Age of Our Ancestors-How Our Genetic Adam Is Much Younger than Genetic Eve

abcnews.go.com ^

[CobaltBlue]

Mankind may have evolved independently in several locations, but the DNA doesn't lie - if there was independent evolution, there was also convergence. So you've got to come with a theory that fits the evidence.

[CobaltBlue]

The DNA studies don't use bones. Certainly not for Y-chromosome DNA, it doesn't last long enough.

They've got ever larger pools of DNA from living people, and they use models of genetic drift to estimate the time it must have taken for the changes which they can see to have occurred. So if you want to reject the theory, the only thing that can be rejected is the timeline. That is the only guesstimate.

[razorbak]

So all humans living today can trace their ancestry to one man and one woman? Seems like I've heard that somewhere before.

[CobaltBlue]

True, but they probably lived in Africa 120,000 years ago, and looked like this guy:

[CobaltBlue]

[Ichneumon]

Just because "Adam" died in Africa does not mean he lived there! Just because you find ones bones in a place does not mean he lived there! "Adam" could have wondered from place to place! "Adam" could be a person of special importance and his bones could have been taken to Africa as a sign of reverance!

This isn't about bones, nor where they are or are not. It's about genetic tracing.

[Doctor Stochastic]

So all humans living today can trace their ancestry to one man and one woman?

No. All humans living today can trace their ancestry to one man who lived about 60,000 years ago, and all numans living today can trace ther ancestry to one woman who lived about 150,000 years ago. Were tests to be done with other genetic markers (if any be available), other results may obtain.

[Ichneumon]

These days scientists spend a lot of effort trying to disprove the account of Genesis.

No they don't. They follow where the evidence leads. If that happens to disagree with the old story written down in Genesis -- or in the tales of the Norse gods, or native American origin stories, or Velikovski, Zeus, or whatever -- then that's just the way it goes. Old stories could have come from anywhere. The evidence comes from the actual history.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Nice threads for 120,000 years ago. Polyester?

[CobaltBlue]

I was assuming that the 60,000 year ago man was descended from the 120,000 year ago woman. It's a reasonable assumption, under the circumstances, but just an assumption on my part.

[CobaltBlue]

These days scientists spend a lot of effort trying to disprove the account of Genesis. Maybe the whole thing is a big fraud.

Did they teach you that in Bible school?

[cajun-jack]

I personally will stick with the account as given in the book of Genesis, thank you very much.

Northern Baptists say "there ain't no hell"....southern Baptists say "the hell there ain't" !!!!!

If i am going to err, it will most certainly be on the side of caution. By the time you find out for sure whether or not there is a God and Heaven and Hell...if you are wrong, it will be a bit too late to change positions.

[Ichneumon]

If i am going to err, it will most certainly be on the side of caution. By the time you find out for sure whether or not there is a God and Heaven and Hell...if you are wrong, it will be a bit too late to change positions.

That's what they say about Hank, too.

[colorado tanker]

Just as I thought. Men are more highly evolved than women.

[xp38]

Just don't drop an empty coke bottle where he might find it.

[cajun-jack]

guess i need to buy another tube of chapstick cause i gotta lot more butt kissin to do.

[Ichneumon]

So all humans living today can trace their ancestry to one man and one woman? Seems like I've heard that somewhere before.

Not like this you haven't.

First, it's incorrect to say that "all humans living today can trace their ancestry to [just] one man and one woman". Genetically, we all have many ancestors and there is no one genetic male ancestor nor one genetic female ancestor, nor was there ever any time where there was just one pair of humans on the planet.

Second, as the article makes clear, the timing is inconsistent with the versions that you've "heard" before in certain books.

For a clearer understanding of what the difference is between a genetic common ancestor and a mitochondrial common ancestor, see this excellent interactive Flash webpage on tracing ancestry. First click on different descendants and note how they are all genetically descended from multiple ancestors, and how all the ancestors have left descendants. Then click on the "Show mtDNA ancestors" button, and repeat the check of descendants -- you'll find that their *mitochondria* all descend from a single female.

For a fuller discussion, see What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?.

[CobaltBlue]

How does the news story conflict with Genesis?

[Ichneumon]

guess i need to buy another tube of chapstick cause i gotta lot more butt kissin to do.

ROFL!

[Old Professer]

Note that X and Y need not be equal since recipes and hunting rituals will no doubt change and die out at different rates, so our genetic Eve did not meet our genetic Adam (and both, of course, had parents, grandparents, and other progenitors).

I guess I am chicken liver, after all.