Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 1:47 AM
20 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,118 Year: 12,154/19,786 Month: 1,935/2,641 Week: 444/708 Day: 3/135 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 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

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 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 2882 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

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 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 2882 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 2882 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

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 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

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 17 of 118 (606393)
02-25-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Huntard
02-25-2011 9:32 AM


Huntard
... with all the knowledge we have, there is no way "Adam" and "Eve" lived at the same time.

Yes.
But even "all the knowledge we have" today about ME and YcAdam cannot be considered sound knowledge. Isn't the knowldge we have about ME and YcA pretty primitive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 9:32 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:55 AM Europa has responded
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 9:56 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 19 of 118 (606396)
02-25-2011 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 6:18 AM


Dr Adequate
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.

Just curious ...
Is it (theoretically) possible to have two MEs even though we are all a single species?


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 22 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:59 AM Europa has responded
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 02-25-2011 10:47 AM Europa has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 9:06 PM Europa has responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 33 of 118 (606535)
02-26-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-25-2011 9:40 AM


jar
Almost anything is possible, but it is very, very, very unlikely that Y-Adam and M-Eve lived at the same time.

Fine.
My point is, if we go further up the line, there will be another person who will be the great, great, great, ...... great, grandfather of YcA
No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-25-2011 9:40 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 02-26-2011 10:26 AM Europa has not yet responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 34 of 118 (606536)
02-26-2011 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
02-25-2011 9:55 AM


Mr Jack

No, not really; I mean the calibration could be better, and we could collect more data but what we have is well supported.

One thing that would indicate that our methods are fundamentally flawed is if YcA and ME came out as living at the same time or if YcA lived before ME.

In that case, are you saying that we cannot trace the mitichondrial DNA or the Y-chromosome any further up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:55 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 35 of 118 (606538)
02-26-2011 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Jack
02-25-2011 9:59 AM


Mr J
At most we could share a ME who isn't human. In theory we could trace that ME right back to the dawnings of sexual reproduction but the odds against that are so high as to mean it's practically certain not to be the case.

Why not?
We may not be able to trace upto where sexual reproduction began.
But we might be able to trace more accurately upto the point where we became human?

The present ME may not necessarily be this point. Thats my view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Jack, posted 02-25-2011 9:59 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 36 of 118 (606539)
02-26-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by nwr
02-25-2011 10:05 AM


The Theory of Evolution does not contradict that statement. The evidence of evolution does contradict it.

What if Adam is a hypothetical human being and not the Biblical Adam?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nwr, posted 02-25-2011 10:05 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 37 of 118 (606540)
02-26-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2011 9:06 PM


Dr A '
Mitochondrial Eve is by definition our most recent common ancestor in the female line. There can only be one of those.

I disagree.
ME is our most recent common ancestor. But depending on our methodology, we might be able to detect another ancestor who is our most recent common ancestor. This will in principle give us two MEs.
No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2011 9:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 02-26-2011 10:41 AM Europa has acknowledged this reply

    
Europa
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 06-05-2010


Message 51 of 118 (606806)
02-28-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phage0070
02-27-2011 3:10 PM


Phage
On the contrary, it certainly does contradict such a statement.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phage0070, posted 02-27-2011 3:10 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Phage0070, posted 02-28-2011 12:53 PM Europa has not yet responded

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019