What if Adam is an aberration?

[SaintManx]

I being a layperson and not a scientist am wondering that it appears that all of this genetic testing is based on a genetic Adam and Eve- well what if science's deduction of this theory is admonished?

When we consider the miracle(re: things that we cannot yet understand) of all life forms we as humans only try and consider the origins of our race. But the genetic structure of all animals seem to be very close in relationship yet so far in appearance. Is it so difficult to consider that perhaps our race was not conceived through one set of parents? What if we are byproducts of several different groups?

Mathematically speaking we should all be related, and our haplogroups should ultimately all be the same- but as we can see we have been unable to determine this.

Is there a model in place that can answer this question? I feel that we may be in quest of the goose with the golden eggs.

Cheers!

Kit# 72248
Y-search 9epze

[vineviz]

Is it so difficult to consider that perhaps our race was not conceived through one set of parents? What if we are byproducts of several different groups?

In fact, y-chromosome "Adam" and mtDNA "Eve" were not a "couple". They lived at different times and, probably, at different places.

There were many other living human men at the time of y-chromosome Adam and many other living females at the time of mtDNA Even.

Moreover, the remainder of our genetic makeup (autosomes, x-chromosomes, etc) very much links us to people other than these two particular individuals.

[SaintManx]

So is it then possible to include multiple origins in the human race model? It might be possible that we are not all indeed related in a mathematical sense or otherwise.

[vineviz]

So is it then possible to include multiple origins in the human race model? It might be possible that we are not all indeed related in a mathematical sense or otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean by "multiple origins", but we are all related: mtDNA Eve is a common ancestor to every living person, as is Y-chromosome Adam.

However, all of our genetic makeup can not necessarily be traced back ONLY to those two people.

Think of this: y-Adam had (by definition) at least two sons. Those sons had a mother who was not mtDNA-Eve. The sons had wives who were not mtDNA-Eve. The wives had fathers who were not y-Adam and mothers who were not mtDNA-Eve.

Even though every person can trace their ancestry back to y-Adam, he was not their ONLY male ancestor. Nor was mtDNA-Even the ONLY femal ancestor for everyone alive today.

[GregKiroKH2]

I think Adam and Eve were a couple around 4004 B.C., and the Noah Ark story could be related to the Tower of Babel and the L3 blossoms. To me, DNA beings the stories to life. Maybe speculations has dominated public opinion for too long. The genetic Adam is older, around 65,000 B.C., and the genetic Eve was around 175,000 B.C.. So, man and woman came before Adam and Eve.


Dr. John Lightfoot, a 17th century Anglican clergyman estimated that creation occurred during 4004 B.C.

Martin Luther, the great reformer, favored (liking the round number) 4000 B.C. as a date for creation.

Astronomer Johannes Kepler concluded that 3992 B.C. was the probable date.

Ussher began his calculation by adding the ages of the twenty-one generations of people of the Hebrew-derived Old Testament, beginning with Adam and Eve.

According to the famed Egyptologist J. H. Breasted, the earliest date known in the Egyptian calendar corresponds to 4236 B.C.E. in terms of the Gregorian calendar.

[SaintManx]

Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology. Most of us know the OT story of Adam and Eve being the progenitors of mankind.

Science is trying to explain when/where/who our "first set" of parents were. I am asking the "what if" question- what if we arrived and settled on earth from otherworlds at different times, or- mutated from different species at different times- then the theoretical rationale that we are all related genetically would not be so.

Perhaps that type of thinking is a bit exotic, I know, but so is alot of dogma.

[GregKiroKH2]

Oops, I should have typed "speculations have."

The Bible states that there were man and woman. Adam and Eve were not mentioned until Lord God made Earth and Heaven, and the original sin. Most calculations place Adam and Eve around 4004 B.C..

The Proton-Proton Chain is the principal set of reactions for solar-type stars to transform hydrogen to helium:

The Triple-Alpha Process follows hydrogen burning in both solar-type stars and high-mass stars transforming Helium into Carbon.

The Sun is thought to be a second-generation star

More massive stars burn hydrogen via a catalytic reaction called The CNO CYCLE.


Therefore, it is normal for stars to make hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.

Human Being, Mostly Water
H, 63%
O, 25%
C, 10%
N, 1%
Ca, 0.5%
K, 0.4%

It is natural for us to be made up of star dust. And there are billions and billions of stars.

[SaintManx]

Alas a true scientific explanation!

The composition percentages are helpful, but-how is it that our makeup is so precise, with little to no parts being unnecessary and nonfunctional. We are like very exotic computers, almost to the point that one could make a case that we were designed, along with all living things. Could dna/haplogroups be a map to the stars?

[MMaddi]

Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology. Most of us know the OT story of Adam and Eve being the progenitors of mankind.

Science is trying to explain when/where/who our "first set" of parents were. I am asking the "what if" question- what if we arrived and settled on earth from otherworlds at different times, or- mutated from different species at different times- then the theoretical rationale that we are all related genetically would not be so.

Perhaps that type of thinking is a bit exotic, I know, but so is alot of dogma.

Well, if you have some scientific proof that mankind is the offspring of an alien species, please present the evidence. However, even if that is true, then we humans just may all be related offspring of an "Adam" and "Eve" from the "home" planet.

As for mutating from a different species, that's what usually is called evolution. Again, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a genetic "Adam" and "Eve" as the first humans who mutated from some other species. That would still mean we're all related.

So, are you just asking us to engage in a whimsical, "what if" exercise for the sake of philosophical speculation? Or are you seriously disputing the basic understanding about a genetic "Adam" and "Eve" that is the basis for population genetics today, as explained above by Vinceviz? You do realize that what Vinceviz presented is not the biblical Adam and Eve but only uses those names to explain the theory by population genetics of how all humans are related, right?

If you want to read the full account of how human beings in different continents and time periods are related and have changed as far as haplogroups, including the scientific method and reasoning behind the theory, I recommend "The Real Eve" by Stephen Oppenheimer.

Mike Maddi

[cliffsheets]

Adam and Eve

Interesting discussion. There is so much we are continuing to learn as we do more and more research.

I was contemplating the Haplogroups and how they say they started in Africa 100,000+ years ago and was wondering how that was determined considering that I believe the 4000B.C. idea.

If the Biblical Adam and Eve are truely our first parents and they had sons and daughters, there would be much imbreeding going on in order to get to the large population of wicked people all wiped out in the Flood. And it would have started again with Noah and his Sons (similar Y-chromosome?).

I wonder if a history of marrying close relatives would cause a more rapid mutation of the Y-chromosome and MtDNA than we see nowadays. If the estimated mutation rate is 1 marker every 200 or so years, is it possible that the mutation rate was more rapid when there were fewer people on earth? Just a question to think about. I know we won't know the all the answers in this life. Maybe to answer this question they need to do a hard target search of DNA in Kentucky and other "Deep South" States

One problem I see with when comparing Science and Religion is Science forms theories based on accepted assumptions. Science says the world over 100 million years old. That is based on assumptions (among others) that it takes 100 million years to turn a dinosour into a fossil. If Scientists were to reform their theories based on the assumption that the earth was 12,006 years old (6,000 years to create the earth + 4,000 before Christ + 2006 A.D.) maybe the explanation for the wide range of haplogroups could be explained.

Here's an interesting theory--take it for what it's worth.
How Old is the Earth? - Google Video

[vineviz]

Science is trying to explain when/where/who our "first set" of parents were.

There a subtle but crucial point that I feel is being glossed over: science is not "trying to explain when/where/who our "first set" of parents were" because there was no "first set" of parents.

Y-chromosome Adam and mtDNA Eve never met. They were not the first humans, nor were they living at the same time.

[SaintManx]

"Well, if you have some scientific proof that mankind is the offspring of an alien species, please present the evidence. However, even if that is true, then we humans just may all be related offspring of an "Adam" and "Eve" from the "home" planet."

I personally am in as much possession of scientific evidence of alien lifeforms (which DO exist) as I am of the explanation of adam and eve- next to nothing, but it does not mean it is not so, it just means that I am a layperson trying to make sense of it all.

"As for mutating from a different species, that's what usually is called evolution. Again, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a genetic "Adam" and "Eve" as the first humans who mutated from some other species. That would still mean we're all related."

