Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:By Couple I meant Mito Eve and Adam, but not them as a couple but rather a couple of Mito Ancestors. That's the point, the Mito DNA is not the only one we have, its the only one which is unbroken yet, mind you that is the DNA we are talking about, as it doesn't point to one individual. Other women from mito eve's times have descendants alive today. Not only that, we also know that Mito-eve as a person is not fixed, whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor.

So we don't only have mito eve's dna, we have other dna as well, which clearly shows more than a single couple which populated the earth.

Openly, I'm confused by your words.

Mito Eve is said to be the common ancestor for all modern homo sapien saipens women alive today. Based on recent study estimates, Mito Eve is essentially placed at around 100-125k years ago. Right?

So then, what are you meaning when you say that the MDNA is not the only one we have? To me, a Mito Eve and Y-Chrom Adam evidences, although not necessarily so, that modern human woman came through one female ancestor and Y-Chrom Adam that modern human men came via one male ancestor. At least, that is what the evidence would suggest as we have it.

To say otherwise, is to well, do away with an "Eve" and "Adam" concept as science uses them (not in Biblical terms, but it Mito Eve and Y-Chromo Adam terms).
But, I never heard science talking of Miti Eves and Y-Chrom Adams (plural). Yes, perhaps there were others whose lines were not carried down, but to declare there were many lineages to homo sapiens sapiens rather than a couple is just as speculative a believing in one couple (much more-so imo).

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:By Couple I meant Mito Eve and Adam, but not them as a couple but rather a couple of Mito Ancestors. That's the point, the Mito DNA is not the only one we have, its the only one which is unbroken yet, mind you that is the DNA we are talking about, as it doesn't point to one individual. Other women from mito eve's times have descendants alive today. Not only that, we also know that Mito-eve as a person is not fixed, whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor.

So we don't only have mito eve's dna, we have other dna as well, which clearly shows more than a single couple which populated the earth.

Openly, I'm confused by your words.

Mito Eve is said to be the common ancestor for all modern homo sapien saipens women alive today. Based on recent study estimates, Mito Eve is essentially placed at around 100-125k years ago. Right?

So then, what are you meaning when you say that the MDNA is not the only one we have? To me, a Mito Eve and Y-Chrom Adam evidences, although not necessarily so, that modern human woman came through one female ancestor and Y-Chrom Adam that modern human men came via one male ancestor. At least, that is what the evidence would suggest as we have it.

To say otherwise, is to well, do away with an "Eve" and "Adam" concept as science uses them (not in Biblical terms, but it Mito Eve and Y-Chromo Adam terms).
But, I never heard science talking of Miti Eves and Y-Chrom Adams (plural). Yes, perhaps there were others whose lines were not carried down, but to declare there were many lineages to homo sapiens sapiens rather than a couple is just as speculative a believing in one couple (much more-so imo).

It is actually very simple but perhaps is misunderstood. When we say Mito Eve, we don't mean a fixed individual in history. The important thing to note is the mtDNA is the highlight here, not the person. The ironic name makes it confusing I guess.

quoting here from wikipedia just to save time,

One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time. However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female who reproduced, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent.
*****
The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the person in prehistory who will fit this definition can change, not only because of new discoveries, but also because of unbroken mother-daughter lines coming to an end by chance. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. In every generation mitochondrial lineages end – when a woman with unique mtDNA dies with no daughters. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.

We also know that this Mito eve, had a mother too. That she was not taken out of Adam as the biblical story says. But to move the point forward, if a woman produces only male offspring, her mtDNA won't be passed along, since children don’t receive mtDNA from their father. This means that while the woman’s sons will have her mtDNA, her grandchildren won’t, and her line will be lost. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't have descendants today, she only doesn't have female descendants.

Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have descendants alive today. They may have left descendants via either son or daughters (and grandsons or granddaughters, and so on). Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.
What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Please note, Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.

The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each lived within a large human population at a different time. Mitochondrial Eve is one of the many common ancestors we can trace back to via different gene pathways., If we pick a different gene, we will get to a different MCRA.

