So are you proving evolution or creation?

Question

So, I'm not going to name name's, but while answering a question I read someone said this:

"That means we all came from the same mom. That issue was settled at U. CAL. Berkeley in 1988 with DNA research by Wilson and Stoneking. You are way behind your own team pal-better step on the gas if you want to trip up creation."

yeah. that's what evolution says too. there had to be one human for the rest of us to come, right? exactly. and that one human mated with another human-like animal. and eventually came another species that had different traits, atleast that how i see it. so yes, there was one mom in the beginning.

hmm.. evolution and creation have one thing in common = )
what's your stand on the situation?

Answer 1

Evolution is not a science. It’s a hypothesis that has never been proved.

We have still yet to see any evidence of one species becoming another. Variations in the same species doesn't equate to evolution. For all we know at this stage is that those variations are preprogrammed in the DNA as possible variations. Mixing of DNA may make a new type of dog, but it is still a dog. So, even if a complex single cell organism managed to spontaneously form with perfect parts one time or even a thousand times, it wouldn't account for the wonderful variety of life here on Earth

Answer 2

yeah. that's what evolution says too. there had to be one human for the rest of us to come, right? exactly. and that one human mated with another human-like animal. and eventually came another species that had different traits, at least that how i see it. so yes, there was one mom in the beginning


No, that isn't what the theory of evolution states... There was no "one mom" as that would be impossible. Evolution is the acceptance of better traits (and rejection of unnecessary traits) and the continuation of those traits through natural selection over a course of years upon years. This took GENERATION after generation after generation before 1 small accumulated change would even be noticeable. These traits build up and build up and eventually move on to something entirely different than the original...

Answer 3

The creationist crowd is a usually not too scientific literate crowd. However, they want their beliefs treated as science. Of course, they do not have any scientific evidence to support their views. So, what they do is try to discredit any science that contradicts them or they latch onto a particular science tidbit that seems or can be twisted into supporting their viewpoint.

The study that this person quotes also believes that the female lived 140,000 years ago in Ethiopia, Kenya, or Tanzania. Also, the study never claims that there was only one female living at the time. If there were then the race would have gone extinct due to population bottleneck. None of these facts support creationism. In fact, they point the other way, that humans have evolved.

Here is a wiki on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

This sounds like a case of a creationist trying to twist a real study to support his/her views.

Answer 4

Evolution says the our species evolved over time, not that there was a "first" human. The species gradually formed from another species over many generations. But because of small gene pools at the time and humans interbreeding with each other, there is a genetic "eve" in which all humans are related to in some way. Its like saying everyone with the last name "smith" is related in some way, but on a bigger scale.

Answer 5

The "Mitochondrial Eve" lived about 140,000 years ago. That is the matrilineal MRCA, or Most Recent Common Ancestor. She was not the only female alive at the time, nor was she the first human. The hominid line was already several million years old when she lived. However, due to superiority of her progeny, sparseness of population, or other circumstances, all humans alive today can trace their matrilineage back to her.

Skip-Jack: I hope you are just being facetious. You know that a new species does not pop out of the loins of a different species, right? If you are being serious, you REALLY need to study the subject before you try to write about it.

Answer 6

I agree that the human species comes from one pair of humans. As for evolution, that's more of a scientific fairy tale. Evolution also states that we came from a primordial soup of chemicals that just happened to "accidently" combine properly to create life as we know it. I'm sorry, but the chances of this happening are way too astronomically long that it's a big "NO."
Here's a hypothetical experiment. Suppose you have a giant bowl. You thrown in this bowl, lumber, wiring, glass, concrete, etc. In other words, everything you would need to build a nice home. You then shake and spin this bowl. You hit it with lightning, heat, cold, and radiation. You do this for millions of years. Do you think you'll have a nicely built home from this? You would say, "impossible." In the end you would need intelligent design to make this house. Now this is a simple house. Imagine the complexities of DNA and life? Still think it's an accident?
Seems more like we humans have been created by some superior force, either it being God, or some advanced alien technologies.

Answer 7

For an interesting take on this, check out The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins. It starts with humans and goes back to all of life's common ancestor, one step at a time.

Anyway, as I understand it the problem boils down to this: without Adam and Eve, the literal first two humans that God created in genesis, there would be no fall of man, no exile from the garden of eden. No apple, no snake, no sin. The bible says that god sent Jesus down to die for our sins -- the sins of Adam and his children. So if there was no Adam, there was no reason for Jesus to be sent down from the swirly cloud place and save us all.

I probably got that jesus bit wrong -- I always do. There's no reason to know that story any more than I know the story of Zeus, though, so I think I'm good.

Really, though, check out the Ancestor's Tale.

Answer 8

The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI


That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html


Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Answer 9

I myself am not personally proving anything, being neither a scientist, nor a theologian. I do cite some scientific works that have proved true through testing of theory; as far as religious theories, they require no proving, as they are accepted on the basis of faith, not fact.

I am here to present my point of view as it has been informed by my experience; I feel others are here to do the same. The number of others who endlessly argue over fact vs. faith outnumber us by a vast majority, but it is human nature to argue, and I am in no way offended by it.

I am an Atheist, by the way.

Answer 10

Mitochondrial Eve? Sure.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

But the key part is that the existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottleneck or first couple. They co-existed with a large human population.