I am way out of my league in here- I will not pretend to know anything about how science explains evolution. I am trying to explore all of the possibilities that science can use to explain about the human existence, something that religion has difficulty in doing.

"So, are you just asking us to engage in a whimsical, "what if" exercise for the sake of philosophical speculation? Or are you seriously disputing the basic understanding about a genetic "Adam" and "Eve" that is the basis for population genetics today, as explained above by Vinceviz?"

I have heard about the possibilities of human creation evolving from otherworlds and wanted to know if this is credible and could it effect how we are studying population genetics. I am not wise enough in this arena to dispute anything at all, just trying to learn from the likes of you all.


" You do realize that what Vinceviz presented is not the biblical Adam and Eve but only uses those names to explain the theory by population genetics of how all humans are related, right?"

The beauty of this forum is that there are plenty of curious people out there who know nothing about genetics(myself included) and when trying to decipher what many of you who are versed in the subject are talking about it can be a bit overwhelming. This is not about challenging anyone's theories or otherwise, it is about sharing ideas about genetics and how we fit in. It is great to have people who are willing to explain it to people such as myself.

"If you want to read the full account of how human beings in different continents and time periods are related and have changed as far as haplogroups, including the scientific method and reasoning behind the theory, I recommend "The Real Eve" by Stephen Oppenheimer."

That is an excellent tip and I appreciate that. BTW- you are one of my "closer" matches in the Y search.

[MMaddi]

Well, to answer your basic question, I don't think the belief that human beings are descended from alien life forms is credible at all. Maybe the best way to put it is that no one has presented evidence for this claim that respected scientists accept. If someone were able to present some scientific evidence to back up that claim, I would certainly look at it objectively though.

Mike

[SaintManx]

There a subtle but crucial point that I feel is being glossed over: science is not "trying to explain when/where/who our "first set" of parents were" because there was no "first set" of parents.

Y-chromosome Adam and mtDNA Eve never met. They were not the first humans, nor were they living at the same time.

I think by the very nature of the mathematical equation involved, 1 Man + 1 woman = the rest of the population therefore we are all related would suggest that science in a sense is indeed trying to figure out who our first set of parents were.

My verbage was based on the biblical and I apologise for the confusion, I took Adam and Eve as being the fingerprint of humanity.

Now, would evolution imply that there is more than one way to create "man"? If man evolved, does he need woman and vice versa, and if so, there indeed would need to be the first set of primates I would think. Does science believe that we evolved at different times from different species? I look at all of the diverse faces and colors of humanity and become very curious at the wonderment of it all. How did man become Asian? Scandinavian? African?

Cheers.

[MMaddi]

I think by the very nature of the mathematical equation involved, 1 Man + 1 woman = the rest of the population therefore we are all related would suggest that science in a sense is indeed trying to figure out who our first set of parents were.

My verbage was based on the biblical and I apologise for the confusion, I took Adam and Eve as being the fingerprint of humanity.

Now, would evolution imply that there is more than one way to create "man"? If man evolved, does he need woman and vice versa, and if so, there indeed would need to be the first set of primates I would think. Does science believe that we evolved at different times from different species? I look at all of the diverse faces and colors of humanity and become very curious at the wonderment of it all. How did man become Asian? Scandinavian? African?

Cheers.

What someone else was explaining before in an earlier posting in this thread is that the woman (nicknamed "mitochondrial Eve") who is the ancestor of all living humans today lived over 100,000 years ago. Also, the man (nicknamed "y chromosome Adam") who is the ancestor of all humans living today lived about 70,000 years ago. So obviously this "Adam" and "Eve" never met each other and certainly didn't have children together.

Well, this doesn't seem to make any sense at all. It actually does. There were other genetic lines existing for both mitochondrial DNA and y chromosomes. All those other genetic lines died out, in one way or another (epidemics, war/genocide, for example). "Mitochondrial Eve's" genetic line is continuous and so is "y chromosome Adam's."

If you read the book I recommended by Oppenheimer he goes through the scientific evidence, which includes genetics, archaeology, history and linguistics, that shows that you can trace "mitochondrial Eve" and "y chromosome Adam" from Africa (where both lived) through their descendants across Asia, then Australia and finally the Americas and Europe. You can also trace the development of different haplogroups using this scientific method. If you want to understand the theory, read the book.

Mike