EDIT
I think what may be confusing is that we understand DNA as only nuclear DNA, which is the building block of life. However we don't have mito eve's nuclear dna, so therefore when we say we all share her dna we are talking about mitchondrial dna,

for quick reference please see

Nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA differ in many ways, starting with location and structure. Nuclear DNA is located within the nucleus of eukaryote cells and usually has two copies per cell while mitochondrial DNA is located in the mitochondria and contains 100-1,000 copies per cell. The structure of nuclear DNA chromosomes is linear with open ends and includes 46 chromosomes containing 3 billion nucleotides. Mitochondrial DNA chromosomes have closed, circular structures, and contain 16,569 nucleotides. Nuclear DNA is diploid, inheriting the DNA from both mother and father, while mitochondrial DNA is haploid, coming only from the mother. The mutation rate for nuclear DNA is less than 0.3% while that of mitochondrial DNA is generally higher.[5]

So now can you see with respect to what I wrote earlier, that we have other mitochondrial Dna's too, its just that only one of them is unbroken in women. That is, some contemporaries of the MRCA are ancestors of no one in the current population. The rest of the contemporaries of the MRCA may claim ancestry over a subset of current population, but not the entirety of current population.

mitochondrial Eve is not the mother of all humanity, she is the most recent mother of all living humanity. A side affect of this is that the individual who was mitochondrial Eve changes over time, due to coalescence.

The idea of coalescence is fairly straightforward. Every human has parents. However, not every human has kids. The number of people who were alive 100 years ago who have living descendants is only a fraction of the people who were actually alive 100 years ago. As we go back in time, the number of people who were alive at that time who have living descendants keeps decreasing, until there is a single person from whom every living person descends. We call this individual the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). That individual also had parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents etc, and all of humanity shares descent from those individuals as well. However, they are not the “most recent” common ancestors, but merely common ancestors, and are not very informative for evolutionary study. As time goes on, the current MRCA will become merely another common ancestor, and the new MRCA will become one of its descendants.

In a few hundred thousand years, the MRCA for all individuals alive may very well be someone who is alive right now. I hope that clarifies it further.

neo-x wrote:Your Morten's demon will not let you see that evidence ACB, so good luck with that.

Not fair Neo,I want you to show scientific evidence life evolves and yet so far all you have shown me is what I already know,I told you I have thoroughly researched evolution,you doubt it,but I know the reason why you can't produce evidence that life evolves is because there is none.

This is why you can't because science that believes life evolves and looks at and examines everything in this earth from a perspective that life evolves can't.I already showed you how frogs producing frogs is not evidence life evolves and yet you think it is.please explain how a frog producing frogs shows you life evolves,how is a frog producing frogs evolution.You posted the evidence and I've looked through the same evidence you have and they are using either reproduction or adaptation as evidence life evolves,this is not made up creation talk either,it is based on their own evidence.

So explain how a frog producing frogs which is kinds producing after their kind is evidence that life evolves.Can't you see how they have tricked you? You posted the frog evidence not realizing it is just reproduction.

Show us evidence that let's us know a dinosaur could evolve over time into a bird,or a common ancestor of monkeys and apes could evolve into a man,do not use reproduction or adaptation because it is not evidence.And when you can't present any evidence you will know that the dinosaurs lived in the former world that was ruled by angels until Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled against God and the former world perished and all life that lived in it died,this world we live in now is not ruled by angels.trilobites,primates,dinosaurs,sabre toothed tigers,etc all lived in the former world until it perished and since you have no evidence in science to demonstrate dinosaurs could evolve into birds they simply prove the bible true that a former world full of life perished and have nothing to do with evolution.

Neo,the next time you look at all of them fossils read 2nd Peter 3:3-7 and you'll see evidence for a former world perishing.

Jac3510 wrote:On angels, this (esp 1 & 3) and this (esp 5 & 6).

And yes, I've read Isa 14 and Eze 28 in detail (do you really think that I'm unfamiliar with that material?). I wonder if you are aware that the identification with Satan in those passages is problematic. I would point you to Keil and Delitzch's remarks on those passages, as their work is in the public domain but still appreciated today. It's not too hard to find them for free online. There's plenty more to say, but that's a fair start.

Once again, I'm afraid that if you understood the theory as well as you say you do that you wouldn't ask these kinds of questions.

edit:

You bring up Hebrew but nobody needs to understand the Hebrew to see how the scriptures reveals a gap of time between the former world that perished and this world that has not perished yet but will one day,then it will be restored again and we'll have a new heaven and earth again except forever this time.

Yes, you do need to see the Hebrew. As a GT proponent, I have to believe that you have read Arthur Custance's Without Form and Void, which is considered one of the strongest defenses of the theory available even now. You should know that he spent the bulk of his book as well as thirteen appendices arguing over the Hebrew grammar behind the interpretation of Gen 1:2 to prove his point.

So when you say that you don't need to look at the Hebrew, it just proves to me that you haven't even studied in any real detail the theory you are actually defending. If you did, you would know that not only is the Hebrew important, but that it decisively refutes any possibility of the GT, since Gen 1:2 is related to Gen 1:1 via a waw-disjunctive and is composed of three circumstantial clauses, which means that it is literally impossible to see any gap there.

I mean, honestly . . . I'm afraid that you just don't know what you are talking about, my misguided friend.

I do believe Arthur Custance proved that Genesis 1:2 can be translated "And the earth became without form and void "instead of "And the earth was form and void"and yet you must reject it,however a Hebrew Jewish rabbi translated Genesis 1:2 and translated it "And the earth became without form and void"yet people like you say it can't be done when it has been done,but my point about not needing to understand Hebrew to see the gap still stands because we have the bible translated into English and there are scriptures in both the old and new testaments that reveals to us a former world existed that perished,and yet when it comes to 2nd Peter 3:3-7 you must stick Noah's flood here but it does not work based on the fact that the heavens and earth that were of old were flooded with water,yet you in order to stick Noah's flood here must overlook that only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood and life was spared whether on the ark but in Lucifer's flood all life died and perished.
And when you read Jeremiah 4:23-28 you cannot make this a future prophecy because life survives the tribulation period and Jesus returns,lions lay down with lambs,and people are ruled by Jesus in his reign.And yet in order to get a young earth you must see this as a future prophecy but it is a look back this is why it describes the same thing we see in Genesis 1:2. There are many more scriptures that back it up also like Isaiah 48:3-10.Isaiah 24:1-8,Genesis 9:11,not all life was cut off in Noah's flood but it was in Lucifer's flood also all flesh will never be cut off again more evidence Jeremiah 4:23-28 is not a future prophecy,Psalm 24:2KJV says he hath established it upon the floods not rivers like NASB,Hebrews 1:2 and Hebrews 11:3 KJV says worlds instead of ages or eons.But these reveal an old earth and not a young earth.

Have you even read Custance's work (I have)? More to the point, have you read Fields' Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory , which is a direct response to Custance?

The simple fact is that Custance was wrong, despite is valiant efforts. There is a reason that no Hebrew grammarian takes his claims seriously anymore. There has been an entire field that has developed that he didn't have access to called discourse grammar. As it happens, you don't need DG to see where Custance went wrong--Fields didn't have it, and he refuted him decisively. But the basic principles that Fields works with have been expanded on in DG and in doing so DG has shown itself to be a major contibuting factor to modern Hebrew semantics. In order to adopt Custance's reading, you have to get rid of so much of what we do know to be true that it's just silly.

But you don't know Hebrew. You're just placing blind faith in a system you want to believe. So since you don't know Hebrew, and for the sake of other interested readers (a number which is dwindling, I suspect), I would just make one simple point. Exodus 20:11 decisively refutes the GT. It says that God made the heavens and the earth in six days. It doesn't say He made them and then He refashioned them in six days. Moses is looking back to Gen 1 and summarizing the fact that all that work was done in six days, including the work of 1:1. No gap is permissible, and especially when you understand that the phrase "the heavens and the earth" are a merism.

Anyway, I don't have time to say more about this. For the last time, believe the GT if you want, but understand that at the level of Hebrew grammar, it is absolutely ridiculous--just as ridiculous as the Calvinist claim that faith is a gift based on Eph 2:8-9 or that Jesus is a god based on John 1:1.

All be the best to you.

Jac3510 wrote:Have you even read Custance's work (I have)? More to the point, have you read Fields' Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory , which is a direct response to Custance?

