Genetic Adam and Eve Could Have Been Contemporaries, Scientists Say

The Christian Science Monitier ^ | 8/2/13 | Elizabeth Barber

[stremba]

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.

[Lee N. Field]

Genetic Adam and Eve Could Have Been Contemporaries, Scientists Say

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

[buwaya]

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.

[Resolute Conservative]

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.

[varmintman]

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.

[MrB]

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.

[varmintman]

God does in fact work entirely within the laws of physics. But he does not use broken tools; that rules out evolution.

[MrB]

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

[stremba]

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.

[varmintman]

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):

• Stone tools. Adam and Eve and their descendants were metal-tech people from day one (e.g., Genesis 4:22). By contrast, human groups descended from Cro-Magnons went on using stone tools until forced out of it by neighbors descended from Bible Antediluvians if they ever stopped at all. Aztecs were using stone knives and weapons when the Spanish arrived even though they used metals for ornaments and purposes other than tools.
• The atlatl, the signature weapon of Cro Magnon people. Biblical accounts know nothing of this weapon; the weapons of the Bible were the sword, the spear, the sling, and the bow. By contrast, the Aztecs, a people descended from Cro-Magnons1, were using atlatls against the Spanish while native Australians continue to use it to hunt kangaroos today.
• Neanderthals and/or other hominids. The Bible knows nothing of hominids. By contrast, the Basque "Basajuan" appears to be a reflection of the Neanderthal and the Australian "Yowie" appears to be some sort of hominid, which native Australians remember.
• An upper Paleolithic world war in which all hominids were exterminated from the planet, or at least from the parts of the planet that humans inhabit in any numbers.
• A primordial era generically referred to [by scholars who study myths and oral traditions] as the "Purple Dawn"; that is, a protracted age devoid of the daylight that we experience today.

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:

• Lost his fur while ice-ages were going on.
• Lost almost all of his sense of smell while trying to survive as a land prey animal [fatal]
• Lost almost all of his night vision in an age when night was the only time of day that there was.

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

[Tenacious 1]

Sorry, I did not evolve from apes.

Where did you evolve from?

[stremba]

Who’s proposing that idea? Even creationists will argue that evolution occurs within the created kinds (microevolution). That process of evolution can add genetic information, so again, who’s proposing that the created kinds had all the genetic information needed to make what we see today?

[MrB]

That process of evolution can add genetic information

THAT'S the big difference. No, creationists do not, or none that I've read, believe that information is ADDED to the genetic code through mutation or whatever other process is proposed by evolutionists. And that "evolution" to which you refer within the created kind is adaptation, using the "built in at creation" ability to adapt.

[Resolute Conservative]

My parents...

[Tenacious 1]

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.

I agree. And I have reconciled creation with science in my own very active faith. I have been vilified from both sides when trying to explain my own reconciliation of God's use of science for creation. But you seem to be of like mind. How long is one of God's days there in eternity? Why do we assume God wiggled his noes and blinked his eyes while shouting shazam? ....and it was good! Short and sweet....

Genesis = Stories/parables passed down through many generations until writing was invented and taught. People taught in parables as Jesus did dating way back. The bible is absolutely the word of God, as told by people that had to interpret that word thousands of years ago. How we interpret it today is a person to person mission. But Genesis answers why and how, whether it's figurative or literal to explain original sin/knowledge/consciousness etc. will continue to be left up to individual faith.

I'm not yet convinced God is done with day 6. I suppose he may rest on day 7. Day 8 just might be the start of Revelations.

[Tenacious 1]

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.

Amen! + ...in terms humans across multiple languages and levels of intellect would understand... in parables. God's son didn't fall far from the tree as he used them too.

[Raycpa]

HOW did God do it? That’s what we’re really trying to get at.

As a bible believer and someone who has deep respect for science there are passages in Job 38 which should humble any scientist (including creationists) who believes they can understand "HOW God did it". I can think of no description of God where he comes accross in a mocking tone other than Job 38. The sarcasm and mocking of man's understanding is practically dripping off the page:

"Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?…

Read the entirety and any God fearing person should remain very humble about understanding HOW God did it. God did not make this challenge to just Job. He made it to everyone that reads the text.

If God exists and this is His word then no man will ever be able to answer the all of the questions in Job.

For unbelievers and believers who presume to understand How God did it, they are fools.

[Resolute Conservative]

But how many tries did the selection mechanism have? According to science is was only one. So to get it right on the one and only try is well, pretty impossible.

You said, “the universe cools enough to allow matter to survive”. What about that law of physics that says matter cannot be destroyed nor created? All matter that is here has always been here and thus cannot “survive” at a later time frame as conditions improve to support it. That would infer that matter was destroyed.

My point of contention about evolution is that scientists can tell you with certain authority (theirs by self appointment) what creatures have been here and what they looked like, ate, sounded like etc... but there are large gaps in human genealogy relative to the short time that we have been here compared to the lines of life forms they trace from previous eras. They want to rationalize the gap is the “missing link” and that once found will prove their hypothesis. Yes a hypothesis that we are suppose to take as a law. Well, where is it? We have found remains of a multitude of creatures and can pinpoint their time frame by the layer we locate them in then why cannot we target location efforts for this “missing link” in certain strata? Well, we have the problem is there is not a missing link.

I figure I will know the details of this master plan when the time comes and He tells me firsthand.

[TalonDJ]

it’s Noah; everyone but him died in the flood.

No his sons and their wives came too.... though that would still make him the most recent single male ancestor.

[TalonDJ]

Well they were no metal workers from day one. Tubal-Cain was what, 7 generations in? We don’t have the tally of years for Cain’s side of the family but if it averages the same as Seth’s side then that would be about 500 years after the garden.