Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 18
Next Last

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#1 Sep 27, 2013
Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed Aug. 1 in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2 Sep 27, 2013
suncore wrote:
Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.
The findings, detailed Aug. 1 in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.
http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam...
Lest there be any confusion with the BIBLICAL story of "Adam" and "Eve", I should point out:

1. This "Adam" most likely never met "Eve" (aka "Mitochondrial Eve"). They were probably separated by a very great distance, and never saw each other.

2. The "Adam" and "Eve" represented here by science were NOT the only living human beings alive at that time. These beings just happen to be the only male and female that we can trace all present-day humans back to.

The lineages produced by all of the OTHER humans alive at the time of this Adam and Eve died out.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#3 Sep 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Lest there be any confusion with the BIBLICAL story of "Adam" and "Eve", I should point out:
1. This "Adam" most likely never met "Eve" (aka "Mitochondrial Eve"). They were probably separated by a very great distance, and never saw each other.
2. The "Adam" and "Eve" represented here by science were NOT the only living human beings alive at that time. These beings just happen to be the only male and female that we can trace all present-day humans back to.
The lineages produced by all of the OTHER humans alive at the time of this Adam and Eve died out.
By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.

In addition, mitochondrial DNA from the men, as well as similar samples from 24 women, revealed that all women on the planet trace back to a mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago — almost the same time period during which the Y-chromosome Adam lived.

They are saying both were from Africa and during the same period of time. That all men trace back to this 'adam' and all women trace back to this 'eve' but they never met.

Then say The "Adam" and "Eve" represented here by science were NOT the only living human beings alive at that time. These beings just happen to be the only male and female that we can trace all present-day humans back to.
Translated to 'even though there were many other men and women this adam and this eve are all we can trace all men and women back to.' That is sensible, Yep very sensible.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#4 Sep 27, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.
In addition, mitochondrial DNA from the men, as well as similar samples from 24 women, revealed that all women on the planet trace back to a mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago — almost the same time period during which the Y-chromosome Adam lived.
They are saying both were from Africa and during the same period of time. That all men trace back to this 'adam' and all women trace back to this 'eve' but they never met.
Then say The "Adam" and "Eve" represented here by science were NOT the only living human beings alive at that time. These beings just happen to be the only male and female that we can trace all present-day humans back to.
Translated to 'even though there were many other men and women this adam and this eve are all we can trace all men and women back to.' That is sensible, Yep very sensible.
So we can safely say that the Biblical Adam and Eve never existed. They are nothing more than a pious myth.

Along with the recent findings that all but sub-Saharan Africans of today carry some small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood means that we ARE descended from the great ape line in the evolutionary tree.

We and the Neanderthals share a common ancestor, probably Homo-heidelbergensis, and that pre-human was probably related to Homo-erectus and so on.

Yes, there are some 'probables' in there, but the link of humans to Neanderthal is real and that DOES connect us to those older Homo species.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#5 Sep 27, 2013
suncore wrote:
<quoted text>
By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.
In addition, mitochondrial DNA from the men, as well as similar samples from 24 women, revealed that all women on the planet trace back to a mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago — almost the same time period during which the Y-chromosome Adam lived.
They are saying both were from Africa and during the same period of time. That all men trace back to this 'adam' and all women trace back to this 'eve' but they never met.
Then say The "Adam" and "Eve" represented here by science were NOT the only living human beings alive at that time. These beings just happen to be the only male and female that we can trace all present-day humans back to.
Translated to 'even though there were many other men and women this adam and this eve are all we can trace all men and women back to.' That is sensible, Yep very sensible.
Now this I find interesting. All men trace back to this "Adam" and all women trace back to this "Eve" but yet turn around and say that other humans were around and living but these two are the only male and female that we can trace all present-day humans back to.

They may not be the "biblical Adam and Eve" as they say but yet it falls in line with the biblical story of all men and women being traced back to one man and one woman.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#6 Sep 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Now this I find interesting. All men trace back to this "Adam" and all women trace back to this "Eve" but yet turn around and say that other humans were around and living but these two are the only male and female that we can trace all present-day humans back to.
They may not be the "biblical Adam and Eve" as they say but yet it falls in line with the biblical story of all men and women being traced back to one man and one woman.
In a very limited sense you might connect this to the Biblical story. However I believe the basic fact here is that the man and women were relatively far apart in time and space. They are not meant to be thought of as they are portrayed in the Bible.

