First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Are all humans related to each other?
26279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 6/25/14
We are all related to one woman, in Africa that lived around 150,000 years ago. (But she was not the only woman alive at the time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

This is traceable by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) type, same method that is sometimes used in court cases to determine inheritance & ancestry. We are likely much closely related than that, but the mtDNA ancestor is the one with the most evidence that is easy to track. There is some variation on timescale, we might still ask exactly when it happened, (+/- 50k) but there is no question that it did happen.

We are all from the same tribe, please act like it.
Posted 6/25/14
The whole planet shares about the same DNA. If I really cared I would have the energy to be rude now.
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 6/25/14


Oh.
7691 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / Basketball Court
Offline
Posted 6/25/14
Yes we all are and this is all just incest.
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 6/25/14

DontDeny wrote:

Yes we all are and this is all just incest.



Scary.
40005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / HI
Offline
Posted 6/25/14
Im sure we all had the same origin
37906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/25/14

GayAsianBoy wrote:


minatothegreatjiraiya wrote:


Not overzealous.

Read here for debunk: http://ncse.com/book/export/html/11831

Important points to note from the website:

"Yolked into it: Removing yolk from photographs of embryos makes them look much more like Haeckel's drawings.
p. 66: Haeckel … show[ed] that [vertebrate] embryos … were very similar during their earliest stages.

Historians have shown that Haeckel meant something different by "earliest stages" of an embryo than modern authors, but the book uses the confusing translation to create a straw man. Haeckel was aware of divergence in early stages of embryos, and like modern embryologists, was aware that these divergences are driven in part by factors like the amount of yolk, not by fundamentally different developmental processes."





Even if his images are inaccurate, my point still stands, without studying embryology, the average person would not be able to tell the difference between a cow embryo to a human embryo, because they are similar due to the presence of gill sacs and a tailbone.

Yolks are part of embryos. You cannot claim that something is a picture of an embryo if the yolk is missing, unless you specify that it does not have the yolk. That is misleading. I've never read Exploring Evolution, I was simply pointing out the inaccuracies of the picture, as I don't believe misleading information should be used to make a point. Your point -that without studying embryos, people probably cannot tell the difference between most early embryos-still stands regardless of this, similar to how you cannot tell where meat from a slaughter house will go.
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 6/25/14

darkfire9o9 wrote:

Im sure we all had the same origin


Hi distant family member I never met until now.
79751 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M / KC
Offline
Posted 6/25/14

Kaldar5 wrote:

We are all related to one woman, in Africa that lived around 150,000 years ago. (But she was not the only woman alive at the time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

This is traceable by mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) type, same method that is sometimes used in court cases to determine inheritance & ancestry. We are likely much closely related than that, but the mtDNA ancestor is the one with the most evidence that is easy to track. There is some variation on timescale, we might still ask exactly when it happened, (+/- 50k) but there is no question that it did happen.

We are all from the same tribe, please act like it.


^This

Here's a good article about Mitocondrial Eve.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm
Posted 6/25/14
..................................... Umm.... I don't know what science says, but I hope not?
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 6/25/14

MadameNoir wrote:

..................................... Umm.... I don't know what science says, but I hope not?


We are.
Posted 6/25/14

qualeshia3 wrote:


MadameNoir wrote:

..................................... Umm.... I don't know what science says, but I hope not?


We are.


That's a dreadful thing to say to me -.- Isn't that incest then?
7102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Finland
Offline
Posted 6/25/14
In mind, body and other crap. We are closer to clones than individuals. We eat the same things, we think about same things and we all share something common in the past. That is classification of human beings.
42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Offline
Posted 6/26/14



Yes.
64447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / US
Offline
Posted 6/26/14
It isn't opinion. All humans have the same mitochondrial DNA from an ancient female ancestor - and only a handful of male genes. At some point, there was a single mother to all of humanity and only a few different paternal contributors.

I personally don't believe in evolution - I find too many holes in the theory. One big one is sexual reproduction - which makes no evolutionary sense. An organism that requires a partner to reproduce has absolutely NO advantage over hermaphrodites or organisms which divide themselves. The fact that sexual reproduction exists at all causes me to doubt the idea of evolution as a source of higher life on Earth. IF an organism that required a partner was spawned and IF it spawned near a compatible organism of the opposite sex and IF it managed to procreate, it would still be completely overrun by its asexual or hermaphrodite cousins. Some claim that the genetic diversity brought around by sexual reproduction creates a hardier offspring, but that first one would never have stood a chance fighting for food around thousands of self-replicating kin. Also, no one has been able to explain how the first cell formed. Also, there is great diversity within any genus of animal such as chihuahuas and wolves which are both canines, so the presence of slightly different fossils does not prove that one became the other; it is far more likely that they were merely different bloodlines of the same genus.

Still, we can sequence DNA and have found the same kernel in all people. There must be a common ancestor somewhere down the line.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.