The simple fact is that Custance was wrong, despite is valiant efforts. There is a reason that no Hebrew grammarian takes his claims seriously anymore. There has been an entire field that has developed that he didn't have access to called discourse grammar. As it happens, you don't need DG to see where Custance went wrong--Fields didn't have it, and he refuted him decisively. But the basic principles that Fields works with have been expanded on in DG and in doing so DG has shown itself to be a major contibuting factor to modern Hebrew semantics. In order to adopt Custance's reading, you have to get rid of so much of what we do know to be true that it's just silly.

But you don't know Hebrew. You're just placing blind faith in a system you want to believe. So since you don't know Hebrew, and for the sake of other interested readers (a number which is dwindling, I suspect), I would just make one simple point. Exodus 20:11 decisively refutes the GT. It says that God made the heavens and the earth in six days. It doesn't say He made them and then He refashioned them in six days. Moses is looking back to Gen 1 and summarizing the fact that all that work was done in six days, including the work of 1:1. No gap is permissible, and especially when you understand that the phrase "the heavens and the earth" are a merism.

Anyway, I don't have time to say more about this. For the last time, believe the GT if you want, but understand that at the level of Hebrew grammar, it is absolutely ridiculous--just as ridiculous as the Calvinist claim that faith is a gift based on Eph 2:8-9 or that Jesus is a god based on John 1:1.


All be the best to you.

First off,let me say that I respect your biblical knowledge and these are important issues to discuss.You say Custance was wrong but if that is true then how come when we read the KJV bible we can see the Gap theory more easily? You may say that you don't prefer the KJV and I cannot change your mind, however it shows us bible scholors of the past and specifically the gap theory was understood by the men who translated the KJV bible so they were aware of the gap theory,yet today you say no Hebrew scholar accepts it,they did before which is why you can see evidence for the gap theory in the KJV,people have been saturated with the young earth interpretation and these new translations make it more difficult to understand what bible and hebrew scholars of the past knew and understood.Were they wrong?I know today we have been saturated with young earth interpretation but things have changed from the understanding of the past.

Also the KJV was translated in 1611 long before Charles Darwin wrote his book in 1859 and before Charles wrote it it was the gap theory being preached and when geologists in science made discoveries in the earth 100's of years later proving the earth was old and seeing all of the fossils,coal and oil,it proved it true and Christians then were winning souls to Jesus,just like today when we see a new prophecy fulfilled,etc.

If you read "The origin of species" written by Charles Darwin in 1859 you will see he was trying to thwart the old heavens and earth gap theory,not young earth creationism and the evidence that proved the gap theory true was hijacked away and made to fit into evolution,then this young earth interpretation eventually grew to where now Christians and scientists talk past each other,the scientist knows the heavens and earth are old,while the Christian declares God's word true and they talk past each other.

Also about Exodus 20:11 where it says God made the heavens an d the earth in 6 days you need to understand that there is a difference between made and create,when God creates nothing is there before he speaks but when he makes something the materials are already there that he uses to make it.And in Genesis 1 you will see the word made often,one of the only times when you see the word create is when he created great whales,beasts of the field and man.There is a distinction.
Also Genesis 2:4 says " These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,in the day that LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

OK notice the latter part of that verse"in the day the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"notice it reflects what God did in Genesis 1, the word made is important because it means the materials were already there to make it,but as you read Genesis 1,God works on the earth first,then works on the heavens,this is why gap theorist say God restored what was already there from the former world perishing in Lucifer's flood in which all life died,so before God does this there are generations of the heavens and earth God created in the beginning.Now re-read Genesis 2:4 again and you'll know God restored the earth and heavens to create the life we have in this world,now read Jeremiah 4:23-28 and 2nd Peter 3:5-7 again.

Also in another thread I have already given many verses that reveals Jesus is God not just John 1:1 either.

anelcainsbrother wrote:
Also in another thread I have already given many verses that reveals Jesus is God not just John 1:1 either.

Abel,

Just to clarify, Jac wasn't saying that Jesus isn't God.

He said at the level of hebrew grammar, the GT is as ridiculous as believing Jesus is a god(small g).

RickD wrote:

anelcainsbrother wrote:
Also in another thread I have already given many verses that reveals Jesus is God not just John 1:1 either.

