Who believes we couldn't have all descended from 1 woman? (atheist, agnostics, Biblical)

[MontanaGuy]

kdbrich,
The OP and all of your posts are trying to put forward the argument that the human race could have begun with a single couple who were the only two human beings in existence and then populated the entire world. A single male and female is simply not a viable population to perpetuate a species and would be doomed to extinction. Inbreeding and incest are instinctively avoided by animals because genetic diversity is necessary to produce healthy offspring. Many people on this thread have explained in great detail how beneficial mutations spread throughout the population over a period of time and you just keep acting like you can't grasp it. The reality of human history is that the total population of human beings at any one time was never less than a few thousand individuals. Many believe that based on our genetics it appears that mankind came perilously close to extinction at one point in our history when our population shrank to that level but no serious scientist would consider the concept that mankind decended from a man and a woman who were the only living human beings on the entire planet.

[broadbill]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

kdbrich,
The OP and all of your posts are trying to put forward the argument that the human race could have begun with a single couple who were the only two human beings in existence and then populated the entire world. A single male and female is simply not a viable population to perpetuate a species and would be doomed to extinction. Inbreeding and incest are instinctively avoided by animals because genetic diversity is necessary to produce healthy offspring. Many people on this thread have explained in great detail how beneficial mutations spread throughout the population over a period of time and you just keep acting like you can't grasp it. The reality of human history is that the total population of human beings at any one time was never less than a few thousand individuals. Many believe that based on our genetics it appears that mankind came perilously close to extinction at one point in our history when our population shrank to that level but no serious scientist would consider the concept that mankind decended from a man and a woman who were the only living human beings on the entire planet.

Great points MG. Let me make a prediction, although this will just be baiting Kdbrich into posting again....

My prediction is now we won't hear another peep from kdbrich now that his question has been fully answered and explained. His work his done...he has asked a question that been asked a million times, he has taken his unsubstantiated pot-shots at evolution theory and now he is out of arguments and won't be back....until next week when he posts yet another variation of the same tired old question.

It like having the movie expelled on a continuous loop!

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

A successful mutation doesn't mean that the previous line died out. You don't seem like you understand evolution, mutation, speciation, et cetera at all!?

But for that mutation to carry on, it means that every successive generation thereafter is a descendant of that individual that first had the mutation.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

But for that mutation to carry on, it means that every successive generation thereafter is a descendant of that individual that first had the mutation.

*sigh* Never mind. I've now read the other posts in this thread and I have to agree with them that you're either just looking for controversy or you really are utterly uneducated in the realm of the sciences. They've all answered your questions much better than I could. Game over, man. Game over.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

But for that mutation to carry on, it means that every successive generation thereafter is a descendant of that individual that first had the mutation.

No. Wrong. Nonsense. You're not arguing against ToE, you're arguing against your own misconceived version of it.

Successful mutations will gradually, incrementally, generation by generation, be present in a larger and larger percentage of the population. It can take thousands of generations for them to win out.

There is never an "Eve" scenario with a single individual forming 50% of humanity's gene pool. There is no evidence it has ever happened. It is certainly not a necessity for evolution for it to happen.

In your eagerness to defend a weak point in your preferred creation story, you have invented a version of ToE that has the same weakness. And you're now insisting that we defend not ToE, but the weak parody of it you just came up with. Not going to happen.

In other words: Your "question" is unanswerable, because it is based on false assumptions. (That of a shared ancestor being the only individual procreating.)

As I posted above, it is a silly question.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

Game over, man. Game over.

Time to take off and nuke the site from orbit? It's the only way to make sure.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

No. Wrong. Nonsense. You're not arguing against ToE, you're arguing against your own misconceived version of it.

Successful mutations will gradually, incrementally, generation by generation, be present in a larger and larger percentage of the population. It can take thousands of generations for them to win out.

There is never an "Eve" scenario with a single individual forming 50% of humanity's gene pool. There is no evidence it has ever happened. It is certainly not a necessity for evolution for it to happen.

In your eagerness to defend a weak point in your preferred creation story, you have invented a version of ToE that has the same weakness. And you're now insisting that we defend not ToE, but the weak parody of it you just came up with. Not going to happen.

In other words: Your "question" is unanswerable, because it is based on false assumptions. (That of a shared ancestor being the only individual procreating.)

As I posted above, it is a silly question.

So a mutation occurs....and then successive generations have it w/out inheriting it from that individual?

[justme58]

FWIW, the entire Adam and Eve argument is moot as this population of ours stems from ±4000 years ago after the flood from just 3 couples.

Of course, the dude that laughed at his father's nakedness became what is now black people or Mexican or... (insert bigoted race here) you know the water bearers et al.

However, 3 pairs of breeders does not make a useful DNA bank and furthermore, the mere vastness of races in existence today suggests evolution at an accelerated rate vastly more ridiculous than the ToE timescale.

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

But for that mutation to carry on, it means that every successive generation thereafter is a descendant of that individual that first had the mutation.

As far as I know, that's correct (unless that mutation happens multiple times independently). However, as you may be aware, most major organisms today (including you! ) have two parents. Only one needs to have the mutation for it to be passed on.

It's not like all non-mutated individuals were instantly eradicated from the group, to be replaced by descendants of the mutated one. It's a slow process, over numerous generation, and it involves a lot of breeding between mutated and non-mutated individuals. None of the genetic diversity of the original population is lost.


Now, I've asked you the question more than once on this forum, but I've never got a straight answer: what kind of education did you receive about genetics? Did you study it in high school at all?

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

As far as I know, that's correct (unless that mutation happens multiple times independently). However, as you may be aware, most major organisms today (including you! ) have two parents. Only one needs to have the mutation for it to be passed on.

Thank you. That's all I was after on this thread. In order for a creature to have a trait, it has to get it from an ancestor.

It's not like all non-mutated individuals were instantly eradicated from the group, to be replaced by descendants of the mutated one. It's a slow process, over numerous generation, and it involves a lot of breeding between mutated and non-mutated individuals. None of the genetic diversity of the original population is lost.

Correct. But for the theory to work, there has to be repeated cases of an "Eve" that introduced a new mutation (as we agreed).

Now, I've asked you the question more than once on this forum, but I've never got a straight answer: what kind of education did you receive about genetics? Did you study it in high school at all?

Very little. I realize I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed--and I just want to understand. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think we need to answer the question.

How much theological training have you had? More than just a few Sunday school classes as a 7 year old? Do you dismiss the Genesis creation account w/out thoroughly studying the Bible?