What if Adam is an aberration?

[derinos]

Genomic science versus Genesis

Forcing genomic science to fit the account of Genesis appears now to be "a case not to be undertaken".
The Bible recounts the conventional wisdom of contemporary science of about 1400 BC when the two Creation versions of Genesis were apparently written from verbal traditions, collated reputedly by Moses. Some of these precede that writer of Genesis far back in time. For example, they contain some Urrian Gilgamesh material (originally believed ca.4000 to 8000 BC) , including the Flood story.
As evidence for verbal continuity, I was impressed by the description in the Gilgamesh story centered on "Great Walled Uruk" (Jericho or Baghdad ?), of how "stone men" were being used to move boats across what sounds like the Bosporus. This was recorded later by explorers like Alexander the Great, and is again confirmed by modern investigation. Constant currents and countercurrents exist there at different depths, and by lowering nets full of stones , a boat has a choice of direction of drift.
However, the (reasonable in 1400 BC) Genesis postulate of an Adam and an Eve now becomes unlikely in terms of mDNA and Y DNA timescales, which separate such a "couple " by multimilllenia. It is also not compatible with what we know of humanoid evolution from the fossil record indicating graduality. It is likely that there never was a point in time when a pair of cro-magnon type individuals, autosomally just like ourselves, existed complete for the first time as our first ancestors.
Was there not instead a sliding scale defining each autosomal characteristic we identify as defining our species, such as brain size, speech and language ability, degree of upright bipedalism as a percentage of daily use, use of tools etc. The list is very long, and for each individual, reached any given degree of "completion" in a partial rather than a comprehensive state. There must have been large numbers of offspring in which the The Y and mt identifiers would often represent parents who were not equally "human" in the autosomal sense. Some think that is still the case today, perhaps explaining the divorce rate?

[GregKiroKH2]

Me: The actual Mt Eve is a theoretical person as is the actual Y-Chrom Adam. Our Most recent relative is much younger than these people are. Also, we each have different founders. The problem is that there are no records on who these parents were.

That is just what I think after I read some articles. I just do not know who these people are. (This is really true with laboratory subjects . . . )

Nope, each was in fact a real person. They are not theoretical constructs, but actual living people.

I think I understand your point, that is why I included "Coalescence describes the idea that any sample of genetic sequences from any number of living things (that is, bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes) can be traced back to a common ancestor in the past." The only problem is that I do not know who this person is, so that person is a theoretical person even if he/she is a real person.

That is not strictly true. There is a single MRCA for each locus in the human genome. Different locii can have different MRCAs, each of which was a real person and each of which might be younger or older than Y-Adam or mtDNA-Eve.

What example are you refering too? Each allele has a unique MRCA, yes. Two alleles make a locus. But what about the human individual who were the parents of . . . ? (I guess you read Ernst Mayr's biography?)

Perhaps, but only the RAO is supported by DNA evidence. The other two theories are not compatible with the DNA evidence.

I generally like the RAO and common ancestor theory, but I have to be fair to everyone.

What about different Founders Effects for each SNP and STR? I think I am finding one group around 200 B.C. to 400 A.D. with my Y- haplotype.

[vineviz]

The actual Mt Eve is a theoretical person as is the actual Y-Chrom Adam.

Nope, each was in fact a real person. They are not theoretical constructs, but actual living people.

Our Most recent relative is much younger than these people are. Also, we each have different founders.

That is not strictly true. There is a single MRCA for each locus in the human genome. Different locii can have different MRCAs, each of which was a real person and each of which might be younger or older than Y-Adam or mtDNA-Eve.

There are actually three popular theories today (Aug 2002)

Perhaps, but only the RAO is supported by DNA evidence. The other two theories are not compatible with the DNA evidence.

[GregKiroKH]

The actual Mt Eve is a theoretical person as is the actual Y-Chrom Adam. Our Most recent relative is much younger than these people are. Also, we each have different founders. The problem is that there are no records on who these parents were.

Tishkoff, S., et al. (1996) Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium at the CD4 locus and modern human origins. Science 271, 1380-1387.

The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of any two males, and the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of any two individuals can be determined by genealogical DNA tests. The tests use mitochondrial DNA for matrilineal inheritance or Y-chromosome-DNA for patrilineal inheritance.
When a species invades a new area, the original, small population is called a founder population.
An effective founder population consists only of those whose genetic print is identifiable in subsequent populations. Because in sexual reproduction, genetic recombination ensures that with each generation only half the genetic material of a parent is represented in the offspring, some genetic lines may die out entirely, even though there are numerous progeny.
The founder effect was defined by Ernst Mayr in 1963 to be the effect of establishing a new population by a small number of individuals, carrying only a small fraction of the original population's genetic variation. As a result, the new population may be distinctively different, both genetically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal (female-lineage) ancestor for mtDNA, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 150,000 years ago, the MRCA is estimated to have been living only 10,000 plus years ago.
Y-chromosomal Adam is not the same individual at all points in human history; the Y-mrca of all humans alive today is different from the one for humans alive at some point in the remote past or future: as male lines die out, a more recent individual becomes the new Y-mrca.
Human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 70,000 years ago. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry and male line ancestry trace back to a small number of people alive at that time. However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not indicate a population bottleneck, because most human ancestors are neither female line nor male line ancestors (for example, one's mother's father's ... mother's father). A population bottleneck would only be indicated if DNA coalesced more recently than genetically expected.
Coalescence describes the idea that any sample of genetic sequences from any number of living things (that is, bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes) can be traced back to a common ancestor in the past. Due to random elimination of ancient genetic lineages, with constant population size of the taxons considered, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) remains at a constant time distance from the present.

There are actually three popular theories today (Aug 2002)

There are three main theories for the evolution of modern humans: the multiregional
model, the recent African origin (RAO) model and the assimilation model (all reviewed
in REF. 112).
The multiregional model proposes that there was no single geographical origin for
modern humans but that, after the radiation of HOMO ERECTUS from Africa into Europe
and Asia ~800,000–1.8 million years before present (yr BP), there were independent
transitions in regional populations from H. erectus to Homo sapiens.This model is
supported primarily by the continuity of certain morphological traits in the fossil
record (for example, the robust cheekbones observed in H. erectus fossils from Southeast
Asia and in modern Australian aborigines),which indicate that modern populations
evolved over very long periods of time in the regions where they are found today.
Simultaneous evolution from H. erectus to H. sapiens in dispersed populations could
have been achieved through extensive gene flow between populations, requiring a large
EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE to sustain gene flow among geographically diverse populations.
The RAO model proposes that all non-African populations descend from a H. sapiens
ancestor that evolved in Africa 100,000–200,000 yr BP. This ancestor then spread
throughout the world, replacing archaic Homo populations (for example, the
Neanderthals). This model is supported by the fossil record, as the earliest modern
human fossils were found in Africa and the Middle East, dating to 90,000–120,000 yr BP
(REFS 60,112). The RAO model predicts that all genetic lineages derive from a recent
common African ancestor and that non-African populations should carry a subset of the
genetic variation present in modern African populations.
The assimilation (or hybridization) model proposes that gene flow between the early
human populations was not equal over time and space.This model allows for some gene
flow between modern humans that migrated from Africa and archaic populations (for
example, the Neanderthals) outside Africa. So, the evolution of modern humans could
have been due to a blending of modern characters derived from African populations
with local characteristics in archaic Eurasian populations.This model predicts that the
modern gene pool derives from variable contributions of genes from archaic African
and non-African populations.
GENETIC ANALYSIS OF AFRICAN
POPULATIONS: HUMAN EVOLUTION
AND COMPLEX DISEASE

http://www.uvm.edu/~rsingle/stat395/S04/pa...Genetics-02.pdf

Sarah A. Tishkoff * and Scott M.Williams‡§
Africa is one of the most ethnically and genetically diverse regions of the world. It is thought to be
the ancestral homeland of all modern humans, and is the homeland of millions of people of the
recent African diaspora. Because of the central role of African populations in human history,
characterizing their patterns of genetic diversity and linkage disequilibrium is crucial for
reconstructing human evolution and for understanding the genetic basis of complex diseases

[SaintManx]

This thread began with the following:



The only "Adam" or "Eve" relevant to the type of DNA testing done by FTDNA are y-chromosome Adam and mtDNA-Eve.

If it is not yet clear that the theory is not "admonished", I hope you will keep studying the subject until it is clear.

Also, by way of clarification, genetic testing is not "based on a genetic Adam and Eve". The existence of a y-chromosome Adam and mtDNA-Eve follows naturally from the science of DNA, not the other way around.

I stand corrected- thanks for that-however, that was the basis for my question-not my mission statement. If we are not discussing a genetic Adam and Eve, then should we call them "DNA Adam and Eve?"

I am making my way through Oppenheimer's work as we speak-however, he only provides(masterfully) what science knows. The benchmarks are established-but may change again real soon if more evidence is presented. I personally do not take issue with what I have read so far, and have a feeling that in the end it will make sense to me. BUT- again as I pointed out to begin this thread, my question is about the obscurity of the origins of man, not the earliest findings to date.

I am a very open minded person as to the possibilities of our evolution. I am also curious as to why we all have not bottlenecked into the same haplogroups yet. Why do I test (according to Athey's) high in three different Haplogroups. Dr. McEwan has observed my results as well and has only two others in his project with similar markers but 10 modals away from the nearest R1b-and not matching any within the R1 haplotypes.

So in the magnanimous challenge of understanding it all I posed this thread.

I don't even know if I am asking the proper questions!!!

[vineviz]

I began this thread specifically asking about the origins of man and all living things, not about any sort of Adam and Eve (biblical or otherwise).

This thread began with the following:

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?

The only "Adam" or "Eve" relevant to the type of DNA testing done by FTDNA are y-chromosome Adam and mtDNA-Eve.

If it is not yet clear that the theory is not "admonished", I hope you will keep studying the subject until it is clear.

Also, by way of clarification, genetic testing is not "based on a genetic Adam and Eve". The existence of a y-chromosome Adam and mtDNA-Eve follows naturally from the science of DNA, not the other way around.

[MMaddi]

Vineviz,

I began this thread specifically asking about the origins of man and all living things, not about any sort of Adam and Eve (biblical or otherwise). My points are valid and are very pointed to this debate on this thread. It is obvious that within this thread there has been some admitted confusion of the names. The definitive answers that can be drawn again, are a product of subjective criteria based only on what science knows- not what it has yet to find, which again supports the point that we are still learning about how we arrived at life.

Science is already capable of creating and cloning with limited precision human tissue (stem cell), and sheep- this is very pertinent when considering the obscurity of life on earth.

I am glad that you can differentiate your two Jims- how simple life would be if it were that simple!

Cheers.

I think the problem is that we're talking apples and oranges. You began the thread by starting a discussion about proof that we're all related, even though there are different haplogroups. But you also asked about the origin of life. As Vinceviz pointed out, those are two entirely different questions.

Since the origin of life is a much bigger subject than proving that all humans descend from one mtDNA line (pardon the use of "mitochondrial Eve") and one y chromosome line (and pardon the use of "y chromosome Adam" or Noah, whichever you prefer), most of us attempted to answer the question of human relatedness. If you keep the two issues you brought up separate and focus on the answers about human relatedness, I think you'd at least get the answer to that question.

Also, I get the impression that you have some unstated beliefs or theories which are behind your questions. It would make it easier to follow your postings if you would state what those might be.

Mike

[SaintManx]

The debate about y-Adam and mtDNA Eve has nothing to do with how life began. Different subject, different debate.

And the scientific knowledge about y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve lead to pretty definitive answers.


Again, y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve have nothing to do with the origins of the human species.



I work with two guys named "Jim" and I have no problem telling them apart. The folks who "confuse" Biblical Adam and y-chromosome Adam are often doing so intentionally, for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

Vineviz,

I began this thread specifically asking about the origins of man and all living things, not about any sort of Adam and Eve (biblical or otherwise). My points are valid and are very pointed to this debate on this thread. It is obvious that within this thread there has been some admitted confusion of the names. The definitive answers that can be drawn again, are a product of subjective criteria based only on what science knows- not what it has yet to find, which again supports the point that we are still learning about how we arrived at life.

Science is already capable of creating and cloning with limited precision human tissue (stem cell), and sheep- this is very pertinent when considering the obscurity of life on earth.

I am glad that you can differentiate your two Jims- how simple life would be if it were that simple!

Cheers.

[lgmayka]

So both "Eve" and "Adam" will change, as archaeologists would possibly find other fossils from which DNA can be extracted and analyzed.

No, because the definitions of mtDNA Eve and yDNA Noah/Adam are based on humans living today, not on any fossils which might someday be found. The identities of mtDNA Eve and yDNA Noah/Adam are unlikely ever to change unless the human race undergoes some rapid, highly selective population reduction (which has not occurred since the apparent population bottleneck about 70,000 years ago that brought yDNA Noah/Adam into prominence).

Consider, for example, an asteroid collision that wipes out the entire continent of Africa. At this point in human history, enough African DNA has spread to other continents so that African haplogroups would not die out entirely, and hence the identities of mtDNA Eve and yDNA Noah/Adam would not change. Even a worldwide dictator's deliberate policy of selective extermination would probably not succeed so totally as to change the identities of mtDNA Eve and yDNA Noah/Adam. Of course, if the entire planet gets wiped out, all bets are off.

And once again, geneticists have already decided not to include fossils in the definitions of mtDNA Eve and yDNA Noah/Adam. Archaeologists in Australia claim to have found 40,000-year-old remains of apparently modern humans, but bearing mtDNA earlier than Eve's lineage. Although the find is somewhat disputed, what is not disputed is that any such find does not change the definition of mtDNA Eve. She is who she is, based on the human race living today.

The only exception is if we were to find a human living today bearing an earlier yDNA or mtDNA lineage. That is possible but now appears unlikely.

[lgmayka]

As for science using the names of Adam and Eve, it is indeed very confusing to apply these terms and one cannot but wonder if this was the directed intent...When one says Adam and Eve, one's preponderance is that of the biblical sense.

Yes, it is obvious to everyone that the geneticists who coined the terms 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y chromosome Adam' were deliberately trying to make a Biblical analogy. Unfortunately, the second guy--the one who coined 'Adam'--clearly got the analogy wrong, and has been confusing both geneticists and the general public ever since. This error will have to be corrected eventually, unless one wishes to claim that geneticists are too stupid or too conceited to admit a mistake. (I myself am not so pessimistic as to believe this.)

[lgmayka]

A basic understanding of how human reproduction works would be of immense value to you, I think.

Now that you've degenerated into inane insults, I can simply write you off entirely.

[vineviz]

This thread has morphed into very interesting chatter. It's conclusive to say that science, religion, and lay has no definitive answer to how it began- which was my question to begin with.

The debate about y-Adam and mtDNA Eve has nothing to do with how life began. Different subject, different debate.

And the scientific knowledge about y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve lead to pretty definitive answers.

The scientific facts are compelling and forthright but cannot empirically prove the ORIGINS of the very precise and complex of organisms on earth, only the origins and relationships of what we have been able to find so far.

Again, y-Adam and mtDNA-Eve have nothing to do with the origins of the human species.

As for science using the names of Adam and Eve, it is indeed very confusing to apply these terms and one cannot but wonder if this was the directed intent. How can science begin to explain this to the layperson, specifically Family TreeDNA and others- who are marketing this fascinating
new resource as part of retail genealogy, not to scientists alone, but to Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Main St. in Anytown, Anywhere. When one says Adam and Eve, one's preponderance is that of the biblical sense.

I work with two guys named "Jim" and I have no problem telling them apart. The folks who "confuse" Biblical Adam and y-chromosome Adam are often doing so intentionally, for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

[GregKiroKH2]

bishop ushers calculating wasnt biblical he didnt act on the bibles use of grandson for son

I have never tried to hide my problems with grammar as one neurologist pointed out in a letter to my parents when I was seven years-old. However, some people say that Bishop Ussher copied his data. I do not know. As in the movie "Soylent Green," confession is good for the soul. And no one may know the real truth.

Maybe, I should have corrected my work to say:
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 brings the stories to life. Maybe speculations have 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.

Well, you know what I am thinking?

[SaintManx]

This thread has morphed into very interesting chatter. It's conclusive to say that science, religion, and lay has no definitive answer to how it began- which was my question to begin with.

There still appears to be much diversion in how we think about this subject. Of course this being a science based forum, the genetecists will espouse their findings supported by evidence that they have accrued (which is subjective and not empirical because it only proves their OWN point). If we were in a religious forum this thread would be totally different, with their OWN subjective point of view.

Why isn't there a discussion about panspermia (whether it is ballistic,directed, radio, or otherwise)? Because science and religion cannot explain it YET or chooses to call it rubbish because there is a lack of evidence (which is indeed true to a point-but the possibilities are just as real as believing in G*D). Which is why the origins of our existence for the foreseeable future will always be based on faith, what we choose to believe. But bear in mind one thing, this appears to be a positive movement where the evidence offered is acting in support of dogma/philosophies in a logical sense. So it appears that the ladder is growing higher and in unison.

The scientific facts are compelling and forthright but cannot empirically prove the ORIGINS of the very precise and complex of organisms on earth, only the origins and relationships of what we have been able to find so far.

As for science using the names of Adam and Eve, it is indeed very confusing to apply these terms and one cannot but wonder if this was the directed intent. How can science begin to explain this to the layperson, specifically Family TreeDNA and others- who are marketing this fascinating
new resource as part of retail genealogy, not to scientists alone, but to Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Main St. in Anytown, Anywhere. When one says Adam and Eve, one's preponderance is that of the biblical sense.

There is not one person, Oppenheimer, Crick, et al who can explain the origins of life on earth, right now it is all seemingly faith based.

[29149]

Mother of mtDNA-Eve and father of yDNA-Adam

IMHO... when you look at the time difference between the yDNA-Adam and mtDNA-Eve, this is artificial, based on known fossils. By comparing the markers of existing humans today (or resulted from other fossils that provided DNA material successfully isolated), all we can say today is that we know of an mtDNA-Eve and of a yDNA-Adam. Obviously, this Eve living about 100,000 years ago had a mother, grandmother, etc. Similarly, this Adam who lived about 70,000 years ago had a father, grandfather, etc. So both "Eve" and "Adam" will change, as archaeologists would possibly find other fossils from which DNA can be extracted and analyzed. They may find a further back Eve and/or a further back Adam. Chances are slim because the whole population was smaller, the more you go back in time. There were other species but perhaps they were not related to them (as Neanderthals may not have interbred with Homo Sapiens; and even if they did, the Neanderthal genes may not have survived in modern humans, for whatever reason, or if they did, they died out at some point - more analysis on humans who died in ancient or medieval times would be required in order to say with some level of confidence that these Neanderthal genes died out, say, around 2000 BC, earlier, later, or never - time will tell; so far scientists can assume the two species did not interbreed). If we believe in evolution, using gene mutations could lead us further back to apes or even before the large apes, smaller mammals and before, etc... Again, science and time will tell. I might be totally wrong, but that's how I see these things now. It does not have to stop at "Adam" and "Eve", it could go back to Flipper-the-dolphin and Bonnie-the-squirel.