Abel,

Just to clarify, Jac wasn't saying that Jesus isn't God.

He said at the level of hebrew grammar, the GT is as ridiculous as believing Jesus is a god(small g).

I re-read it and you are right and Jac I apologize I should've knew better that Jac would deny Jesus is God.I apologize.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:By Couple I meant Mito Eve and Adam, but not them as a couple but rather a couple of Mito Ancestors. That's the point, the Mito DNA is not the only one we have, its the only one which is unbroken yet, mind you that is the DNA we are talking about, as it doesn't point to one individual. Other women from mito eve's times have descendants alive today. Not only that, we also know that Mito-eve as a person is not fixed, whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor.

So we don't only have mito eve's dna, we have other dna as well, which clearly shows more than a single couple which populated the earth.

Openly, I'm confused by your words.

Mito Eve is said to be the common ancestor for all modern homo sapien saipens women alive today. Based on recent study estimates, Mito Eve is essentially placed at around 100-125k years ago. Right?

So then, what are you meaning when you say that the MDNA is not the only one we have? To me, a Mito Eve and Y-Chrom Adam evidences, although not necessarily so, that modern human woman came through one female ancestor and Y-Chrom Adam that modern human men came via one male ancestor. At least, that is what the evidence would suggest as we have it.

To say otherwise, is to well, do away with an "Eve" and "Adam" concept as science uses them (not in Biblical terms, but it Mito Eve and Y-Chromo Adam terms).
But, I never heard science talking of Miti Eves and Y-Chrom Adams (plural). Yes, perhaps there were others whose lines were not carried down, but to declare there were many lineages to homo sapiens sapiens rather than a couple is just as speculative a believing in one couple (much more-so imo).

It is actually very simple but perhaps is misunderstood. When we say Mito Eve, we don't mean a fixed individual in history. The important thing to note is the mtDNA is the highlight here, not the person. The ironic name makes it confusing I guess.

quoting here from wikipedia just to save time,

One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time. However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female who reproduced, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent.
*****
The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the person in prehistory who will fit this definition can change, not only because of new discoveries, but also because of unbroken mother-daughter lines coming to an end by chance. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. In every generation mitochondrial lineages end – when a woman with unique mtDNA dies with no daughters. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.

We also know that this Mito eve, had a mother too. That she was not taken out of Adam as the biblical story says. But to move the point forward, if a woman produces only male offspring, her mtDNA won't be passed along, since children don’t receive mtDNA from their father. This means that while the woman’s sons will have her mtDNA, her grandchildren won’t, and her line will be lost. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't have descendants today, she only doesn't have female descendants.

Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have descendants alive today. They may have left descendants via either son or daughters (and grandsons or granddaughters, and so on). Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.
What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Please note, Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.

The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each lived within a large human population at a different time. Mitochondrial Eve is one of the many common ancestors we can trace back to via different gene pathways., If we pick a different gene, we will get to a different MCRA.

EDIT
I think what may be confusing is that we understand DNA as only nuclear DNA, which is the building block of life. However we don't have mito eve's nuclear dna, so therefore when we say we all share her dna we are talking about mitchondrial dna,

for quick reference please see

Nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA differ in many ways, starting with location and structure. Nuclear DNA is located within the nucleus of eukaryote cells and usually has two copies per cell while mitochondrial DNA is located in the mitochondria and contains 100-1,000 copies per cell. The structure of nuclear DNA chromosomes is linear with open ends and includes 46 chromosomes containing 3 billion nucleotides. Mitochondrial DNA chromosomes have closed, circular structures, and contain 16,569 nucleotides. Nuclear DNA is diploid, inheriting the DNA from both mother and father, while mitochondrial DNA is haploid, coming only from the mother. The mutation rate for nuclear DNA is less than 0.3% while that of mitochondrial DNA is generally higher.[5]

So now can you see with respect to what I wrote earlier, that we have other mitochondrial Dna's too, its just that only one of them is unbroken in women. That is, some contemporaries of the MRCA are ancestors of no one in the current population. The rest of the contemporaries of the MRCA may claim ancestry over a subset of current population, but not the entirety of current population.

mitochondrial Eve is not the mother of all humanity, she is the most recent mother of all living humanity. A side affect of this is that the individual who was mitochondrial Eve changes over time, due to coalescence.

