How many Eves are there? (Clan Mothers)

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The misnomer of Eve and Adam was utilized by the scientists in order to emphasize the importance of their discovery.
Indeed, and not to identify them as the characters of Adam and Eve from Genesis.

As I told you, they would have made a better choice had they said Noah and the wife of Noah, in regard to how this discovery supports the Genesis Genealogy.
If it supported the genealogy of Genesis - but it doesn't. The large part of my post, which you truncated, explains what Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve actually are - and they aren't, in any way, support for the genealogy of Genesis.

It amazes me that Christians and Jews are still baffled and confused by the completely incidental names.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It amazes me that Christians and Jews are still baffled and confused by the completely incidental names.
Ya -- like El Niño and La Niña.

Those names are allowed in science books; but that's as far as it goes.

It's okay to preach science in church, but preach church in science and scientists will eek and ook about it.

Unless, of course, the main Players are reduced to monikers.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Ya -- like El Niño and La Niña.

Those names are allowed in science books; but that's as far as it goes.

It's okay to preach science in church, but preach church in science and scientists will eek and ook about it.
Actually, one of the common cries of the secularist is, "We don't teach science in your churches, so don't preach religion in our schools". What a minister teaches to his congregation is entirely up to him. So, what makes you think anyone is preaching science in church?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So you're a part of a long list of people who believed something that wasn't true.
We've been accused of that ever since Jesus was accused of it.
It probably includes everyone who ever lived. What of it?
I just thought I would point out to No Time that his point of view seems a little one-sided.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, what makes you think anyone is preaching science in church?
If you think that's what I said, you might want to go back and read it again.

And I have a feel that you [will] agree with me.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
If you think that's what I said, you might want to go back and read it again.

And I have a feel that you [will] agree with me.
You said:
"Ya -- like El Niño and La Niña. Those names are allowed in science books; but that's as far as it goes. It's okay to preach science in church, but preach church in science and scientists will eek and ook about it. Unless, of course, the main Players are reduced to monikers."

The implication is that people are preaching science in church. Who is doing that? If not, then all I need to do is simply point out that there is no onus on ministers to preach science. If they want to preach idiocy and archaic dogma, that's their business.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You said:
"Ya -- like El Niño and La Niña. Those names are allowed in science books; but that's as far as it goes. It's okay to preach science in church, but preach church in science and scientists will eek and ook about it. Unless, of course, the main Players are reduced to monikers."

The implication is that people are preaching science in church. Who is doing that? If not, then all I need to do is simply point out that there is no onus on ministers to preach science. If they want to preach idiocy and archaic dogma, that's their business.
Let's simplify this:

Do you know of any scientist, Internet or authentic, that says (or would say), "I think it's good that science is preached in the pulpits"?
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
We've been accused of that ever since Jesus was accused of it.
Might as well pass the blame right back up the chain. You're still not off the hook for suspending rational thinking.

I just thought I would point out to No Time that his point of view seems a little one-sided.
I don't recall him being a champion of the 4 Elements view.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

Jazer

Guest
You're still not off the hook for suspending rational thinking.
Wow, at my age something new is rare, but you just took arrogance to a whole new level. In doing so you give us a stellar end time sign. Clearly this shows that we are closer to the end of this age/era. All the more we need to be ready for the second coming of Jesus. BTW have you ever been to the niagara falls horror museum where they actually have wax people hanging on hooks? Of course during the tribulation that sort of stuff will be back in full swing. The age of grace will have come to an end.

"Keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened for you. matthew 7 7 International Standard Version (©2008)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟17,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Wow, at my age something new is rare, but you just took arrogance to a whole new level.
You say arrogant, I say stating the obvious.

In doing so you give us a stellar end time sign.
Can I get that on a T-shirt?
"I am a sign of the end times"
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
Can I get that on a T-shirt?
Check with my son, he runs the t-shirt dept. He can get you whatever you want.

You say arrogant, I say stating the obvious.
You do not run into people very often that are willing to admit that if they were there they would have joined into crucify Jesus. Most people tend to want to be fence sitters. They are not really for anything, but they do not want to go down as being against either. Of course God counts the fence sitter as being against. But seldom are they willing to admit their true status.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
From a previous post:

"Of your grandparents, which grandparent did you get your mitochondrial DNA from? That would be your maternal grandmother. Does this mean that your paternal grandmother is not one of your ancestors? Does this also mean that none of your DNA came from your paternal grandmother? Of course not. On average, as much of your DNA came from your paternal grandmother as it did from your maternal grandmother. Both grandmothers are your ancestors in equal parts except when it comes to mitochondrial DNA (which really doesn't have that much to do with what makes us human anyway).

The same applies to the y-chromosome and the contributions to your genome from both of your grandfathers. If you are a man, then your y-chromosome came from your paternal grandfather. Does this mean that your maternal grandfather is not one of your ancestors? Does this mean that your paternal grandfather did not contribute DNA to your genome? The answer is the same as above. "

Any comment, John? Do you understand why your claims are wrong?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
Any comment, John? Do you understand why your claims are wrong?
My claim is not wrong. Evolution is based on common ancestor. Your just talking about something different. It does not matter anyways because sooner or later everything in science is proven to be wrong. You can put a man on the moon using Newton's theory, yet the theory is wrong. Because Einstein came out with a new theory. We trace the Y Chromosome though the father and the MtDNA through the mother. That is the way we trace the genealogy. It does not matter that they get just as much DNA from their other grandparents.

Sense the whole point of what we are talking about is to find the first food producer. What does your MRCA have to do with that? Perhaps if you could show us a mutation that happened to show up at the same time in the same place where man because a food producer. That is a farmer AND a herdsman. How can the theory of evolution explain both of those showing up at the same time and in the same place. To be more exact in the Jewish people that we read about in our Bible. Is it somehow just a coincidence that science now tells us that the people in the Bible were the first food producers. Compared to hunter gathers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
My claim is not wrong.

Yes, you are. An MRCA for mitochondrial DNA does not indicate that an entire population was founded by a single woman.

Evolution is based on common ancestor.

It is based on a common ancestral pool which is an entire population.

We trace the Y Chromosome though the father and the MtDNA through the mother. That is the way we trace the genealogy.

No, it isn't. Your paternal grandmother is still your grandmother even though you do not have her mitochondrial DNA.

It does not matter that they get just as much DNA from their other grandparents.

It matters to your claims.

Sense the whole point of what we are talking about is to find the first food producer. What does your MRCA have to do with that?

Perhaps you should tell us that since you have been arguing that a mitochondrial DNA proves that Eve was a real person.

How can the theory of evolution explain both of those showing up at the same time and in the same place.

How could they not? Whichever human population was first to use agriculture and animal husbandry was bound to have population specific mutations. It is unavoidable.

Is it somehow just a coincidence that science now tells us that the people in the Bible were the first food producers. Compared to hunter gathers.

That has not been established.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Oh, look, it's this thread again.

1) Population genetics don't say what you insist they say.
2) Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam were one of many thousands of individual humans that lived alongside them.
3) Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam lived tens of thousands of years apart.

Jazer, I don't think you understand what Mitochondrial Eve is. Picture it like this: you have inherited your mitochondrial DNA solely from your mother. She got it from her mother, who got it from her mother, etc. This is your matrilineal lineage, your maternal ancestors going up and up.

Your father also has mitochondrial DNA, but this DNA won't be passed on, because it's ONLY passed on from mother to child. So one woman can have lots and lots of daughters, who all have lots and lots of daughters, all passing on her mitochondrial DNA, but any son is instantly a dead-end, and any woman who has only sons is a dead end. But, as there are always women in the world, some lineages survive, and ultimately we are all descended from one surviving lineage (that's not to say other lineages don't exist, of course) - the woman at the top of that lineage is termed Mitochondrial Eve.

Mitochondrial.gif


Human DNA flows about through the interbreeding of lineages, both male and female. Mitochondrial Eve is not particularly special, nor was she the only woman alive at the time, nor was she the only breeding woman at the time, nor is she the only woman from whom we are all descended - she is simply the woman from whom we all inherit our mitochondrial DNA. Though those women who only have sons did not pass us their mitochondrial DNA, their main chromosomes are passed down through their sons. Mitochondrial DNA is simply special in that it is wholly matrilineal.

Do you understand now why we simply dismiss away your "science proves Bible!" tirades as ignorant* nonsense? The concept of Mitochondrial Eve is not what you assert it to be. It's a fascinating concept, but it really isn't what you keep saying it is.

*In the true meaning of "lacking the facts".
*shameless bump*

Do you understand what the concept of Mitochondrial Eve is, Jazer? Would you be so kind as to explain her to us in your own words (so that we can critique your understanding of her), and then explain how she somehow proves anything in the Bible? For the sake of argument, treat us like absolute idiots and leave no stone unturned (so "Mitochondrial Eve is the blah blah, so therefore Genesis is literally true in every detail", doesn't count. Be specific).

Hopefully, if you answer these questions and requests, we can start getting into why we disagree.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
Yes, you are. An MRCA for mitochondrial DNA does not indicate that an entire population was founded by a single woman.
That does not matter, the only thing that is indicated is that Eve is a real person. Jesus was a real person, Mary was a real person, David & Solomon were real people. Abraham, Noah & Moses were real people. Adam and Eve were real people. All of the people we read about in the Bible are real people.

Science does show us that not every living person today is decended from the Adam and Eve in the Bible. But Science still shows us that Adam and Eve in the Bible COULD have been real Historical People. There is no reason to believe they were NOT real Historical People that lived 6,000 years ago in the Middle East. That a lot of people in the Middle East today can consider them to be a part of their MRCA.

The Bottom line is the evidence shows us the Bible is true. Even if some of the traditional understandings of the Bible turn out not to be true. For over 100 years science has know that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood. They have know that the world is lot older then 6,000 years. But that does not in any way show us that Adam and Eve were not real people and that they did not exist just as the Bible tells us.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jazer

Guest
Do you understand what the concept of Mitochondrial Eve is, Jazer?
Most likely better then you.

Would you be so kind as to explain her to us in your own words
There are lots of web sites that can help you a lot better then I can to understand science.

But real quick: Mitochondrial is a part of the cell. It is the part of the cell that breaks down food into energy. That energy can be used for things like hunting animals for dinner or keeping warm on a cold night. Mitochondrial is very much like bacterial. Some even have the theory that bacterial got traped in a cell during the evolution process.

What is important is you can only get Mitochondrial from your mother. So women pass on their Mitchondrial from generation to generation. IT does not change so you can use this in women for genetic research and to study the geneologys. In the men the YDNA does not change so that is passed from generation to generation. Men usually pass on their name also, like Cohen and that does not change from generation to generation. They have a gene marker they call the Cohen gene. There is a very high correlation between people that have that marker and who have the Cohen last name. Bryan Sykes found that for people who have a unique last name then at least 60% of them share the same DNA and Share a common ancestor. Of course for common last names like Black or Smith or Taylor or Cook or Miller than they may not share a common ancestor.

Every now and then we see a minor copy error that become a permanent marker in the Y-DNA or the MtDNA. They use these markets or mutations or whatever term you want to do to show that all life has a common ancestor. AS a Creationist we use these same markers to show that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real Historical people.

Now I realize this is not very good. But I am here to teach the Bible not Science. I just played along with you to show I know a little bit about the subject we are talking about. Actually I know a lot more then this, but this is enough for now.

treat us like absolute idiots and leave no stone unturned
I do not have time to write a whole book on this. In fact I am sure I could write more then one book. But a lot of the research is very rescent. I read "The Double Helix" back in the 60's when it first came out. So I have been following DNA research from the beginning. Recently in the last 10 years a lot of research has been done on DNA and population Genetics. To trace common ancestors to try to show that all life on earth today decended from a common ancestor.

So whatever you think you know about this, just wait 10 years and there will be a lot more known.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
But real quick: Mitochondrial is a part of the cell. It is the part of the cell that breaks down food into energy. That energy can be used for things like hunting animals for dinner or keeping warm on a cold night. Mitochondrial is very much like bacterial. Some even have the theory that bacterial got traped in a cell during the evolution process.
Correct so far.

What is important is you can only get Mitochondrial from your mother. So women pass on their Mitchondrial from generation to generation. IT does not change so you can use this in women for genetic research and to study the geneologys.
Not quite. It does change, but any mutation can only be passed from mother to child, so only her daughters and granddaughters can carry on the mutation across the generations.

In the men the YDNA does not change so that is passed from generation to generation.
Again, the Y Chromosome does undergo mutation, but as it is (almost) always only in men, its effects only show up in, and get passed down through, men.

Men usually pass on their name also, like Cohen and that does not change from generation to generation. They have a gene marker they call the Cohen gene. There is a very high correlation between people that have that marker and who have the Cohen last name. Bryan Sykes found that for people who have a unique last name then at least 60% of them share the same DNA and Share a common ancestor. Of course for common last names like Black or Smith or Taylor or Cook or Miller than they may not share a common ancestor.
Err, OK.

Every now and then we see a minor copy error that become a permanent marker in the Y-DNA or the MtDNA. They use these markets or mutations or whatever term you want to do to show that all life has a common ancestor. AS a Creationist we use these same markers to show that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real Historical people.
Ah, and you've done exactly what I asked you not to do. Remember, I said "so "Mitochondrial Eve is the blah blah, so therefore Genesis is literally true in every detail", doesn't count. Be specific" - yet you've done just that.

We can trace human lineage through the maternal-only Mitochondrial DNA, and the paternal-only Y-Chromosomal DNA, and can work out when the most recent common ancestors for those two DNA types should have lived - the maternal line has a common ancestor about 200,000 years ago, and the paternal line about 50,000-150,000 years ago.

So, tell us, how does that "show that Adam and Eve in the Bible were real Historical people"? How do genetic markers prove that the characters of Adam and Eve, as described in the Bible, were real people? No fudging the details now, this is the very point of the thread.

Now I realize this is not very good. But I am here to teach the Bible not Science. I just played along with you to show I know a little bit about the subject we are talking about. Actually I know a lot more then this, but this is enough for now.

I do not have time to write a whole book on this. In fact I am sure I could write more then one book. But a lot of the research is very rescent. I read "The Double Helix" back in the 60's when it first came out. So I have been following DNA research from the beginning. Recently in the last 10 years a lot of research has been done on DNA and population Genetics. To trace common ancestors to try to show that all life on earth today decended from a common ancestor.

So whatever you think you know about this, just wait 10 years and there will be a lot more known.
Undoubtedly, and that's the marvellous thing about science. Nonetheless, the recent discoveries of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam do not in any way support a literal (or even metaphorical) account of Genesis - and I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think otherwise.
 
Upvote 0