It as just some stupid scientists trying to be funny, and of course the mention of the Biblical names electrified the fundamentalists and many of them think the scientists were talking about the Biblical couple.

Also to be considered is that we know Homo-sapiens were extent as far back as 200,000+- years back.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#7 Sep 27, 2013
....not to mention that THIS Adam and Eve --- as well as their contemporaries --- had a life expectancy in the neighborhood of 35 years. NOT the 900 years as suggested by Genesis.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#8 Sep 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
....not to mention that THIS Adam and Eve --- as well as their contemporaries --- had a life expectancy in the neighborhood of 35 years. NOT the 900 years as suggested by Genesis.
I don't know that and you don't know that. It may have been what you have been told but no one really knows.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#9 Sep 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
....not to mention that THIS Adam and Eve --- as well as their contemporaries --- had a life expectancy in the neighborhood of 35 years. NOT the 900 years as suggested by Genesis.
and come to think about it this 35 year life span should even make it harder for evolution. Less offspring to pass on any mutations in the genes due to a short life span and the short life span would make it harder for a species to evolve that mutation for the environment being most things in life only get harder on us(cold, heat, etc etc) as we age. Just a thought.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#10 Sep 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that and you don't know that. It may have been what you have been told but no one really knows.
I rely on the learned opinions of physical anthropologists that report on paleodemographic studies on life expectancy in prehistoric times.

If you have evidence that supports human beings routinely (or EVER) living 50+years several thousands of years ago, I'm sure they would welcome your insight.

[/sarcasm]

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#11 Sep 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I rely on the learned opinions of physical anthropologists that report on paleodemographic studies on life expectancy in prehistoric times.
If you have evidence that supports human beings routinely (or EVER) living 50+years several thousands of years ago, I'm sure they would welcome your insight.
[/sarcasm]
If you have evidence that they didn't live longer than that I would enjoy reading it if you supply the link that can prove it.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#12 Sep 28, 2013
The Jesus Freaks here are misunderstanding what this supposed "Adam and Eve" represent. Here is a simpele xplanation:

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2007/07/...

Quote:

In the past decade, scientists have repeatedly referred to ‘Mitochondrial Eve‘, the source of mtDNA for all humans alive today. She is believed to have lived approximately 140,000 years ago in Africa. She was NOT the only human alive at that time. Just another member of the species.

There is also ‘Y-chromosomal Adam‘, the source of every living man’s Y-DNA. He is also believed to have lived in Africa, but more recently, between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago. He also lived among many other homo sapiens.

Thus, Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromsomal Adam were not a couple – they were not the source of all human genetic material on the planet today. Instead, the terms refer to the founders of all the mtDNA and Y-DNA respectively.

End quote
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#13 Sep 28, 2013
And here is a slightly more technical description:

What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?
by Krishna Kunchithapadam

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve....

Excerpt:

The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the >>>>>>most-r ecent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent.<<<<< < That may seem like a mouthful, but without even a SINGLE one of those qualifying phrases, any description or discussion of the ME reduces to a lot of nonsense.

The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA.

ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers (and of the many humans who were her contemporaries).