The idea of coalescence is fairly straightforward. Every human has parents. However, not every human has kids. The number of people who were alive 100 years ago who have living descendants is only a fraction of the people who were actually alive 100 years ago. As we go back in time, the number of people who were alive at that time who have living descendants keeps decreasing, until there is a single person from whom every living person descends. We call this individual the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). That individual also had parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents etc, and all of humanity shares descent from those individuals as well. However, they are not the “most recent” common ancestors, but merely common ancestors, and are not very informative for evolutionary study. As time goes on, the current MRCA will become merely another common ancestor, and the new MRCA will become one of its descendants.

In a few hundred thousand years, the MRCA for all individuals alive may very well be someone who is alive right now. I hope that clarifies it further.

Hi Neo-x,

Actually it doesn't clarify much really except explaining a bit about the ins and outs of what Mito Eve represents, MRCA, etc.
That doesn't do much to help me understand why you outrightly reject one human (modern human) couple.

Let us stand back little.
I'd claim that we're all descended from one pair.
You'd claim that there isn't one single pair from which modern humans descend, but ...?
Why is this not something we just don't know the answer to -- what is the scientific evidence for your position?

It is understood that Mito Eve does not necessarily mean there was one woman (i.e. Eve) from which all descended.
Equally however, it can't be ruled out there was one woman from whom all modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) were descended from.
Just because Mito Eve doesn't necessitate that there is the woman from which ALL humanity descended, it doesn't mean humanity being descended from a large population is by any means a default winner.
And if modern humans today descend from a group, what are these groups? Please explain or point to relevant articles to help me understand your beliefs.

Consider that (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... cestor.htm):

• geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.

Now while this is so, obviously it doesn't necessiate Mito Eve was the Biblical Eve:

• to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," ... the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived ... . Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy.

I'm just not sure how/why you can so adamantly claim humans today did not descend from one couple.
This seems to be jumping to gun just as much as you think those who claim "Mito Eve" to be Eve in Genesis.

If you could unpack the scientific evidence for your position, or provide some links, then I'd be most interested for you to do so.
Not just for myself, but also others here. Consider it an invitation to get your points across where hopefully others here, including myself, can gain understanding.
It is after all definitely an important issue -- whether or not we can be descended from one couple, or say a population of 500, 2,000 or 10,000.
Obviously there are strong ramifications to the historically-accepted Biblical Adam+Eve type scenario.

Thanks.

I do not understand how theistic evolutionists can feel judged based on some other christian like myself disagreeing and then explaining why.Theistic evolutionists are free to put forth how they see things and I am not offended at all even though I disagree with it because of a lack of evidence.I think theistic evolutionists are totally wrong and believe man's truth over God's truth but if I'm wrong they can change my mind with evidence but they don't and instead feel judged.

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:By Couple I meant Mito Eve and Adam, but not them as a couple but rather a couple of Mito Ancestors. That's the point, the Mito DNA is not the only one we have, its the only one which is unbroken yet, mind you that is the DNA we are talking about, as it doesn't point to one individual. Other women from mito eve's times have descendants alive today. Not only that, we also know that Mito-eve as a person is not fixed, whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor.

So we don't only have mito eve's dna, we have other dna as well, which clearly shows more than a single couple which populated the earth.

Openly, I'm confused by your words.

Mito Eve is said to be the common ancestor for all modern homo sapien saipens women alive today. Based on recent study estimates, Mito Eve is essentially placed at around 100-125k years ago. Right?

So then, what are you meaning when you say that the MDNA is not the only one we have? To me, a Mito Eve and Y-Chrom Adam evidences, although not necessarily so, that modern human woman came through one female ancestor and Y-Chrom Adam that modern human men came via one male ancestor. At least, that is what the evidence would suggest as we have it.

To say otherwise, is to well, do away with an "Eve" and "Adam" concept as science uses them (not in Biblical terms, but it Mito Eve and Y-Chromo Adam terms).
But, I never heard science talking of Miti Eves and Y-Chrom Adams (plural). Yes, perhaps there were others whose lines were not carried down, but to declare there were many lineages to homo sapiens sapiens rather than a couple is just as speculative a believing in one couple (much more-so imo).

