Skip to comments.
Age of Our Ancestors-How Our Genetic Adam Is Much Younger than Genetic Eve
abcnews.go.com ^
Posted on 02/02/2004 12:31:53 AM PST by chance33_98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-102 next last
To: CobaltBlue
"Sorry if I am coming across too tough. I am feeling rather grumpy today. I'll try to be more polite. ;^)" I meant 'tough' in a nice way. You're making me back-up my statements today.
81
posted on
02/02/2004 3:44:17 PM PST
by
blam
To: CobaltBlue
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
So, much of this is based on the assumption the model is correct? Is it possible to create a model that points to 'adam' and 'eve' living 200,000, 500,000, or more years ago? Or possibly fewer then 60,000 years ago?
Just curious
82
posted on
02/02/2004 3:59:46 PM PST
by
yhwhsman
("Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small..." -Sir Winston Churchill)
To: KingNo155
The key word is
venerated. Many do not understand the difference between venerated, when soemthing is used for inspiration in devotions, and adoration.
Regards.
To: rmlew; Clemenza; nutmeg; firebrand
btt
84
posted on
02/02/2004 4:49:17 PM PST
by
Cacique
To: Brilliant
It does fit with the Biblical account. The "genetic Adam", the father of all male lines of descent still around, was Noah, since the only other males on the Ark were his sons. The "genetic Eve" was Eve herself, since Noah's sons brought their wives, and there were three of them.
85
posted on
02/02/2004 5:23:12 PM PST
by
A.J.Armitage
(http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
To: chance33_98
Bump for later perusal
86
posted on
02/02/2004 5:25:43 PM PST
by
carpio
To: Doctor Stochastic
"Were tests to be done with other genetic markers (if any be available), other results may obtain."
I think that is not totally true, all genetic markers should follow the Y and mitochrondrial reults to some extent. given the Y and mitochondral results, should we not be able to recreate the entire makeup of Eve, and Adam?
To: FastCoyote
Not necessarily. This "Eve" lived about 90,000 years before this "Adam." Check out the links in post 37.
88
posted on
02/02/2004 7:02:45 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
Comment #89 Removed by Moderator
To: yhwhsman
My understanding is that the only assumption is the rate of genetic drift.
It is a fact beyond peradventure that your mitochondrial DNA is inherited from your mother and only your mother.
Similarly, if you are male, it is a fact beyond peradventure that your Y chromosome DNA is inherited from your father and only your father.
It is also a fact that all humans today possess DNA which is a variation on a theme, and that theme is many thousands of years old.
The only question is how many thousands of years from the origin of the DNA to you.
200,000? Maybe. Less than 60,000? Maybe.
To: PinkPunk
Is this to imply that Eve had an immaculate conception, with no Adam around at the time?Nothing in the article implies that there were no men (or other women) alive at the time. See the links in #37.
91
posted on
02/02/2004 8:37:33 PM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic
True. These aren't the ur-parents. These are just nexi through which all lines of descent pass.Enough of the discussion. When does the halftime show start?
;)
To: CobaltBlue
The DNA studies don't use bones. Certainly not for Y-chromosome DNA, it doesn't last long enough. I was probably being unclear in my post. The poster I was responding to seemed to believe that just because the bones of the so-called "Adam" were found in Africa doesn't mean he was from there. I was trying to point out that the idea of a group of hunter-gatherers travelling hundreds if not thousands of miles while carrying the body of a deceased member of the group was ludicrous.
93
posted on
02/03/2004 10:17:34 AM PST
by
Modernman
("The details of my life are quite inconsequential...." - Dr. Evil)
To: chance33_98
Mind-boggling to think about.
94
posted on
02/03/2004 10:26:15 AM PST
by
Ciexyz
To: cajun-jack
"If i am going to err, it will most certainly be on the side of caution."
Then you are not walking in faith, you are walking in fear. Go see what the Boook says about this condition (I'll give you a hint: it's not recommended).
To: Modernman
No prob. Just wanted to make sure that you knew that there were no bones, no "Adam", it's a statistical hypothesis, but a very interesting one.
On a somewhat different but related topic, I was surprised to learn recently that DNA testing confirms that dogs are not actually related to coyotes or jackals. Wolves only.
To: Doctor Stochastic
Not to mention the Gameboy.
To: T Minus Four
Probably powered by torsion of wound up animal skins.
98
posted on
02/03/2004 10:45:49 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: webstersII
I know what i'm doing..just trying to make a softer landing for the "anti" crowd...but thanks for your concern.
To: cajun-jack
I don't really agree with that tactic, but that's your business.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-102 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson