Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetic Adam and Eve Could Have Been Contemporaries, Scientists Say
The Christian Science Monitier ^ | 8/2/13 | Elizabeth Barber

Posted on 08/05/2013 8:55:32 AM PDT by marshmallow

New research published in Science shows that our most recent common female and male ancestors could have been alive at the same time.

Thousands of years ago, somewhere in Africa, lived a man who – probably – had no idea that he, among all the other men in his group, would go on to become humankind’s most recent common male ancestor. Scientists would call him “Adam.”

Now, a new paper published in the journal Science significantly narrows the time during which Adam could have lived – about 120,000 to 156,000 years ago – putting him in about the same time period as humankind’s most recent common female ancestor, often dubbed “Eve." The research revises previous findings that dated Adam within a much longer period.

And the findings also ease recent doubts that the Y chromosome can reliably trace ancient lineage, renewing confidence that tracing and dating lineage using mutations in the Y chromosome could be critical in answering some of the vexing questions about how and where the first humans originated.

“We’ve shown that we can do this kind of dating, and that the Y chromosome is a really powerful tool,” says Brenna Henn, a genetics researcher at SUNY Stony Brook. “Now that we can use the Y chromosome in this manner, we can go back and look into other big questions, like exactly where in Africa did humans originate?”

“The ultimate goal is to understand when and where there was a modern human population,” she says.

Dr. Henn and colleagues analyzed the Y chromosome from 69 men from nine globally divergent regions, including Namibia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Algeria, Pakistan, Cambodia, Siberia, and Mexico. The Y chromosome, which in human males is one chromosome of the 23 pairs that form the genome, is a useful means through which.......

(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...


TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: adamandeve; creation; crevo; crevolist; genesis; genetics; mitochondrialeve; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

1 posted on 08/05/2013 8:55:32 AM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Thousands of years ago, somewhere in Africa, lived a man who – probably – had no idea that he, among all the other men in his group, would go on to become humankind’s most recent common male ancestor. Scientists would call him “Adam.”

So multiple men evolved from apes at the same time? Which came first the chicken or the egg has finally been solved. Multiple eggs just appeared from multiple lizards and they all grew chickens what laid the same kind of eggs.

2 posted on 08/05/2013 9:01:18 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Why do all pictures of Adam and Eve show them with bellybuttons?


3 posted on 08/05/2013 9:02:46 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Now, a new paper published in the journal Science significantly narrows the time during which Adam could have lived – about 120,000 to 156,000 years ago – putting him in about the same time period as humankind’s most recent common female ancestor, often dubbed “Eve." The research revises previous findings that dated Adam within a much longer period.

< Snort>

Related threads:
The Catholic Priest Praised by Einstein for Explaining the Universe
Catholicism and evolution: Are they contradictory?
Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution
God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope
Pope praises science, but insists God created world
The Problem of Polygenism in Accepting the Theory of Evolution [Catholic Msgr. Charles Pope]
Radio Replies Second Volume - Creation and Evolution
A meeting of religion and science: Sister Frances Zajac sees no conflict in her callings
Atheist says that Church accepts darwinism [Catholic Caucus]
Let Science Be Science and Faith Be Faith
Creationists, Intelligent Design Advocates Blast Vatican for Not Inviting Them to Evo Conference
Catholics on Evolution (Ecumenical)
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
Catholic universities plan scientific examination of evolutionary theory
God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says [Open]
How a Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang Theory
Evangelicals should follow Catholic example on evolution
Austrian cardinal says Darwinism should be studied as science
The Sense that it is True that Six-Day Creationism is Paganism
Creationist Defends Bible-Based Science Against Vatican Astronomer's Criticism
Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'

4 posted on 08/05/2013 9:03:34 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Thus, my opponent's argument falls.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Personally, I would be much more interested and intrigued in the detailed, rational and supported persuasive thesis and argument that the original Adam and the original Eve did NOT exist at the same time and place.

I got lots of popcorn...

5 posted on 08/05/2013 9:06:15 AM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
Body mods man. You know, like giant earlobes. They probably had some dude cut a hole in their belly because it was rad and because like this guy below, body mods increases your chances of being hired as a political advisor for the Democrat party.


6 posted on 08/05/2013 9:08:36 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

My gawd, man, have you no decency?

It’ll take me years to get the photo of that awful human-like thing out of my mind.


7 posted on 08/05/2013 9:10:13 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Genetic Adam and Eve Could Have Been Contemporaries

Isn't that sort of assumed, if they started the human race?