It is actually very simple but perhaps is misunderstood. When we say Mito Eve, we don't mean a fixed individual in history. The important thing to note is the mtDNA is the highlight here, not the person. The ironic name makes it confusing I guess.

quoting here from wikipedia just to save time,

One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time. However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female who reproduced, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent.
*****
The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the person in prehistory who will fit this definition can change, not only because of new discoveries, but also because of unbroken mother-daughter lines coming to an end by chance. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. In every generation mitochondrial lineages end – when a woman with unique mtDNA dies with no daughters. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.

We also know that this Mito eve, had a mother too. That she was not taken out of Adam as the biblical story says. But to move the point forward, if a woman produces only male offspring, her mtDNA won't be passed along, since children don’t receive mtDNA from their father. This means that while the woman’s sons will have her mtDNA, her grandchildren won’t, and her line will be lost. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't have descendants today, she only doesn't have female descendants.

Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have descendants alive today. They may have left descendants via either son or daughters (and grandsons or granddaughters, and so on). Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.
What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Please note, Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity.

The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each lived within a large human population at a different time. Mitochondrial Eve is one of the many common ancestors we can trace back to via different gene pathways., If we pick a different gene, we will get to a different MCRA.

EDIT
I think what may be confusing is that we understand DNA as only nuclear DNA, which is the building block of life. However we don't have mito eve's nuclear dna, so therefore when we say we all share her dna we are talking about mitchondrial dna,

for quick reference please see

Nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA differ in many ways, starting with location and structure. Nuclear DNA is located within the nucleus of eukaryote cells and usually has two copies per cell while mitochondrial DNA is located in the mitochondria and contains 100-1,000 copies per cell. The structure of nuclear DNA chromosomes is linear with open ends and includes 46 chromosomes containing 3 billion nucleotides. Mitochondrial DNA chromosomes have closed, circular structures, and contain 16,569 nucleotides. Nuclear DNA is diploid, inheriting the DNA from both mother and father, while mitochondrial DNA is haploid, coming only from the mother. The mutation rate for nuclear DNA is less than 0.3% while that of mitochondrial DNA is generally higher.[5]

So now can you see with respect to what I wrote earlier, that we have other mitochondrial Dna's too, its just that only one of them is unbroken in women. That is, some contemporaries of the MRCA are ancestors of no one in the current population. The rest of the contemporaries of the MRCA may claim ancestry over a subset of current population, but not the entirety of current population.

mitochondrial Eve is not the mother of all humanity, she is the most recent mother of all living humanity. A side affect of this is that the individual who was mitochondrial Eve changes over time, due to coalescence.

The idea of coalescence is fairly straightforward. Every human has parents. However, not every human has kids. The number of people who were alive 100 years ago who have living descendants is only a fraction of the people who were actually alive 100 years ago. As we go back in time, the number of people who were alive at that time who have living descendants keeps decreasing, until there is a single person from whom every living person descends. We call this individual the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). That individual also had parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents etc, and all of humanity shares descent from those individuals as well. However, they are not the “most recent” common ancestors, but merely common ancestors, and are not very informative for evolutionary study. As time goes on, the current MRCA will become merely another common ancestor, and the new MRCA will become one of its descendants.

In a few hundred thousand years, the MRCA for all individuals alive may very well be someone who is alive right now. I hope that clarifies it further.

Hi Neo-x,

Actually it doesn't clarify much really except explaining a bit about the ins and outs of what Mito Eve represents, MRCA, etc.
That doesn't do much to help me understand why you outrightly reject one human (modern human) couple.

Let us stand back little.
I'd claim that we're all descended from one pair.
You'd claim that there isn't one single pair from which modern humans descend, but ...?
Why is this not something we just don't know the answer to -- what is the scientific evidence for your position?

It is understood that Mito Eve does not necessarily mean there was one woman (i.e. Eve) from which all descended.
Equally however, it can't be ruled out there was one woman from whom all modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) were descended from.
Just because Mito Eve doesn't necessitate that there is the woman from which ALL humanity descended, it doesn't mean humanity being descended from multiple lineages is the winner by default.
And if modern humans today do have multiple lineages, what do these look like? Please explain or point to relevant articles to help me understand your beliefs.

