New Evidence Suggests Noah’s Wife Was Steering The Ark When It Hit Mount Ararat

Babylon Bee ^

[RoosterRedux]

Leading theologians have uncovered new evidence that when Noah's ark hit Mount Ararat, his wife was likely steering.

Naamah, daughter of Lamech, is traditionally considered to be Noah's wife, and all historical evidence seems to indicate that she was to blame for the famed vessel violently crashing into the tip of a mountain.

"After studying several extra-biblical ancient texts and consulting Jewish historians, it now seems Noah's stop on the top of Mount Ararat was completely unplanned, and totally his wife's fault," said biblical scholar Dr. Benjamin Abelman. "Every ancient source we currently possess now points to this as being the case."

"Also, she was a woman, so, you know, what more evidence do you need?"

Several newly uncovered sources say Noah's wife had offered to steer the ark for a while so Noah could catch some sleep, but she soon got distracted with her makeup...

[FlingWingFlyer]

ROTFL! Oh man. Gotta love the Bee.

[verum ago]

I work in an office with 4 men and 6 women, in a town with a lot of tight streets and corners, and steep hills.

All 4 men’s vehicles lack body damage.

All 6 women’s vehicles have damage to the front passenger-side fender from hitting things, and 4 of them have damage to the rear bumper from backing into things.

Not sure what to say other than that.

[Hyman Roth]

Was she Asian also?

[waterhill]

I don’t ride anywhere with my wife at the wheel.

[antidemoncrat]

Misogyny at its finest ... but funny ... a sexist would say

[chopperk]

She may have been smoking stuff.

[FreedomPoster]

How do you define a woman? Are you a biologist?

[Tanniker Smith]

I laughed.

I started reading the headline without seeing the source. I immediately knew the source though because the Onion isn’t that clever.

[TexasGator]

Your religious link (no sources) : research yields a more precise date of 37,000 to 49,000 years ago for the common ancestor of men.

---

What is surprising about Perry’s Y chromosome is that it did not descend from Y-chromosomal Adam’s. Or rather that the established “Adam” has lost his title to a new “Adam”, further back in time, where Perry’s branch split from the tree (see figure). While the former-Adam is estimated to have lived around 202,000 years ago, the revised one is thought to be about 338,000 years old.

https://theconversation.com/albert-and-adam-rewrite-the-story-of-human-origins-15835

[Tell It Right]

Thanks for posting. Your link has the following reminder of potential human/neanderthal inbreeding. In other words, Perry's Y-chromosome could have been from another species besides human beings (because a female ancestor got it on with a male in a species that was created before humans).

What if, long after modern humans had become established and started to spread, they should meet and interbreed? Like all our other close relatives, these cousins eventually disappeared, but maybe they left traces, such as Perry’s Y chromosome, in the modern gene pool. This may sound shocking, but it would not be unprecedented. When modern humans spread from Africa to Eurasia, they met another cousin, the Neanderthals. Fossils with features from both species have long caused debate, and recently genetic evidence has suggested that today’s non-Africans owe 1 to 4% of their ancestry to such interbreeding, although no Y chromosomes have yet been identified. So, like many discoveries, Perry’s Y chromosome raises more questions than it answers.