End quote
Cod

Houston, TX

#14 Sep 28, 2013
suncore wrote:
Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.
The findings, detailed Aug. 1 in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.
http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam...
.
OOA hoaxers have been outed since the 80's. Their excuse for these has always been to combat racism and promoyr "die"veristy. Telling lies for a political agenda is ridiculous when science is supposed to be a quest for the truth. <rolls eyes says the cynical PHD with government funding>
.
Example, it has been proven that non sub-Saharan HHS also has Neanderthal admixture with as much as 5% Neanderthal genetics.
.
Then the question is asked if this is so then how come there is not one single non sub-Saharan HHS with Neanderthal MT DNA? isn't this a statistical impossibility? Occums razor says there is but one answer. As with AGW the data has been tampered with and with that OOA is a false paradigm.
.
After much hemming and hawing the lie is now disseminated that oops, sorry no Neanderthal DNA in non sub-Saharan HHS. OOA like AGW is REAL!
.
Move along, nothing it see here by authority of Ingsoc.
.
The lies and deceptions are getting rather tiresome.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#15 Sep 28, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
.
OOA hoaxers have been outed since the 80's. Their excuse for these has always been to combat racism and promoyr "die"veristy. Telling lies for a political agenda is ridiculous when science is supposed to be a quest for the truth. <rolls eyes says the cynical PHD with government funding>
.
Example, it has been proven that non sub-Saharan HHS also has Neanderthal admixture with as much as 5% Neanderthal genetics.
.
Then the question is asked if this is so then how come there is not one single non sub-Saharan HHS with Neanderthal MT DNA? isn't this a statistical impossibility? Occums razor says there is but one answer. As with AGW the data has been tampered with and with that OOA is a false paradigm.
.
After much hemming and hawing the lie is now disseminated that oops, sorry no Neanderthal DNA in non sub-Saharan HHS. OOA like AGW is REAL!
.
Move along, nothing it see here by authority of Ingsoc.
.
The lies and deceptions are getting rather tiresome.
Wow, you seem crazier than the average fundamentalist. Whats up with that??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#16 Sep 28, 2013
Gillette wrote:
And here is a slightly more technical description:
What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?
by Krishna Kunchithapadam
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve....
Excerpt:
The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the >>>>>>most-r ecent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent.<<<<< < That may seem like a mouthful, but without even a SINGLE one of those qualifying phrases, any description or discussion of the ME reduces to a lot of nonsense.
The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA.
ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers (and of the many humans who were her contemporaries).
End quote
Nice job....nice and clear and understandable.

Too bad the fundamentalist YEC on here won't be able to comprehend what you are saying.:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#17 Sep 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
and come to think about it this 35 year life span should even make it harder for evolution. Less offspring to pass on any mutations in the genes due to a short life span and the short life span would make it harder for a species to evolve that mutation for the environment being most things in life only get harder on us(cold, heat, etc etc) as we age. Just a thought.
That's why it took so long for humans to catch on. For many thousands of years humans had little luck in replacing themselves (2 living children)

Child mortality 100,000 years ago has been estimated at over 50%(less than a 50% chance of living past 1 year old)
Cod

Houston, TX

#18 Sep 28, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you seem crazier than the average fundamentalist. Whats up with that??
Seeing that you are incapable of anything than insults your opinion means nothing. I'll speak to you at your sociopathic level. You a nothing more than government funded trash and a propaganda mouthpiece.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#19 Sep 29, 2013
Evolution is changing/adapting to survive but there is no life on other planets? The theory of life coming from a meteor that hit earth has been brought up many many times in science, even several times this year. Well if life could survive on a meteor, then it could survive on other planets as well. But yet there is no life on the moon, there is no life on mars, and more than likely there won’t be any life on other planets either. Now you can argue that abiogenesis and evolution are different but yet they both are pushed by the same hand. Life coming from nothing and overtime evolving to what we see today, which is the big picture of the theory of life being pushed by science to rule out God.

“Live and Let Live”

Since: Aug 13

West Plains, MO

#20 Sep 29, 2013
Science/scientists make predictions in evolution. By doing so they put their life's work, their reputation, the science field reputation, the explanation of all the time and money and the integrity of it all on the line because the reputation of it all rests solely on those predictions being true. Evolution always seems to work out just like science predicts it to. Key words there are "predicts it to". They already set a path to follow and they stay on that path until they make it work. Science is a good tool to have but lying for science is a big disgrace to everyone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 18
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Darwin on the rocks 19 min DanFromSmithville 461
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 122,117
Evidence for God. (Aug '13) 3 hr Bluenose 341
Science News (Sep '13) 5 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,893
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr One way or another 174,561
How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup (Sep '09) 8 hr The Dude 62
The Racist Theory of Evolution. (Jun '06) 8 hr gdjeirokrjdhk 1,306

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE