• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

genetic evidence of ADAM?

ogmios

Man on a mission
Did anyone catch that DNA mystery: search for ADAM... on National geographic tonight 8th Feb?
A man called Wells has genetically proven that ALL men on earth are linked to one single man, Wells called him scientific ADAM.
With a complex analysis of genetics they estimate that Scientific ADAM lived approx 60 000 years ago. Some where in east Africa... Near Ethiopia

Does this mean they have more Proof that GOD made man???
Anyone else see it.

Dont we just love contraversy :shrug:
 

Smoke

Done here.
Did anyone catch that DNA mystery: search for ADAM... on National geographic tonight 8th Feb?
A man called Wells has genetically proven that ALL men on earth are linked to one single man, Wells called him scientific ADAM.
With a complex analysis of genetics they estimate that Scientific ADAM lived approx 60 000 years ago. Some where in east Africa... Near Ethiopia

Does this mean they have more Proof that GOD made man???
Anyone else see it.

Dont we just love contraversy :shrug:
There's no controversy at all. Y-chromosomal Adam has nothing at all to do with god or Genesis.
 

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
As far as I can tell (i saw that show last year), Y-chromosomal Adam isnt even the first "man", per se, just the most recent common ancestor of all men. Its likely there were alot other men alive back then, but their Y-chromosomal lines died out along the way.

Also, since the study was based on a sample of the total population. I would imagine, as DNA records become more advanced (and we get a sample from everyone on earth), better results will be available. :D
 

Smoke

Done here.
Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent male ancestor, in the male line, of everyone now living. If all people now alive could trace their ancestor back far enough, eventually all patrilineal lines would merge in one man.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent female ancestor, in the female line, of everyone now living.

The identical ancestor point is the point at which everyone then alive is either the ancestor of everyone now living, or of no one now living. Since both Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived long before the identical ancestor point, both had many contemporaries who were also the ancestors of everyone now living, but not in a direct male line or direct female line.
 

tomspug

Absorbant
I find this whole subject confusing, especially in an out-of-place area of the site.

How can there only be ONE genetic ancestor for everyone alive? If evolution is a process of advanced natural selection, how could we possibly come to the conclusion that there is a genetic stopping-point? Wouldn't it be perpetual, rather than limited? If mankind evolved from a lower species, then wouldn't "Adam" never exist? Wouldn't our ancestry line be constantly changing as we go farther and farther back in time?

And another thing I'm confused on, is this study saying that our genetic make-up, in comparison to "Adam" is the same from a perspective of species, meaning our species is the same that it was 60,000 years ago?
 

Smoke

Done here.
How can there only be ONE genetic ancestor for everyone alive?
There's not. Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent direct male-line ancestor of everyone living; everyone has many more ancestors who were living at the same time as he.

As an example, you have (assuming no cousin marriages) 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents, and 32 of them are your great-great-great-great-grandfathers, but only one is your male-line great-great-great-great-grandfather: your father's father's father's father's father's father.

If evolution is a process of advanced natural selection, how could we possibly come to the conclusion that there is a genetic stopping-point? Wouldn't it be perpetual, rather than limited? If mankind evolved from a lower species, then wouldn't "Adam" never exist? Wouldn't our ancestry line be constantly changing as we go farther and farther back in time?
Y-chromosomal Adam is not the first man, just the most recent male-line ancestor of everyone now living. Y-chromosomal Adam for everyone who was living 10,000 years ago might have been a different, earlier man than our Y-chromosomal Adam, assuming there were earlier male lines extant 10,000 years ago that have since died out.

And another thing I'm confused on, is this study saying that our genetic make-up, in comparison to "Adam" is the same from a perspective of species, meaning our species is the same that it was 60,000 years ago?
Not necessarily. Y-chromosomal Adam is just the male-line ancestor of all humans now living. You could easily imagine a male-line ancestor of all humans living 10,000 years ago, or 25,000 years ago, or of all apes, of all primates, or all mammals.

Y-chromosomal ancestors are direct male-line ancestors, because the Y chromosome is only passed from father to son. Since women don't have a Y chromosome, tracing only the Y chromosome ignores the female line in each generation. There's no Y-chromosomal genetic input from your mother, your father's mother, your grandfather's mother, etc.

Mitochondrial DNA is only passed from mother to child, so tracing only the MtDNA ignores the male line in each generation. You have no MtDNA input from your father, your mother's father, your grandmother's father, etc.

As Y chromosomes and MtDNA mutate over time, scientists can detect patterns of relationship in those two respects, grouping us all into haplogroups that show more or less recent divergences in descent. But obviously, we all carry a lot more genetic information than just Y chromosomes and MtDNA.

You almost certainly carry some genetic information from all eight of your great-grandparents, even though your Y chromosome comes from only one of them, and so does your mitochondrial DNA.
 