8 posted on 08/05/2013 9:10:39 AM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

“Dubbed” Adam and Eve. I didn’t know God went around “dubbing” people.


9 posted on 08/05/2013 9:10:51 AM PDT by VerySadAmerican (If you vote for evil because you can't see evil, you ARE evil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
“We’ve shown that we can do this kind of dating...,” says Brenna Henn.

Yeah, amazing new discovery: successful dating -- and mating --- requires Y-Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve being in the same 10,000 year time slot.

"Pretty sure we can get together, Adam. Let me take a quick look at my calendar..."

10 posted on 08/05/2013 9:12:07 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification, I hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Self-abuse. It’s not just for “private” anymore.


11 posted on 08/05/2013 9:19:28 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

LOL...lets just hope she was ovulating at the time!

EVE: “Dang! We missed because YOU were out fishing instead of eating the apples God gave us, you worm...let’s see...next time is...”

ADAM: “Er...what was that you said about an apple?”


12 posted on 08/05/2013 9:21:17 AM PDT by rlmorel (Silence: The New Hate Speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Our common biblical ancestor is not Adam, it’s Noah; everyone but him died in the flood. Likewise, if you accept evolutionary theory, there would have been multiple near-extinctions where the genetic tree was pruned to only a few branches. Both Noah or his evolutionary equivalent would have had other men around.


13 posted on 08/05/2013 9:23:55 AM PDT by Driabrin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Job 38

4 Were you there when I made the world? If you know so much, tell me about it. 5 Who decided how large it would be? Who stretched the measuring line over it? Do you know all the answers?


14 posted on 08/05/2013 9:24:43 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
Why do all pictures of Adam and Eve show them with bellybuttons?

Because the umbilical cords ripped off when they fell out of the pods?


15 posted on 08/05/2013 9:24:56 AM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Man-made dimples.


16 posted on 08/05/2013 9:25:26 AM PDT by Slyfox (Without the Right to Life, all other rights are meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

What was going throught this guy’s head when he got himself mutilated like that??!! ‘Because I am not ugly enough...?’


17 posted on 08/05/2013 9:28:19 AM PDT by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Don’t want to be around that dude if he gets a cold.


18 posted on 08/05/2013 9:29:25 AM PDT by Starstruck (With Government nothing ever changes............for the better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
Why do all pictures of Adam and Eve show them with bellybuttons?

More importantly, who took the picture?

19 posted on 08/05/2013 9:32:04 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Genetic Adam and Eve were the first male and female humans whose genetic lines did not die off. They were not necessarily the first humans. From a scientific point of view, there could have been populations of humans living for an indeterminate amount of time prior to the birth of the genetic Adam or the genetic Eve, and it’s not necessarily true that they mated with each other, only that the maternal line can be traced to Eve and the paternal line to Adam.

In Biblical terms, the genetic “Adam” is actually Noah as someone upthread has already pointed out. All males trace their y chromosomes back to Noah. His wife would then be the genetic Eve.


20 posted on 08/05/2013 9:34:04 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

21 posted on 08/05/2013 9:35:45 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Even Obama would cut across the street, if he saw that guy coming down the sidewalk.


22 posted on 08/05/2013 9:38:14 AM PDT by TomGuy (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice

Probably not consciously, but this was the motivation:

“how can I further deface the image of God?”


23 posted on 08/05/2013 9:38:55 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Not sure why I’m wasting my time but...

Individuals do not evolve. Populations are the basis of evolution. There was no “magic moment” where an ape gave birth to a human. There was a population of apes which became separated, at least in the sense of breeding, from another similar population of apes. One of these populations gradually developed characteristcs that were more and more human-like. Modern humans descend from that population. There would have been a large number of members of this population at the time when they became recognizably human.

In case you think there’s no evidence for such things, refer to the talkorigin.org faq’s. There are pictures of fossils on there of hominids that are neither clearly ape-like nor clearly human-like. They have asked prominent creationists whether these were apes or humans. All responded to the question, but the responses differed depending on which creationist was asked. Now, if an organism must either be clearly an ape or clearly a human, how can there be disagreement about whether it’s an ape or a human? There certainly were populations of organisms such as I’ve described, where human-like characteristics began to appear in an ape-like species.


24 posted on 08/05/2013 9:40:42 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; Gordon Greene; Ethan Clive Osgoode; betty boop; ...
Thousands of years ago, somewhere in Africa, lived a man who – probably – had no idea that he, among all the other men in his group, would go on to become humankind’s most recent common male ancestor. Scientists would call him “Adam.”

