die out. The "one woman" refers ONLY to unbroken matrilineal descent.And those are the facts.

Do all woman possess the same line? How do we know for a fact that these lines die out? And if so how long does it take lines to die out? What is there life time? If we came from a population and the life time was approxiamately the same for each line why would there be just one?[This message has been edited by Jagz Beach, 02-12-2004]

Jagz, it's this way.Let's say that children take the same last name as their father.And there are a group of people where each man has a different last name. Let's say there are 1,000 different last names.Over generations will there always be 1,000 different last names? The answer is no. If in any one generation all the men with the same last name just happen to have no kids or all girls then that last name will disappear.The story gets more complex if people make record keeping mistakes and new last names appear. If those names are long enough and the mistakes are small then you would be able to track the relationships of people even with different last names. That is closer to an analogy for the DNA.If after a long time only one last name was left (with it's record keeping errors) then we would know that lines had died out.

Do all women possess the smae line - depends where you put the start point ! Of course if there is only one surviving line from the time of mitochondrial "Eve" then all women currently alive are part of that line.Do we know for a fact that lines die out ? Well that means do we know for a fact that there are women who have no daughters ? Well *I* know that - didn't you ?How long does it take lines to die out ? That depends on the population. In a small population a line can die out very quickly - if there were twenty women at the time of mitochondiral Eve then it is quite easy for one of them to have no daughters and HER line is gone right there.And why would there be just one ? Because it is inevitable. Given that we are alive there must be at least one line. Given that lines tend to die out if we just go back far enough we will inevitably find a start point for a line includng all living humans - the only question is how far back we have to go. And that is what "mitochonndrial Eve" is all about.

Dude, leave out the unfounded accusations.I would have said, for example, that scottish wild cats and domestic cats were 'kin'. Using kin in the same sort of way it is used to describe related family member in human geneaolgy. You are correct with your definition of 'kin', I am correct with mine - no smoke and mirrors, just a difference of terminology. No, I didn't. Your statement implied there was only one couple that all humans descended from (I assume where you said 'woman and woman' you meant 'woman an man'?). This is false. All humans do indeed share one (most recent) common female ancestor and one (most recent) common male ancestor. But these two were not a couple; indeed they were seperated by some (IIRC) 70,000 years! There was not one female ancestor at the time of the common ancestor, although those other ancestors' mitochondrial DNA was not passed on this is absolutely not to say that all their DNA was lost (only that it passed through all male lines on the way).I'm concentrating, incidently, on the female side because I'm not sure how the common male ancestor is determined.

The male equivalent is based on the Y-chromosome which is inherited exclusively through the male line.

Of course! I feel rather silly now...[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 02-13-2004]

quote:

---

So your wrong there for saying no, for Neanderthal is not the same kind.

---

More correctly speaking, Homo sapiens neanderthalensisare either a subspecies that was "absorbed" into the the modern human line, Homo sapiens sapiens, or a closely related species w/in the same genus, Homo. Now, you say kin are "of the same nature or of the same kind." How can you say then that neanderthals were not "of the same kind"? You can play games with other groups of organisms, like the Galapogos finches and call them all the same kind b/c they can still interbreed (only if we remove the behavioral isolation, though), but when it comes to humans, we have to be distinct and not subject to the rules and laws of nature!?!

quote:

---

How do we know if a theory is right or wrong? We don't, until it is considered a fact there will always be a question that's why we call it science. Let's keep things in perspective; if an answer can neither be verified right or wrong, then is not that answer more of a question than an answer? Granted I will aknowledge the reality of theories to be explanations, but an answer hardly. To me theories are just another question to be answered. I have to keep things in their proper perspective regarding keeping the scientific method sound. Therefore to me a theory is not an answer, but rather a question or an explanation that can not be regarded as fact. I am after the facts.

---

We have many theories. Can you say that all of them cannot be "regarded as fact"? Name some and we shall see...Oh, one more thing. If you are going to use a quote from me, don't leave out part of it in order to change the meaning of the quote. I said that facts don't mean much without an explanation. Your excising of the last part of the quote changed its meaning to fit your purposes. That was dishonest and not in good faith.

So lines will live on as long as the female is able to procreated, otherwise they can not die, fine. So Jack you are assuming that we came from a population? Where is your proof. Facts state that there is only one female line.Dude,
Call them kin all you want, but wild cats and domestic cats are a far cry from humans that where clothes and build fires, opposed to comparing them to extinct apes. Your comparing apples to oranges. Look at the biological difference between us and an orangutan, or gold and led.
Though the biological make up is virtually identical, the difference makes all the difference in the world. You may call it kin but you’re watering a definition down to be virtually meaningless IMO. I might as well be Kin to water at this rate.

I notice that you quote from my psot and attribute it to Jack.Lest start with the simple point that there is zero evidence that there was a single woman alive at that time. And absolutely no good reason to believe that there was.While we know of one species that managed to survive such a severe genetic bottleneck (cheetahs) any species reduced to a single female is staring extinction in the face. And it leaves detectable traces in the genome - cheetahs are severely inbred. If humans were reduced to a single female in the same timescale (around 10,000 years ago) it would show.Now it's your turn. You've been claiming that it was a fact that there was only a single woman alive at some point inhuman history. Where is your evidence for that ?Oh, and I forgot - you must be the first creationist I've ever seen who would go so far as to classify Neandertals as being apes - most insist that they were entirely modern humans, not even a subspecies.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-13-2004]

quote:

---

Do all woman possess the same line? How do we know for a fact that these lines die out?

---

There are actually many mitochondrial lines or variants that co-exist now. One can look at maternal lineages among, say ethnic groups, to see the distribution of these lines. A mitochondrial lineage can indeed go extinct. If your mother is an only child and produces a son as her only progeny, her mitochondrial genome will not be passed on to the next generation. Thus, that line (especially if it is a rare or unique variante) becomes extinct. Similarly, if a male who is an only child produces only daughters, his Y chromosome will never make it into the next generation..his copy is extinct.

quote:

---

And if so how long does it take lines to die out? What is there life time?

---

No way to know how long it takes to die off..it will vary. If the population remains large and the lineage is well represented in the population, it will not become extinct for many generations if at all. If you have a rare mitochondrial genotype and are a member of a small group, the chances are high that your genotype will be lost from the population.

quote:

---

If we came from a population and the life time was approxiamately the same for each line why would there be just one

---

If the population was large and there were many lineages (as we see currently) there is no shrinkage in the number of lineages...there is actually expansion of lineages. If something happens and the population shrinks, lineages will be lost as those containing a particular mitochondrial genotype die or fail to reproduce.

Dude,You quoted Paul and attributed it to me, I'll not expand on his answer above. I said Neanderthals were kin to us, not orang-utans. They made tools and buried their dead, apparently with some ritual - that seems pretty 'kin' to me.

Well let's forget about extinct apes how about what our history books say...Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.Could this indeed be the Neadrethal?