Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 6:13 PM
408 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, jar, NoNukes, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD (6 members, 402 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,870 Year: 16,476/21,208 Month: 2,365/3,593 Week: 478/882 Day: 99/97 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam
Europa
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 1 of 118 (606360)
02-25-2011 2:56 AM


I may be wrong but my understanding of evolution does not contradict the statement: "All human beings are descendants of Adam."

I shall explain why.
Evolutionists state that we are descendants of an ape-like ancestor. To further strengthen this, they claim that the chimps and human beings share a common ancestor. I will not go into the details of explicit calims like the DNA of human beings are 99 percent similar to that of the chimps. But I am not saying that any of this is wrong.

Having said that, we also have done some tests, because of which we have found out that the existing population of the world are all decendants of a single human being -- the Mitochondrial Eve (ME). I am not saying that the ME is the real Eve (of the Bible). Nor am I denying that at this point. I just do not know.

The common explanation of the ME is that the human population faced a bottleneck sometime in the past. And it is because of this bottle-necking that we have the ME. That is fine. I do not disagree with this either.

What I am saying is that because we have something (or should I say someone?) like the ME, the statement: 'All human beings are descendants of Adam' is not false. Coming to think of it, it would be so difficult to argue in support of my statement if we do not have the ME.

Now, many will not agree with my statement. But that is a different issue for i am not arguing to prove my statement. Nevertheless, evolution does not contradict my statement.
Am I wrong?

I would like some insight into this and will appreciate all answers.
Thanks.

Edited by AdminPD, : Title Change


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2011 6:08 AM Europa has responded
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 6:18 AM Europa has responded
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:03 AM Europa has responded
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 02-25-2011 10:05 AM Europa has responded
 Message 40 by Phage0070, posted 02-27-2011 3:10 PM Europa has responded
 Message 107 by kofh2u, posted 03-30-2013 1:43 PM Europa has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 118 (606362)
02-25-2011 5:55 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 896 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 3 of 118 (606364)
02-25-2011 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Europa
02-25-2011 2:56 AM


quote:
'All human beings are descendants of Adam' is not false.
Yes it is. Adam from the Jewish/Christian creation story is a fictional character in a just-so type of story. He has no real descendants.

How we know it is fiction: Talking snake, magic trees, people made from dirt, God discussions, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 2:56 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 6:53 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 4 of 118 (606366)
02-25-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Europa
02-25-2011 2:56 AM


The common explanation of the ME is that the human population faced a bottleneck sometime in the past.

No, not really. There was a bottleneck, but that isn't why ME existed.

That's just inevitable. Humans are one species, everyone has a mother, and no-one has more than one mother. Given these facts, one can prove the existence of ME from one's armchair.

People often get confused about this. The fact that ME existed was not news. It was inevitable. The date and location at which she existed was news.

If I was one of those scientists I'd have gotten downright testy about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 2:56 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 6:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 19 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:55 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 5 of 118 (606367)
02-25-2011 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 6:18 AM


That's just inevitable. Humans are one species, everyone has a mother, and no-one has more than one mother. Given these facts, one can prove the existence of ME from one's armchair.

Well, okay.
I agree.
So you mean evolution does confirm the fact that we are descendants of a single human being?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 6:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 7:11 AM Europa has responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 6 of 118 (606368)
02-25-2011 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by purpledawn
02-25-2011 6:08 AM


Well, I got your point.
So, if I revise may statement and say "We are all descendants of a single human being," does evolutionary evidence contradict my statement?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2011 6:08 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2011 8:06 AM Europa has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 7 of 118 (606371)
02-25-2011 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Europa
02-25-2011 6:51 AM


So you mean evolution does confirm the fact that we are descendants of a single human being?

Common sense confirms the fact that we are all descendants of at least two human beings. As I said, it was not big news that ME existed. She had to.

Common sense also suggests that this is probably true of more than two human beings.

Genetic analysis, IIRC, suggests that "Y-nuclear Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" didn't live at the same time; which would make reconciling the facts with the Bible kinda tricky.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 6:51 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 8:36 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:40 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 896 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 8 of 118 (606373)
02-25-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Europa
02-25-2011 6:53 AM


Europa writes:

Well, I got your point.
So, if I revise may statement and say "We are all descendants of a single human being," does evolutionary evidence contradict my statement?

That changes the topic of the thread. If that's what you wanted to debate, then you should have worded it that way.