Last edited:

Smoke

Done here.
Some definitions:

Y-chromosomal Adam: The most recent male-line ancestor of all humans now living. Thought to have lived about 60,000 years ago in Africa.

Mitochondrial Eve: The most recent female-line ancestor all all humans now living. Thought to have lived about 140,000 years ago in East Africa.

Pedigree Collapse: Theoretically, you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 grandparents, etc., the number doubling for each generation you go back. These numbers rapidly become very large. You have, theoretically, 128 fifth-great-grandparents, 4096 tenth-great-grandparents, 131,072 fifteenth-great-grandparents, 4,194,304 twentieth-great-grandparents, 134,217,728 twenty-fifth-great-grandparents, and 4,294,967,296 thirtieth great-grandparents. Your thirtieth great-grandparents may have lived, on average, about a thousand years ago, at a time when there were far fewer than 4 trillion people in the world.

Pedigree collapse means that you have more than one descent from many of your ancestors. Theoretically, I have 64 fourth-great-grandparents, but those 64 slots are filled by only 62 people, because my maternal grandfather's parents were second cousins; I have two descents from Gutridge and Bridget Garland, and at least two from each of their direct ancestors. John's parents are fifth cousins once removed; he has two descents from Jacob and Elizabeth Hallman and from each of their direct ancestors. My 7th-great-grandparents, Hans Jerg and Elisabeth Rominger, were half-first-cousins; they had a grandmother in common, but different grandfathers. All their descendants have two descents from their common grandmother, Barbara Koch, but only one descent from each of her husbands.

Whether it can be documented or not, all people have this kind of pedigree collapse in their ancestry. If two siblings marry, as in the Ptolemy Dynasty of Egypt, pedigree collapse is rapid and dramatic. If two first cousins marry, as in the case of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, it's less dramatic, but still pronounced. It's estimated that as many as 80% of all marriages have been between second cousins.

Most Recent Common Ancestor: The most recent person who was an ancestor (in any line) of any designated group. The MRCA of Western Europeans is thought to have lived about a thousand years ago. There's greater doubt about the MRCA of all humans, because it depends on whether or not there are isolated groups still extant that are very distantly related to everyone else in the world. If so, the MRCA of all humans now living probably lived 10,000 to 40,000 years ago. If not (which I think is more likely), the MRCA of all humans now living probably lived within the last 5,000 years, and possibly as recently as 2 or 3,000 years ago. Everybody now living is probably descended from both Confucius and Nefertiti, and it's thought that no human now living is more distantly related to any other human now living than 50th cousin.

Identical Ancestors Point: The farther back we go in time, the more common ancestors we have, and if we go back far enough, we reach a point where everybody living at that time is either the ancestor of everybody now living, or of nobody now living (because they had no descendants or their descendants died out). That point is the identical ancestors point, and it may have occurred as recently as 5,000 years ago. Every human who lived before the IAP is either an ancestor of all of us or an ancestor of none of us.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
With a complex analysis of genetics they estimate that Scientific ADAM lived approx 60 000 years ago. Some where in east Africa... Near Ethiopia

Does this mean they have more Proof that GOD made man???
Anyone else see it.

Dont we just love contraversy :shrug:

If this is proof god made man, the fact that mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago - 80,000 years before her husband - suggests he was a bit of an imbecile.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Also, since the study was based on a sample of the total population. I would imagine, as DNA records become more advanced (and we get a sample from everyone on earth), better results will be available. :D

Maybe, maybe not. As Demming argued, under some circumstances, a statistical study can be more accurate than counting everyone. That's counter-intuitive until you realize that attempting to count everyone is in practice more likely to induce errors than is sampling. So in theory counting everyone would be more accurate, but in practice sampling is more accurate.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
If this is proof god made man, the fact that mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago - 80,000 years before her husband - suggests he was a bit of an imbecile.

I prefer to think he was a procrastinator. :D
 

rojse

RF Addict
If this is proof god made man, the fact that mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago - 80,000 years before her husband - suggests he was a bit of an imbecile.

What Alceste said.

I would like to add that this might remotely be considered evidence should Eve and Adam have been born at the same time.
 

ogmios

Man on a mission
If this is proof god made man, the fact that mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago - 80,000 years before her husband - suggests he was a bit of an imbecile.
Wells, the genetic specialist did not mention Mitochondrial eve in his summary.
He did mention that other Human/primate species existed before modern man. So I would have to presume that mitochondrial eve would be from one of those other species. Wells has traced the human lineage back through men that we know of in our modern history and time. i.e. Genghis Khan, Thomas Jefferson, King Solomon to mention a few. He has followed modern mans known lineage.
The evidence he has collated is compelling and to dispel his findings as rubbish...
I believe would be an error on our part.
Question: Have any of you that are so adamant that there is no GOD ever considered the possibility that you could be wrong?
What I suggest to you is to be open to any possibility as more truths are revealled to humanity the shock will be less.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Wells, the genetic specialist did not mention Mitochondrial eve in his summary.
He did mention that other Human/primate species existed before modern man. So I would have to presume that mitochondrial eve would be from one of those other species.

Is this your way of saying you accept that humans evolved from (or, to a biologist, "are") primates? I mean, since you are saying all living humans carry mitochondrial DNA from "other" human/primate species?

Wells has traced the human lineage back through men that we know of in our modern history and time. i.e. Genghis Khan, Thomas Jefferson, King Solomon to mention a few. He has followed modern mans known lineage.
The evidence he has collated is compelling and to dispel his findings as rubbish...
I believe would be an error on our part.

I don't think anyone is "dispelling" the findings of Spencer Wells (which, after all, probe only into human migration patterns - not our origins).

I think what is being dismissed is the conclusion you, and perhaps other biblists, have drawn that a single surviving patrilineal Y chromosome linking all today's humans suggests there was a "first man" who just popped up out of nowhere and fathered the entire human race. It's nonsense, as Wells himself would presumably agree (otherwise I can't see any way he could possibly have earned a PhD as a geneticist).

Y chromosomal Adam is not the first, nor even the oldest common ancestor of all humans - he is the most recent patrilineal common ancestor of all humans. Meaning, if you trace your father's father's father's father's father's father's father etc, eventually we all end up with this guy - 60,000 years in the past. And if we all trace our mother's mother's mother's mother's mother etc, we all eventually end up with "mitochondrial Eve", 140,000 years in the past.

The wikipedia entry on mitochondrial Eve is much more accurate and informative than the chromosomal Adam entry, and may help to dispel some of your misconceptions. FYI, the genetic information of the living contemporaries of our most recent patrilineal ("y-chromosomal Adam") and matrilineal ("mitochondrial Eve") common ancestors is also contained in in our DNA - thus establishing proof that "yc Adam" and "mt Eve" were not alone.

Question: Have any of you that are so adamant that there is no GOD ever considered the possibility that you could be wrong?

No, and I have never considered the possibility I might be wrong that there are no imps in the drainpipes or leprachauns in the garden. Besides, there are enough of things for which there is evidence of their existence to keep me utterly fascinated for all my days, so I have no need for "extras" like gods, fairies and monsters.

What I suggest to you is to be open to any possibility as more truths are revealled to humanity the shock will be less.

Being "open to the possibility" that an invisible being lives in the sky and made the world would be a waste of my already considerable open-mindedness, which is mainly directed to understanding the natural world and keeping up with the incredible progress humans (scientists in particular) make on this effort from one day to the next.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Did anyone catch that DNA mystery: search for ADAM... on National geographic tonight 8th Feb?
A man called Wells has genetically proven that ALL men on earth are linked to one single man, Wells called him scientific ADAM.
With a complex analysis of genetics they estimate that Scientific ADAM lived approx 60 000 years ago. Some where in east Africa... Near Ethiopia

Does this mean they have more Proof that GOD made man???
Anyone else see it.

Dont we just love contraversy :shrug:

Interesting, what about this genetic Adam's father and mother?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Interesting, what about this genetic Adam's father and mother?

Genetic Adam's father's Y-chromosomal patrilineal line has died out. Meaning somewhere along the line all the males in it fathered only daughters, or had no children. His mother, like all of us, can be traced to Genetic Eve, who lived 80,000 years earlier.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Genetic Adam's father's Y-chromosomal patrilineal line has died out. Meaning somewhere along the line all the males in it fathered only daughters, or had no children. His mother, like all of us, can be traced to Genetic Eve, who lived 80,000 years earlier.
No, that is impossible. “Genetic Adam”' and “Genetic Adam’ Father” share the same patrilineal line. That is what patrilineal line means. What you are saying makes as much sense as saying your father had no children.

The reason that his father is not given the title of “Genetic Adam” or “Y-chromosomal Adam” is because that title goes to the most recent common ancestor through the patrilineal line. If not for that most recent stipulation then “Genetic Adam’ Father” would also qualify, as would his father’s father etc.

If this is proof god made man, the fact that mitochondrial Eve lived 140,000 years ago - 80,000 years before her husband - suggests he was a bit of an imbecile.
Wait a minute, if she lived before “Adam” shouldn’t we be refering to her as “mitrocondrial Lilith”?
 

rojse

RF Addict
Question: Have any of you that are so adamant that there is no GOD ever considered the possibility that you could be wrong?

Only every day.

What I suggest to you is to be open to any possibility as more truths are revealled to humanity the shock will be less.

Yes, but this is far from proof of the existence of Adam when Eve was born 80,000 years before.
 
Top