Wait.... what?

Haven't we been told enough that mankind could not have come from a single ancestor because there wasn't enough genetic diversity?

25 posted on 08/05/2013 9:54:06 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Driabrin

No, its Adam.
Noah was his descendant, therefore Adam is our earliest common ancestor.


26 posted on 08/05/2013 9:54:43 AM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stremba

There were 4 men including Noah on the Ark three of which were Noah’s sons. These son’s would each have 1/2 of genes from Mom and 1/2 genes from Noah.

The descendants after the flood from Noah’s children would contain 1/2 of his genes and 1/2 of mom’s genes.

I’m not aware if Noah or wife had children after the flood.

Noah’s 3 children came with 3 wives, so their children would have been distinctly different from their cousins. There were about 9 generations between Adam and Noah, so the gene mix of the wives could have been very different by Noah’s generation.

In summary, the descendants of Noah children would have had three distinct sets of genes from which the nations flowed. Noah is not likely the common denominator.


27 posted on 08/05/2013 9:57:33 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

They weren’t apes. They were sort-of human, or even fully human and interfertile with whatever we consider was “human” at the time. What they weren’t were our earliest direct ancestors. Man#1’s brothers, cousins, etc.

This study says nothing about who was human or an ape. Or a lizard or a chicken for that matter.


28 posted on 08/05/2013 9:58:09 AM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Individuals do not evolve. Populations are the basis of evolution. There was no “magic moment” where an ape gave birth to a human. There was a population of apes which became separated, at least in the sense of breeding, from another similar population of apes. One of these populations gradually developed characteristcs that were more and more human-like. Modern humans descend from that population. There would have been a large number of members of this population at the time when they became recognizably human.

That's a whole lot of inbreeding to perpetuate those genes, which is generally not a desirable thing within isolated populations.

29 posted on 08/05/2013 9:58:22 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Romans 1:22

II Corinthians 10:12

Proverbs 26:4

...

Matthew 7:6


30 posted on 08/05/2013 10:03:49 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (It's been over 90 days; time to start on 2014. Carpe GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metmom

All populations are inbred if you go back far enough. Consider, if all humans are not inbred, then you and I must have 4 distinct parents, 8 distinct grandparents, 16 distinct great-grandparents and so on. This leads to rather large numbers fairly quickly.

Assume an average breeding age of about 30 years (I realize that this is probably too high since life expectancies tend to about 30 years if you go back far enough, but it makes the math simple and lowering that age just lowers the time periods I am discussing). Then each succeding generation would represent the population needed to sustain us as completely non-inbred, and this number would double each time you go back 30 years. Thus, 30 years ago, there would have to have been 4 distinct people in the population to serve as our parents, 60 years ago, there would have had to be 8 distinct people to serve as our grandparents, etc.

Now, using those assumptions, at a time 960 years ago, there would have to have been roughly 8.6 billion people alive to serve as our distinct set of ancestors. That’s more people than are currently alive, and nobody has ever given population estimates that suggest that the world’s population has declined in the last millenium, so I would suggest that this renders it impossible that we aren’t inbred to some degree. (Going back even farther makes the point even more definitive; you hit 10 billion at 990 years, 100 billion at 1080 years, and 1 trillion at 1170 years.)


31 posted on 08/05/2013 10:20:20 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

True enough, Raycpa. I’m not suggesting that Noah’s lineages would all have survived. I’m just suggesting that anyone prior to Noah could not have been the genetic Adam.


32 posted on 08/05/2013 10:23:23 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

Bingo.


33 posted on 08/05/2013 10:29:36 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ExGeeEye

It seems that your Biblical verses are pretty much meant to say “shut up, read the Bible, and quit trying to figure out how the universe works.” Sorry, but I reject that notion. Where would we be without the contributions of those such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others who were Christians, but did not just “shut up and read the Bible”? I find it insulting to believe that God gave us the intelligence and curiosity to explore the universe, but intended for us to not use them. You can certainly do what you wish, that’s what freedom is about. For myself, however, I will continue to follow where the evidence leads and try to figure out how the universe works.


34 posted on 08/05/2013 10:32:38 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Sorry, I did not evolve from apes.


35 posted on 08/05/2013 10:32:41 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Assuming your calculations are correct, what would the human population be if "Adam could have lived – about 120,000 to 156,000 years ago?"
36 posted on 08/05/2013 10:34:53 AM PDT by celmak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

You are certainly free to believe that. A mountainous volume of scientific evidence suggests otherwise.

