3 ms·

You might wonder: why should there be a single common-father in the first place? Why not a non-singleton set of common fathers all the way back to near the poin

You might wonder: why should there be a single common-father in the first place? Why not a non-singleton set of common fathers all the way back to near the point where the questions becomes odd because you're dealing with hermaphrodites and/or asexual reproduction? See: Galton-Watson process ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton%E2%80%93Watson_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton%E2%80%93Watson_process ) > The Galton–Watson process is a branching stochastic process arising from Francis Galton's statistical investigation of the extinction of family names.

piokoch 14y ago
As far as modern evolution theory teaches as (not original Darwin absurdities), new species arises in the course of genetic mutation. Mutations are kind of random and quite rare, so it is unlikely that the mutation leading to birth of homo sapiens happened many times. Looks like we have one common ancestor, the "chromosomal Adam".
- Strilanc 14y ago
  The origin of the human species is a different issue altogether. In particular, there is no well-defined "first human" but (given a family tree going back hundreds of thousands of years) there is a well-defined first common ancestor of the Y chromosome (because it is passed down asexually from father to son).
- ithkuil 14y ago
  honest question: can you please point out some of the original Darwin absurdities? The more I read about it, the more it seems that Darwin got right more things that he's usually accredited. I.e. he's depicted as father of the original idea but that it was only a rough prototype. But, according to evolutionist like Richard Dawkins, there no good new theories actually displacing the core concepts, and which don't merely refine or provide slightly different interpretation of some statistical cases (like Gould's Punctuated equilibrium theory). Given the amount of funded anti Darwin bashing, I wonder if your comment is based on actual knowledge or some distorted information. Can you please elaborate?
  - barry-cotter 14y ago
    His Darwin bashing is probably bullshit. Given that Darwin didn't have a theory of discrete (Mendelian) inheritance he got a truly insane amount right. There are things in Origin of Species that were ignored for generations and when investigated were incredibly fruitful in understanding evolution, like sexual selection.
    - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
      And cows - whales are descended from cows ancestors too! He just threw that one off the cuff :-)
- goggles99 14y ago
  What about a "chromosomal Eve"? A mutation of the magnitude you are referring to would have made reproduction impossible unless there was an Eve with the same mutation.
  - laumars 14y ago
    Evolution doesn't leapfrog like that. It's a series of multiple smaller mutations over long periods of time.

piokoch 14y ago

As far as modern evolution theory teaches as (not original Darwin absurdities), new species arises in the course of genetic mutation. Mutations are kind of random and quite rare, so it is unlikely that the mutation leading to birth of homo sapiens happened many times. Looks like we have one common ancestor, the "chromosomal Adam".

Strilanc 14y ago
The origin of the human species is a different issue altogether. In particular, there is no well-defined "first human" but (given a family tree going back hundreds of thousands of years) there is a well-defined first common ancestor of the Y chromosome (because it is passed down asexually from father to son).
ithkuil 14y ago
honest question: can you please point out some of the original Darwin absurdities? The more I read about it, the more it seems that Darwin got right more things that he's usually accredited. I.e. he's depicted as father of the original idea but that it was only a rough prototype. But, according to evolutionist like Richard Dawkins, there no good new theories actually displacing the core concepts, and which don't merely refine or provide slightly different interpretation of some statistical cases (like Gould's Punctuated equilibrium theory). Given the amount of funded anti Darwin bashing, I wonder if your comment is based on actual knowledge or some distorted information. Can you please elaborate?
- barry-cotter 14y ago
  His Darwin bashing is probably bullshit. Given that Darwin didn't have a theory of discrete (Mendelian) inheritance he got a truly insane amount right. There are things in Origin of Species that were ignored for generations and when investigated were incredibly fruitful in understanding evolution, like sexual selection.
  - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
    And cows - whales are descended from cows ancestors too! He just threw that one off the cuff :-)
goggles99 14y ago
What about a "chromosomal Eve"? A mutation of the magnitude you are referring to would have made reproduction impossible unless there was an Eve with the same mutation.
- laumars 14y ago
  Evolution doesn't leapfrog like that. It's a series of multiple smaller mutations over long periods of time.