Cain's Wives

[Anonymous]

Go take a look at the link I provided from "Nature" magazine. "Nature" magazine is a world-renowned peer-reviewed science journal. Do you think that other scientists wouldn't have jumped on the geneticist that called Mitochondrial Eve "hypothetical" if she had used the term incorrectly?

My presentation of the scientific "consensus" and evidence on the other points was just a presentation by a scientist and polymath with many years of study in these areas. I'm just basing this on the studies and articles that I've read in scientific journals. Nobody is telling you that you have to believe it. I expect people to check these things out; I certainly do. At least please respect that I'm trying to present an honest picture of what I believe to be the truth...

I apologize for the backhanded insult I gave you in the last message.

I completely agree that my father is not "hypothetical". I also personally believe in an actual and real Adam and Eve, and do not believe them to be hypothetical either.

However, the majority of geneticists do not believe in a real Adam and Eve, but rather some unnamed (by us) human forebear or multiple ancestors from the ancient past. The idea that one single person was responsible for this genetic material is "hypothetical". It cannot be proven but is rather assumed. On the other hand, it may turn out that further research will reveal that there never was only one "Eve", but rather several, or a group of "Eves". The same applies to the Y-Chromosomal Adam. (These last two points are spoken from the geneticists' point-of-view, not my own.)

If you didn't get an opportunity to read the "Nature" article I referenced, I've reproduced the paragraph in which a "hypothetical mitochondrial Eve" is found:

Enter the trellis model put forth by Alan Templeton (Figure 2). This model accepts an African origin of the human species, but it argues that this origin predates a hypothetical mitochondrial Eve, occurring approximately 1.7 million years ago. After that, multiple migrations out of Africa occurred, but the human race was never completely replaced by a single tribe...

-- Jill U. Adams, Ph.D. in Nature

Ms. Adams' explanation for this hypothetical Eve:

Templeton himself writes that the trellis model "posits the Homo erectus population not only had the ability to move out of Africa, but also back in, resulting in recurrent genetic interchange among Old World human populations. Here, there is no split of humanity into evolutionary sublineages, and the human race cannot be portrayed as branches on an evolutionary tree; rather, the genetic closeness or distance of various human populations reflect their amount of genetic interchange and not their time of divergence from a common ancestral population. Under the trellis model, anatomically modern traits could evolve anywhere in the range of Homo erectus (which includes Africa) and subsequently spread throughout all of humanity by selection and gene flow."

-- Jill U. Adams, Ph.D. in Nature

In other words, the range of genes could have developed and re-mixed to become the genetic material we trace in human gene lines today. Therefore, the hypothetical ancestor of humankind may not be one single "Mitochondrial Eve" but rather hundreds or thousands of individuals way back in the ancient past. The same thing also applies to "Y-Chromosomal Adam".

This is the geneticists' point-of-view, like I said. It's not my own. I believe in a literal Adam and Eve as the real ancestors of all mankind.


John for Christ

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt John, are you saying your father is 'assumed to exist'? Just curious.....

From what I understand, Isabella, you have admitted that you are not qualified to make any judgement based upon science, since you have no education in that area.

I said 'physical' which is what we used to describe physics and geology, I was pointing out that if this was a discussion about the age of the earth or some such thing, I would not be so invested in scientific accuracy.

Nice try though Jon, I wish you and your 'hypothetical' ancestors well!!!

Oh wow...... :lol:

B

 

[Isabella]

Please, don't assume you know anything about me. I stopped reading at this point.

B

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Isabella,

You never addressed anything of substance in my original post. Do you disagree with the science? Do you have any good reasons to disagree with the science? If you do, please provide some references that prove your points. It would be nice to see some evidence coming from you that my statements concerning the hypothetical nature of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosomal Adam". Your argument, "Is your father hypothetical?", is really of no substance at all, and I think you probably know it.


John for Christ

Please, don't assume you know anything about me. I stopped reading at this point.

B