Just food for thought: if I create a machine and that machine creates a whole bunch of robots, would you argue with me if I told the robots that I was their creator? Would you really insist that it was the machine that created the robots?

Religion has gone down this road in the past. (See Galileo) It doesn’t have to be true that science and religion are in opposition.


37 posted on 08/05/2013 10:37:48 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

I just checked....

My Mom and Dad were contemporaries.

How do I get this info posted under “News”?


38 posted on 08/05/2013 10:38:08 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Definitely true.
The Bible is not a work of science or technology.
The Bible does not explain the manner in which God works, but it is clear that God uses the mechanisms of the universe he created to manifest his will.
We can understand at least some of those mechanisms, and we should do so. This is a virtuous and worshipful endeavor.


39 posted on 08/05/2013 10:40:29 AM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

At least Adam didn’t have to listen to a bunch of nosey relatives asking him “is that the best you could do?”


40 posted on 08/05/2013 10:41:28 AM PDT by Larry381 ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: celmak

Sorry I don’t have the computing resources to give you that answer. However, given 120000 years as a time frame, that’s 4000 generations. Now 2^4000 = (2^10)^400. Since 2^10 is approximately 10^3 (or 1000), 2^4000 is approximately 10^1200. That’s a lot of people, and certainly more than anyone would ever believe that the earth could sustain.

My original post was not meant to suggest that this number of people ever lived, in fact quite the opposite. My calculation was meant to prove that humans are ALL inbred to some degree. This is the number of humans that needed to be alive at a given time in the past to provide enough DISTINCT ancestors so that two randomly-selected individuals would not share any common ancestors. Certainly, my original point is proven; we are all inbred if you look back far enough.


41 posted on 08/05/2013 10:41:54 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Genetic Adam and Eve Could Have Been Contemporaries, Scientists Say

So. In five years, scientists will say something totally different.

42 posted on 08/05/2013 10:50:29 AM PDT by Lee N. Field ("You keep using that verse, but I do not think it means what you think it means.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

This is news, because it implies some sort of temporal connection with respect to modern humans ancestors.
There has been a lot of speculation about a severe “bottleneck” in human populations at some point (where there were few survivors breeding, thus limiting genetic diversity). Many mechanisms (i.e., plagues, disasters) have been proposed, because humans actually have limited genetic diversity (yes, hard to believe but true) compared to a lot of animals. This report (among other things) implies that they may indeed have been such a bottleneck and the matchup with “Eve” may identify when it happened.


43 posted on 08/05/2013 10:50:48 AM PDT by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stremba

I like this analogy for the “big bang”. I have a million pieces of lumber and I have them in a group and drop them on the ground repeatedly. How many times do you think I have to drop them before they will fall in the form of a house? None, yet we are told that science has proven that we and our world all derive from the “big bang” which just happened once. Pretty far stretch.

We were created in His image and He created everything. How long he took to do that and how He did it is something we, in our conceited, small minds cannot comprehend, so He told it to us in terms we would understand.


44 posted on 08/05/2013 10:53:23 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: stremba

The OT is a kind of a family album, not a history of the entire human race. The tale of Noah is true as far as it goes, but other peoples’ literatures claim that people also survived the flood on high places and anything which could float for the better part of a year.


45 posted on 08/05/2013 10:54:01 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The whole idea that the “originals” of all created kinds, including mankind, had all the genetic information necessary to make all that we see today

is opposite of the “sans God” explanation of what we see today.


46 posted on 08/05/2013 11:10:07 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
God does in fact work entirely within the laws of physics. But he does not use broken tools; that rules out evolution.
47 posted on 08/05/2013 11:13:35 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

Don’t forget the “Noah” bottleneck.
4 Males from the same family, and their unrelated wives.


48 posted on 08/05/2013 11:23:18 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

I agree with you as far as the Bible telling us in simple terms how God did it. However, your analogy is a false one. A better analogy is one of producing the full text of say, Hamlet, by generating a random string of characters of the appropriate length. Now, if you fail to generate Hamlet on the first try, instead of throwing it all away and trying again, you keep those letters that match the corresponding ones in the text of Hamlet and regenerate random letters for the ones that don’t. Keep repeating this process, and you’ll wind up with Hamlet much sooner that you might imagine.

