All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam

I'm not sure what you mean by this? What part of the population models on which recent MRCA estimates are based do you disagree with? That people have 2 parents? That they have 4 grandparents? That in the past the human population of the Earth has been considerably smaller than it is currently?Whatever models you are talking about they don't seem to be ones having anything to do with common ancestry.TTFN,WK

I am referring to the YEC models that try to claim humans have only been breeding for roughly 6000 years. The OP's claim about being descended from Adam implies the belief that the event described in the Bible occurred.While it is certainly possible that the human line could be traced wholesale back to around 500AD, the idea that the entirety of humanity is descended from two individuals from such recent a pairing is patently ridiculous. More like 190 million other humans.

Unless the women were completely separated into four populations (and, ouch, the inbreeding implications of that!) it's mind-boggling unlikely that even if all the women present had different mitochondrial genomes (itself relatively unlikely) all four lines would have survived to the current day.

Solely, you need to put 'solely' or 'just' in their somewhere because the entirety of humanity is descended from two individuals from such a recent pairing as well as from another few million other such pairings around the same time.TTFN,WK

OK true, but you wouldn't parse the statement "Humanity is descended from Adam" to mean that there is at least one living human alive today that descended from someone named Adam, and the rest of humanity is composed of offspring from other family lines.If we are to use such a tortured interpretation then we can conclude that the original statement was technically true but mostly meaningless. (and by most accounts deceptive)

Phage You have written a long answer.
But you have not understood my question.What I said was 'because we have someone like ME, my statement is not false.'If we do not have ME (or YcA for that matter), it would be hard to argue that we are descendants of a single being.Whether ME and YcA were of the same generation or not, is irrelevant here.

The point would be the same if y-Chromosome Adam was used.
It predates the Biblical Adam by thousands of years.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Bluescat You missed the point again.
This is also not what this thread is about.This thread is about a statement. And whther it, as a statement, is true of false.

No, thats still false. Since that statement only technically talks about ME, and your statement only addresses Adam, they don't mesh at all. ME existed long before YcA ever cropped up, so her descendants would have had many different male lines to mate with.What you could say is: "Because there is someone like YcA mating with an established ME, my statement was not false assuming terms used within it are redefined to match the biological theory." "Adam" would need to be a placeholder for the unknown YcA, and "humanity" would need to be redefined as only meaning "living humans".

You still don't seem to get it, everyone alive today is descended from all of that ancestral population, there are no 'other family lines'. There is a historical point where there are 2 populations one consists of people who have no extant modern descendants and the other consists of people all of whom are ancestral to every extant modern human. This is called the identical ancestors point. In fact looking at that I seem to have got the numbers for the MRCA and the IAP mixed up, with the IAP being several thousand years before the MRCA. Since Europa seems willing to consider a 'hypothetical Adam' that is how I view it.TTFN,WK

But for the original statement to be true "humanity" must instead be "living humans". So its still not correct.

Fine if the y-Chromosome Adam, true, if Biblical Adam, false.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

WK If we are descendants of an ancestral population, why do we ALL have the traits that could "trace" our family line to one single being? Why don't we have a mixture of traits that would tell us our great, great, ... great grandmothers were different people? Could this be because we have not tested for other family lines?
Or could this be because there really aren't other family lines?

Phage Not that I even understood what you mean by this comment. But ...
Does this also mean that because "humanity" is not only "living humans", ME is false?

No, ME is a specific individual among the human species from which all living humans descended. Before and even during her time there were humans which were not descended from her line. The ME idea specifically describes this relationship.The original statement was "All human beings are descendants of Adam." That would seem to mean that if you examined any human they would be a descendant of Adam (or Adam himself). This is in keeping with the set of beliefs that would lead to such a statement in the first place.I might otherwise be willing to excuse an imprecise colloquial usage of language except that the OP is clearly trying to squeak through on technicalities and redefinitions. If he wants to be technically not disproved then he is going to have to live with being technical with our terms.