The Terrifying Message within DNA

Originally posted by RJHinds
The evolutionists believe that apes evolved into man and so this is at the point were they believe the first true human woman came into being from apes. They call that first fully human woman mitochondrial Eve,...

Not true in the slightest. Go read the Wikipedia page you referenced yourself. Mitochondrial Eve has nothing whatsoever to do with the first humans. There is no connection whatsoever.
Secondly, biologists classify humans as apes. Now in common usage it is popular to exclude humans from the apes, but if we are talking about evolution then we must use biological classifications, in which case it would be incorrect to say that apes evolved into man. Much better would be to say that other apes and man had a common ancestor.

But I don't think most people would have been so confused, if they had just watched the video.
I never watch videos posted by you.

I have certain requirements before I watch a YouTube video.
1. That the poster has watched and understands it and hasn't just posted it because they like the title.
2. That the poster agrees with the contents.
3. That the poster is willing to honestly discuss the contents.
4. That the poster is willing to admit that the video is contains errors when those errors are clearly pointed out.

You fail on all counts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true in the slightest. Go read the Wikipedia page you referenced yourself. Mitochondrial Eve has nothing whatsoever to do with the first humans. There is no connection whatsoever.
Secondly, biologists classify humans as apes. Now in common usage it is popular to exclude humans from the apes, but if we are talking about evolution then we must use biol ...[text shortened]... e video is contains errors when those errors are clearly pointed out.

You fail on all counts.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor. Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however, this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestry of modern human populations:

* The human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.

* The identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans was the time at which all humans who were then alive either left no descendants alive today or were common ancestors of all humans alive today. In other words, "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors" alive at the "identical ancestors point" in time. This is far more recent than when Mitochondrial Eve lived.

* Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent female-line common ancestor of all living people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

I have nothing more to discuss with someone not willing to learn and does not know what he is talking about and makes accusations against me as an ad hominem attack.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The evolutionists believe that apes evolved into man and so this is at the point were they believe the first true human woman came into being from apes. They call that first fully human woman mitochondrial Eve...

Nope. Mitochondrial eve is the most recent common maternal ancestor of all humans living today, exactly in the same way that your mother is the most recent common maternal ancestor of you and your siblings. If your mother's lineage is the only one left a hundred thousand years from now, she would become the new mitochondrial eve...

...perish the thought.

Originally posted by C Hess
Nope. Mitochondrial eve is the most recent common maternal ancestor of all humans living today, exactly in the same way that your mother is the most recent common maternal ancestor of you and your siblings. If your mother's lineage is the only one left a hundred thousand years from now, she would become the new mitochondrial eve...

...perish the thought.

What did the woman on the video say in your opinion, if you believe I am stating it incorrectly?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have nothing more to discuss with someone not willing to learn and does not know what he is talking about and makes accusations against me as an ad hominem attack.

Nothing you quoted supports your claim. No where does it suggest in any way shape or form that Mitochondrial Eve has anything whatsoever to do with the common ancestor between humans and other apes. Clearly the person not willing to learn is yourself.
I also recommend you look up 'ad hominem' as you clearly don't know what that means either.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nothing you quoted supports your claim. No where does it suggest in any way shape or form that Mitochondrial Eve has anything whatsoever to do with the common ancestor between humans and other apes. Clearly the person not willing to learn is yourself.
I also recommend you look up 'ad hominem' as you clearly don't know what that means either.

You have nothing to teach me for clearly you are ignorant on the subject and i no longer wish to discuss the topic with you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have nothing to teach me for clearly you are ignorant on the subject and i no longer wish to discuss the topic with you.

Its all there on the Wikipedia page you yourself posted. If you don't wish to learn from it, then thats up to you. But your own denial of the obvious facts is no excuse for claiming that I do not wish to learn.
Since you have just been caught in a lie, I am not surprised you no-longer wish to discuss it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What did the woman on the video say in your opinion, if you believe I am stating it incorrectly?

I don't really care what the woman in your video says. If what she says gave you the idea that mitrochondrial eve is the first human woman, you either misunderstood the video, or the video is wrong.

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't really care what the woman in your video says. If what she says gave you the idea that mitrochondrial eve is the first human woman, you either misunderstood the video, or the video is wrong.

Okay, whatever.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[quote]Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor. Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however, this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequenc ...[text shortened]... does not know what he is talking about and makes accusations against me as an ad hominem attack.

Promises promises.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, whatever.

Alright, I just listened to the first part of the video, and she states quite clearly that mitochondrial eve is not the same as the biblical eve, but rather one woman in a population of human men and women.

Originally posted by C Hess
Alright, I just listened to the first part of the video, and she states quite clearly that mitochondrial eve is not the same as the biblical eve, but rather one woman in a population of human men and women.

Implying there was a woman before Eve?

Originally posted by C Hess
Alright, I just listened to the first part of the video, and she states quite clearly that mitochondrial eve is not the same as the biblical eve, but rather one woman in a population of human men and women.

I never said she was the EVE in the Holy Bible. You know what ASSUME does.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Implying there was a woman before Eve?

That might be the Eve in the Holy Bible. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I never said she was the EVE in the Holy Bible. You know what ASSUME does.

They call that first fully human woman mitochondrial Eve...

You clearly thought mitochondrial eve was the first human female, or are you saying that biblical eve was a little more chimp than us? 😕