Who believes we couldn't have all descended from 1 woman? (myth, bible, quote)

[kdbrich]

If not....do you believe in evolution?

If I understand it correctly, the concept of evolution states that a mutation is introduced into a species through 1 animal--and that one animal then passes it on to its descendants. The entire species is descended from that one animal. And this happens again and again and again....millions and millions of time until a new species comes about. Right?

You guys believe that, but not that we all descended from a single woman?

[agnostic soldier]

Can you explain how, within a period of ten thousand years, two people became six billion. Can you also explain how, within a period of ten thousand years, humans spread to almost every country in the world, and were able to make different races and ethnicities. Also, how did Cain reproduce? He would have had to have procreated with his mother or a sister.
Evolution by natural selection makes much more sense than any creation myth, especially since all the evidence points to evolution.

[ptsum]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

If not....do you believe in evolution?

If I understand it correctly, the concept of evolution states that a mutation is introduced into a species through 1 animal--and that one animal then passes it on to its descendants. The entire species is descended from that one animal. And this happens again and again and again....millions and millions of time until a new species comes about. Right?

You guys believe that, but not that we all descended from a single woman?

I notice that it's interesting that you use the word animal in relation to evolution and then again in your last sentence you use the terminology of woman. We as a species of mammals are animals. Nice play on words.

[Eresh]

Posts like this are what happens when people don't understand the science (kind of reminds me of the saying... " A little knowledge is a dangerous thing")
I'll try to explain this conceptually and without the big fancy words.
Yes, a mutation is the source of genetic variation within a population. Over many generations, that mutation can become distributed throughout the population (a good book on genetics mayl help you understand that part). If the mutation happens to be one that allows an individual an advantage over others (i.e. makes it more likely to live long enough to reproduce), then over time there will be a higher proportion of individuals in the population with that mutation because more of them are creating offspring than those without it. Sometimes it works the other way, and the individual with that mutation dies (and doesn't get passed on to offspring). Other times, the mutation is neutral - no advantage and no disadvantage. The gene will still spread into the population because that individual created offspring, which created offspring, etc. If there is a change in the environmental conditions (i.e. food source, living conditions, etc) that happens to make those with the mutation are better adapted to the new conditions, then they will have the advantage. Over time, the population will have changed (i.e. evolution occured).

edited to add: I don't "believe in" evolution, because evolution is NOT a belief system. However, I do accept it as the most credible explanation for the diversity of organisms existing on this planet.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Eresh

Posts like this are what happens when people don't understand the science (kind of reminds me of the saying... " A little knowledge is a dangerous thing")
I'll try to explain this conceptually and without the big fancy words.
Yes, a mutation is the source of genetic variation within a population. Over many generations, that mutation can become distributed throughout the population (a good book on genetics mayl help you understand that part).

You apparently aren't understanding my question.

If a mutation is introduced through a single animal...then any animal that has that mutation is descended from that animal. Therefore, the entire species must be from that single specimen, right?

[Eresh]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You apparently aren't understanding my question.

If a mutation is introduced through a single animal...then any animal that has that mutation is descended from that animal. Therefore, the entire species must be from that single specimen, right?

Somtimes that is true, but sometimes the same kind of mutation can crop up in a few individuals within a population.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Eresh

Somtimes that is true, but sometimes the same kind of mutation can crop up in a few individuals within a population.

Sometimes?

We're talking millions of mutations that would have to occur...maybe "sometimes" in multiple individuals. Then those few individuals would become the new parents of the species.


You believe that? But not that the human race could have come from a single woman almost 10,000 years ago?

[Eresh]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

Sometimes?

We're talking millions of mutations that would have to occur...maybe "sometimes" in multiple individuals. Then those few individuals would become the new parents of the species.


You believe that? But not that the human race could have come from a single woman almost 10,000 years ago?

I don't think it's millions of mutations. It's probably more like a few mutations on regulatory genes (mostly ones that control gene expression during embryonic development), which is why different species can have so much DNA in common yet be so different from each other. Could the human race have come from a single female (or a single male or a single female-male pairing)? Possibly. A lot of people accept that all living things originally come from a single bacterium. But 10,000 years ago? I (and the vast majority of scientists) can't acccept that because it's simply not enough generations to account for the diversity that we have (in your own words from the OP: "And this happens again and again and again....millions and millions of time until a new species comes about.")

[MrBlueSky_]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You believe that? But not that the human race could have come from a single woman almost 10,000 years ago?

It doesn't matter what one believes. *Reality* tells us that it didn't and couldn't happen that way, that life has been around for millions upon millions of years and that evolution is a fact.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_

It doesn't matter what one believes. *Reality* tells us that it didn't and couldn't happen that way, that life has been around for millions upon millions of years and that evolution is a fact.

It does? *Reality* would seem to indicate that if evolution is true then every species has had millions of "Eves" repeatedly. Yet, people would rather believe the fairy tale of evolution than a literal Adam and Eve creation account as detailed in the Bible. I'm sorry--but Eve being created seems more plausible than millions of "Eves" throughout time.