So what's your point if it does or doesn't?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 6:53 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:28 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2857
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 9 of 118 (606377)
02-25-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 7:11 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

Genetic analysis, IIRC, suggests that "Y-nuclear Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" didn't live at the same time; which would make reconciling the facts with the Bible kinda tricky.


Quite correct. In fact, "Adam" lived somewhere between 50.000 and 80.000 years after "Eve".

Also I suggest reading Mitochondrial Eve to Europa, which explains quite clearly that ME was not the only woman alive at the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 7:11 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:20 AM Huntard has responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 10 of 118 (606382)
02-25-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Europa
02-25-2011 2:56 AM


Others have dealt with the rest, I'm just going to concentrate on this one bit:

Having said that, we also have done some tests, because of which we have found out that the existing population of the world are all decendants of a single human being

This is incorrect. No-one has ever performed a test for the existence of mitochondrial eve. Her existence is assumed based on the statistical near inevitability of it being so. What they then did have assumed she existed is apply the science of genetic molecular clocks to the data gathered on variation in mitochondiral genomes across the human population to calculate when she lived.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 2:56 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:31 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Europa
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 11 of 118 (606383)
02-25-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Huntard
02-25-2011 8:36 AM


In fact, "Adam" lived somewhere between 50.000 and 80.000 years after "Eve".

Could this not be due to something being wrong with the scientific methodology?

Please, don't be too aggressive.
I am just trying to make a sound argument here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 8:36 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 9:32 AM Europa has responded
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-25-2011 9:40 AM Europa has responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 12 of 118 (606384)
02-25-2011 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by purpledawn
02-25-2011 8:06 AM


Purpledawn
That changes the topic of the thread. If that's what you wanted to debate, then you should have worded it that way.

My bad.
But you are avoiding the answer


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2011 8:06 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 02-25-2011 10:07 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 13 of 118 (606386)
02-25-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Jack
02-25-2011 9:03 AM


Mr Jack
This is incorrect. No-one has ever performed a test for the existence of mitochondrial eve. Her existence is assumed based on the statistical near inevitability of it being so. What they then did have assumed she existed is apply the science of genetic molecular clocks to the data gathered on variation in mitochondiral genomes across the human population to calculate when she lived.
Others have dealt with the rest, I'm just going to concentrate on this one bit:

Having said that, we also have done some tests, because of which we have found out that the existing population of the world are all decendants of a single human being

This is incorrect. No-one has ever performed a test for the existence of mitochondrial eve. Her existence is assumed based on the statistical near inevitability of it being so. What they then did have assumed she existed is apply the science of genetic molecular clocks to the data gathered on variation in mitochondiral genomes across the human population to calculate when she lived.

Thanks for the info.
Is this also the method they use to say that there is a Y-chromosomal Adam?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:03 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:53 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2857
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 14 of 118 (606387)
02-25-2011 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Europa
02-25-2011 9:20 AM


Europa writes:

Could this not be due to something being wrong with the scientific methodology?


While, of course, anything is possible, the likelihood of this being the case is very small indeed. At this point in time, with all the knowledge we have, there is no way "Adam" and "Eve" lived at the same time. Of course when there is new data, this can always change, but until then, we should assume that this is correct, regardless of what we would like to believe about such things.

Please, don't be too aggressive.
I am just trying to make a sound argument here.

Of course. If you read the link I posted, you will see there explained that ME wasn't the only woman alive at the time, she is just the only woman with an unbroken female line until the present day. Just like "Adam" is the only man with an unbroken male line until the present.

I'll try to dig up a video about it this evening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:20 AM Europa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Europa, posted 02-25-2011 9:47 AM Huntard has responded
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2011 10:31 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2125 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 15 of 118 (606389)
02-25-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 7:11 AM


Dr Adequate
Genetic analysis, IIRC, suggests that "Y-nuclear Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" didn't live at the same time; which would make reconciling the facts with the Bible kinda tricky.

You are quick to jump into a 'reconciliation' story.
Having said that, you are also assuming that there are no flaws in the scientific method that arrives at these conclusions.
As far as I know, the scientific methods used to calculate the times of existence of ME and Y-chromosomal Adam are not 100 percent foolproof. There is a lot of margin for error. (More so than most other scientific calculations such as the age of the Earth, time of Big Bang, etc). Why then, are you so qiick to quip that reconciling the facts with the Bible would be kinda tricky?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 7:11 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NoNukes, posted 02-25-2011 10:44 PM Europa has acknowledged this reply

    
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017