The selection mechanism is different depending on what you’re talking about. For the big bang, the selection mechanism is the laws of physics. For instance, in a hot, dense environment like the early universe, it’s not possible for ordinary matter to exist. Radiation dominates the universe at this point. Sufficiently energetic radiation can result in pair production, that is pairs consisting of a particle and its antiparticle. However they will tend to meet and annihilate at a high rate, so radiation will continue to dominate.

At a certain time, however, the universe cools enough to allow matter to survive. The fact that there’s matter and not anti-matter is also a consequence of the laws of physics. This matter still cannot form even atomic nuclei at this point, but as things cool more, nuclei form. The scientific theory can even tell you which nuclei and their relative abundances. Further cooling allows individual atoms to form. None of this is a random process, any more than cooling water causing ice to form is random. It all follows from the laws of physics.

In similar fashion, in evolution, natural selection provides the non-random factor. We don’t just throw random genomes out there and the surviving ones do so only because of luck. Some genomes are better suited to survival and reproduction than others are. Those that are better suited tend to be the ones represented in currently living organisms. The untold number of lesser suited genomes are not represented because they have all died off.

Another area, albeit one in which the scientific evidence is much weaker, in which non-random processes play a role is in the formation of life (Yes, this is a distinct area from evolution. Evolution only explains how life diversified after it had already formed.) It’s not really know precisely what processes caused the first living cell to form. It does make sense, however, to propose that non-living matter can and does arrange itself into complicated patterns (think of snowflakes, for instance. Not that I’m claiming that life arose from snowflakes, but they are an instance of non-living matter forming complex patterns). Some of these patterns are bound to be more stable than others. After sufficient time, the stable ones tend to be the ones that exist. In some way, these stable ones develop the ability to copy themselves, and we’re on the road to life. Viruses are a good example of a system much like this. They are sort of an intermediate between living and non-living systems. They don’t have metabolism or other biochemical processes, but do contain nucleic acids and can make copies of themselves. Again, we don’t know exactly how the first life originated, but we can bet that it was not randomly.

Obviously, you would answer that “God did it”, but that’s not a real answer. HOW did God do it? That’s what we’re really trying to get at. As you admit yourself, He really didn’t give us the details in the Bible. The Bible pretty much contains what ancient people needed to know to get along in the world, get along well with each other, and build a lasting society. It does not tell us the details of how God created the universe. I’m not sure why you have a problem with the big bang, evolution or other theories of science. In fact, the big bang, with its universe dominated by radiation sounds an awful lot like “let there be light”. If God created the universe through the process described by the big bang, then He also put in laws of nature that led to the formation of life and then its subsequent evolution. Certainly formation of life from non-living matter sounds an awful lot like creating a living being from the dust of the earth, doesn’t it?

Unless you believe that God has put evidence in the universe that is intentionally misleading, then science cannot come up with an answer that conflicts with religion. There is one truth, and unless God is misleading us, science is just another way to try to find that truth. It is no less valid than religion for that purpose. The Bible is unsurpassed as a work of ethics and morality, but it is not a science text. As you say, it gives us a simple version of what happened. For those of us who want the details, we have to look to science.


49 posted on 08/05/2013 11:25:01 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
There are two basic human groups, and any sort of a common ancestor for all humans would have to be more than 40,000 years ago.

Compared to other animals, humans have very little genetic diversity, e.g.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/skin-color/modern-human-diversity-genetics

People today look remarkably diverse on the outside. But how much of this diversity is genetically encoded? How deep are these differences between human groups? First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse – a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution. For example, the subspecies of the chimpanzee that lives just in central Africa, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, has higher levels of diversity than do humans globally, and the genetic differentiation between the western (P. t. verus) and central (P. t. troglodytes) subspecies of chimpanzees is much greater than that between human populations.

I've read at least one claim that there is less diversity in the entire human race than in a typical group of 40 African monkeys of the same species, although that sort of quote is the kind of thing which you'd never find when looking for it...

This lack of diversity is generally attributed to a population bottleneck of sorts which most scholars place around 45,000 years ago, some claiming there may have been as few as 50 modern humans on the planet at that time. Nonetheless, those claims generally assume some sort of a transition from "early modern humans(TM)" (meaning gracile hominids) to Cro Magnon humans at that time.