Consider that (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... cestor.htm):

• geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.

Now while this is so, obviously:

• to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," ... the Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived ... . Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy.

So, I'm just not sure how/why you can so adamantly claim humans today descend from multiple lineages.
This seems to be jumping to gun just as much as you think those who claim "Mito Eve" to be Eve in Genesis.

If you could unpack the scientific evidence for your multi-lineage position, or provide some links, then I'd be most interested for you to do so.
Not just for myself, but also others here. Consider it an invitation to get your points across where hopefully others here, including myself, can gain understanding.
It is after all definitely an important issue -- whether or not we can be descended from one couple, or say a population of 10,000.
Obviously there are strong ramifications to your Biblical Adam+Eve type scenario.

Thanks.

Actually it doesn't clarify much really except explaining a bit about the ins and outs of what Mito Eve represents, MRCA, etc.
That doesn't do much to help me understand why you outrightly reject one human (modern human) couple.

No it doesn't, did you read this:

Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.

how do you account for this, did it not make any sense to you? Doesn't it say that people from other women are present its just that the mito dna, which transfers from female-female is absent?

or this:

mitochondrial Eve is not the mother of all humanity, she is the most recent mother of all living humanity.

Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived. Furthermore the bulk of Mito genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years, to many different ancestors.

There was never a bottleneck which came down to 8 people or two people. In simple words, there was never one couple.

Neo how do you know that is true?Who told you this and where is the evidence it is true?Are you sure it is true?Because I can and have read a scientific paper telling me dinosaurs evolved into birds and yet there is no evidence that can even prove it can happen.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Neo how do you know that is true?Who told you this and where is the evidence it is true?Are you sure it is true?

God told me and obviously then it has to be true.

Seriously, study it, I did. It's very true. Though goes against long held beliefs.

neo-x wrote:

K wrote:Actually it doesn't clarify much really except explaining a bit about the ins and outs of what Mito Eve represents, MRCA, etc.
That doesn't do much to help me understand why you outrightly reject one human (modern human) couple.

No it doesn't, did you read this:

Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.

how do you account for this, did it not make any sense to you? Doesn't it say that people from other women are present its just that the mito dna, which transfers from female-female is absent?

So placed mito-DNA aside (which was the discussions at hand). what is it you are saying about nuclear genes?
Must it be vertical gene transfer rather than horizontal? Are you aware of studies supporting horizontal gene transfers?
I'd much rather have references to studies or articles you've read. That's probably be the best approach?

K wrote:

neo-x wrote:

mitochondrial Eve is not the mother of all humanity, she is the most recent mother of all living humanity.

Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived. Furthermore the bulk of Mito genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years, to many different ancestors.

There was never a bottleneck which came down to 8 people or two people. In simple words, there was never one couple.

There are many studies that have been done in this area, not just limited to Mito or Y-chrom.
You appear to be packaging them altogether (?) and presenting your own analysis.

I'd just appreciate receiving links to articles/studies that you are basing all your words on, so that I can at least be on the same page with your own knowledge.
Consider me as knowing as nothing. What I know is irrelevant. So I need to learn.
But I'm not going to trust some shmuck across the world telling me how it is. You know?
Sorry if that offends. Just give me credible sources so I can learn.

As far as I'm aware, mito studies trace all existing women back to one woman.
This doesn't mean the population at the time of this woman was 1 Biblical Eve,.
In fact many assume there was a population size of 500, 2000 or more.
So... obviously it doesn't necessarily support one couple.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Neo how do you know that is true?Who told you this and where is the evidence it is true?Are you sure it is true?

God told me and obviously then it has to be true.

Seriously, study it, I did. It's very true. Though goes against long held beliefs.

I do study and research things but I go by evidence and there is evidence for what I accept as truth.I think you need to look for evidence for the Mito eve theory and I'd be willing to bet you are just choosing to believe the papers without looking for evidence,giving them the benefit of the doubt because they explain it in scientific terms. This goes against long held beliefs that we can see evidence for all around us.kinds producing their kind.