Is that really believable, or did Cro Magnon people simply arrive here at that time and begin replacing ALL hominids, gracile and otherwise? One thing scholars all agree on is that whatever caused Cro Magnon people to appear on this planet when they did was not gradual. Danny Vendramini ("Them and Us") notes:

“The speed of the Upper Palaeolithic revolution in the Levant was also breathtaking. Anthropologists Ofer Bar-Yosef and Bernard Vandermeersch:
“Between 40,000 and 45,000 years ago the material culture of western Eurasia changed more than it had during the previous million years. This efflorescence of technological and artistic creativity signifies the emergence of the first culture that observers today would recognise as distinctly human, marked as it was by unceasing invention and variety. During that brief period of 5,000 or so years, the stone tool kit, unchanged in its essential form for ages, suddenly began to differentiate wildly from century to century and from region to region. Why it happened and why it happened when it did constitute two of the greatest outstanding problems in paleoanthropology.”

Likewise Dwardu Cardona ("Flare Star"):

Where and how the Cro-Magnons first arose remains unknown. Their appearance, however, coincided with the most bitter phase of the ice age. There is, however, no doubt that they were more advanced, more sophisticated, than the Neanderthals with whom they shared the land. Living in larger and more organized groups than had earlier humans, Cro Magnon peoples spread out until they populated most of the world. Their tools, made of bone, stone, and even wood, were carved into harpoons, awls, and fish hooks. They were presumably able hunters although, as with the Neanderthals, they would also have foraged to gather edible plants, roots, and wild vegetables. The only problem here is that,as far as can be told, the Cro Magnons seem to have arrived on the scene without leaving a single trace of their evolutionary ancestors.
'When the first Cro Magnons arrived in Europe some 40,000 years ago', Ian Tattersall observed, 'they evidently brought with them more or less the entire panoply of behaviors that distinguishes modern humans from every other species that has ever existed.'"

All of that is consistent with thinking that Cro Magnon man CAME to this planet 45,000 years ago or however long ago that was, and it is not consistent with thinking that man evolved from hominids.

In fact the huge eyes of the oldest groups of creatures on this planet, including dinosaurs and hominids, indicate that this planet was originally an exceedingly dark sort of place. Humans, with the smallest eyes relative to body size of advanced creatures could not have come from such a place.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=184900

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/neanderthals-large-eyes-led-to-their-downfall-says-study-8532539.html

Those were the kinds of eyes you needed when "darkness was upon the face of the deep"...

Cro Magnons and their descendants are one of what I'd view as the two basic human groups, the other being the familliar antediluvian people of the Bible. The difference has nothing to do with race or color, either group is capable of producing any color or feature you'd ever see in humans. Japanese Ainu, who most view as white, and Australian Aborigines who most view as black, are both Cro Magnon descendants.

The two groups are genetically identical or close enough to that to neglect the differences. They amount to separate saltations from the same source, separated by a large enough space of time that the two cultures and technologies were totally different.

If you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended from Cro Magnons, there is a list of things which the Bible and Jewish literature would have to know about, and which they don't, which would include (at minimum):

Cro Magnon people experienced all of those things and their oral traditions more often than not show traces of them. The basic idea is that the two groups are from the same place, but their arrivals here were separated by thousands of years so that the culture and technology had totally changed by the time Adam and Eve and anybody else who may have come with them arrived.

There is no good word for the people prior to Adam and Eve. The term "Cro Magnon" has been declared a tabu word by scientists because nobody could figure out who all to include; the term "Pre-Adamite" is politically incorrect from being used in racist tracts 90 years ago; and the term "Early Modern Human" includes Skhul/Qafzeh hominids which, in real life, were still hominids and not humans.

Puple Dawn:
http://saturndeathcult.com/the-sturn-death-cult-part-1/a-timeless-age-in-a-purple-haze/

Human/Hominid Non-Relation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe6DN1OoxjE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhFXQHRAzg8

Ganymede hypothesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p10PiJPEq4
http://cosmosincollision.com

All of this stuff is substantially at variance from 99% of what is taught in schools and also from what you'll find on normal Internet resources. Nonetheless, the stuff they teach plainly doesn't work. For a hominid to have ever evolved into a human, that hominid would need to have:

If that doesn't sound like a formula for success, then neither should the idea of God creating a creature for a world for which the creature was hideously maladapted. There is nothing in the Bible about God being STUPID.....

Cosmos in Collision does in fact describe the reasons for our planet having been super-dark in ancient times. Kindle is everybody's friend...

http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-in-Collision-ebook/dp/B00C4MF8UE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364793440&sr=8-1&keywords=cosmos+in+collision

50 posted on 08/05/2013 11:27:22 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson