Adam

[AV1611VET]

= one man


Romans 5:12a Wherefore, as by one man...

 

[Marshall Janzen]

= men and women


Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam...

 

[bdfoster]

Yes, the genetic markers are the key. Have you read about the Human Genomic Project that is using such markers to determine the relationships of different peoples and the pathways of their migration? I have a little book on it called "Deep Ancestry" that explains the various ways of tracking genetic markers and some of the discoveries they have made. Fascinating stuff.

Yes I heard about that a few years ago and it sounded like a promising avenue of research. I thought it would be particularly interesting to see it applied to the Americas considering the controversies over "Clovis first" etc. But I seem to remember a suspicios and uncooperative attitude from Native Americans, in the wake of Kennewick Man. I will put "Deep Ancestry" on my reading list.

 

[AV1611VET]

= men and women


Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam...

Hi, Mercury!

The consensus of opinion in our church on this, is that God named them both Adam -- (kinda like the name 'Peyton' can be for both genders) -- then Adam re-named her 'Eve'.

 

[Papias]

Brent wrote:

genetic markers indicating ancestry do persist.

Gluadys wrote:

Yes, the genetic markers are the key. Have you read about the Human Genomic Project that is using such markers to determine the relationships of different peoples and the pathways of their migration? I have a little book on it called "Deep Ancestry" that explains the various ways of tracking genetic markers and some of the discoveries they have made. Fascinating stuff.

Brent and Gluadys-

OK, perhaps I've found a clearer way to ask what I asked in posts 18-19.
It seems to me that genetic markers cannot show all ancestry, but only ancestry that is above a certain percentage (even relatively low, like 2% of one's ancestors).

The reason I claim this is what was described in post 18, the approximate halving. In other words, a distantant ancestor, like Khafra for you and I, is responsible for too low a percentage to be guaranteed to have any detectable genetic marker, without either selection or luck, in which case he or she has crowded out other ancestors, whose markers are lost.

The math seems to require this, because the geometric doubling of our ancestors going back will always overwhelm any small marker size. Four instance, sincce Khafra's time, we have 2^140 ancestors (of course, many of these are double or many times multiplied, but that doesn't change my argument, because a lone migrant would not be doubled nearly as much, espeically if by chance or other factors, he or she had few descendants).

That's a big number. In fact, it's 1.4 X 10 ^42. That's obviously much more than our 3E9 genome. So even if a marker could be a single base - not even a single gene, we can't have markers for all our ancestors.


In fact, our number of ancestors exceeds the number of base pairs in our genome in just 32 generations, which, if generations are 25 years each, is just 800 years. (check it yourself - 2^32 = 4.3 E9). Even if our whole genome were just a log of our ancestors (not doing anything like encoding proteins, and not mutating), then it logically could not record all ancestors beyond 800 years. And that's the most optimistic situation. Other factors (including selection and chance) will reduce it much more. For instance, if a y chromosome marker is used, then all female ancestors are ignored.

And we should remember that mito DNA for ancestry is extremely limited, both by its "only female" lineage, and by its small size.

Corollary 1: If we don't have markers for all our ancestors, we can't possibly detect all our ancestry by markers, regardless of how sophisticated or perfect or developed the test is. I'm classing out any theoretically possible test here, not just what we have today.

Corollary 2 : Our ancestry is likely (well, actually inescapably) much broader than any test shows.


So it is inescapable that those genetic tests have a lower bound of how low an ancestry percentage they can detect. Do you have any idea what it is? 5%? 1%? of course, it'll vary quite a bit by marker, I'd think, but even on average I have no idea. (there's my clearer question).

And, do we agree that genetic markers cannot persist in showing all ancestry?

Also, is that book available on audio? I have much more commute time than I do leisure reading time.

Thanks-

Papias

 

[shernren]

So it is inescapable that those genetic tests have a lower bound of how low an ancestry percentage they can detect. Do you have any idea what it is? 5%? 1%? of course, it'll vary quite a bit by marker, I'd think, but even on average I have no idea. (there's my clearer question).

Dunno! They're pretty good at some things though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dunno! They're pretty good at some things though.

Back in my days -- before scientists fragmented the collective conscious of mankind -- it was called 'making love'.

 

[Mallon]

Back in my days -- before scientists fragmented the collective conscious of mankind -- it was called 'making love'.

Yes, blame everything on science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, blame everything on science.

Science got us into this mess in the first place.

Genesis 3:6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


Do you not think it is coincidental that we desire to make ourselves sapiens in the academic world?

 

[Mallon]

Do you not think it is coincidental that we desire to make ourselves sapiens in the academic world?

You don't want to know what I think.

 

[Papias]

AV wrote:

Science got us into this mess in the first place.

Genesis 3:6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


Do you not think it is coincidental that we desire to make ourselves sapiens in the academic world?

God himself has instructed us to seek knowledge and wisdom. To spurn science, which shows us God's revelation in his creation, is not just the shunning of God's glory, but directly contradicts scripture. In fact, my Bible has a whole book entitled "the book of Wisdom".


Proverbs, Chapter 1:

Out in the open wisdom calls aloud,
she raises her voice in the public square;
21 on top of the wall[d] she cries out,
at the city gate she makes her speech:

22 “How long will you who are simple love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
23 Repent at my rebuke!
Then I will pour out my thoughts to you,
I will make known to you my teachings.
24 But since you refuse to listen when I call
and no one pays attention when I stretch out my hand,
25 since you disregard all my advice
and do not accept my rebuke,
26 I in turn will laugh when disaster strikes you;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you—
27 when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you. 28 “Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me,
29 since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the LORD.
30 Since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm.”

Papias

 

[Mallon]

And don't forget Proverbs 25:2:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

God encourages faith, not ignorance.

 

[gluadys]

Brent and Gluadys-

OK, perhaps I've found a clearer way to ask what I asked in posts 18-19.
It seems to me that genetic markers cannot show all ancestry, but only ancestry that is above a certain percentage (even relatively low, like 2% of one's ancestors).


Corollary 1: If we don't have markers for all our ancestors, we can't possibly detect all our ancestry by markers, regardless of how sophisticated or perfect or developed the test is. I'm classing out any theoretically possible test here, not just what we have today.

Corollary 2 : Our ancestry is likely (well, actually inescapably) much broader than any test shows.


So it is inescapable that those genetic tests have a lower bound of how low an ancestry percentage they can detect. Do you have any idea what it is? 5%? 1%? of course, it'll vary quite a bit by marker, I'd think, but even on average I have no idea. (there's my clearer question).

Given that we now have the capacity to read the whole genome, I would put the lower boundary at whatever one base pair out of the total number of base pairs in the genome works out to. That is a tiny fraction of 1%. But, of course, it would vary by the number of base pairs involved in any marker. So I have no idea what the average would be.


And, do we agree that genetic markers cannot persist in showing all ancestry?


Agreed. Since even in 3-4 generations it is possible to have no genetic input from one or more of one's ancestors.

It was startling to me at first to realize one can be a biological descendant of someone without being a genetic descendant of the same person. The ancestry of genes does not correspond one-to-one with the ancestry of organisms. We probably have many genetic "family trees" in addition to our family genealogy.

Also, is that book available on audio? I have much more commute time than I do leisure reading time.

Thanks-

Papias

Sorry, I don't know. The author is Spencer Wells and it was published by National Geographic in 2006. It is about the Genographic Project and there is even a public participation kit through which anyone can contribute their DNA via a simple cheek swab.

 

[bdfoster]

Hi Papias
Unfortunately I don't have time to keep up with this thread nearly as much as I would like. You effectively show that a single parent can produce a very large number of descendents and the descendents may have no allelles inherited from that original parent after many generations. Of course they will have some if the genes code for a selective advantage (rational thought in the case of Adam).

And, do we agree that genetic markers cannot persist in showing all ancestry?

I'm not qualified to answer that. I would have to ask the authors of the study I cited (The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols, 2003, Zerjal et. al.) that indicated roughly 8% of the Asian population are descendents of Kahn. I don't know if that implies that 92% are not his descendants but presumably the authors did not feel that their methods were incapable of producing the quntitative results they reported. Are you saying that all of Asia are in fact Kahn's descendants? That would seem to invaldate any study of this kind.

 

[Willtor]

Hi Papias
Unfortunately I don't have time to keep up with this thread nearly as much as I would like. You effectively show that a single parent can produce a very large number of descendents and the descendents may have no allelles inherited from that original parent after many generations. Of course they will have some if the genes code for a selective advantage (rational thought in the case of Adam).

I'm not qualified to answer that. I would have to ask the authors of the study I cited (The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols, 2003, Zerjal et. al.) that indicated roughly 8% of the Asian population are descendents of Kahn. I don't know if that implies that 92% are not his descendants but presumably the authors did not feel that their methods were incapable of producing the quntitative results they reported. Are you saying that all of Asia are in fact Kahn's descendants? That would seem to invaldate any study of this kind.

The 8% may be measured using the Y-chromosome. I don't know enough about the study to say. But if so, it may be that, yes, 100% of the population (or nearly so) is descended from the Khan, given that he didn't only pass on Y-chromosomes (nor did his descendants). 8% of men may be direct male descendants of Khan, though.

 

[Papias]

Gluadys wrote:

Agreed. Since even in 3-4 generations it is possible to have no genetic input from one or more of one's ancestors.

It was startling to me at first to realize one can be a biological descendant of someone without being a genetic descendant of the same person.

Thanks for the information. Yep, looks like we agree on all that.

Brent wrote:

Unfortunately I don't have time to keep up with this thread nearly as much as I would like.

That's OK, it looks like we pretty much agree on everything anyway.

You effectively show that a single parent can produce a very large number of descendents and the descendents may have no allelles inherited from that original parent after many generations. Of course they will have some if the genes code for a selective advantage (rational thought in the case of Adam).

Yes, I agree that certainly through selection and even through luck, many alleles can persist or even by present in nearly everyone, even from a single ancestor thousands of years ago. This is, in fact, exactly the case with many beneficial mutations, which had to first mutate in one ancestor, and now all humans have.

The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols, 2003, Zerjal et. al.) that indicated roughly 8% of the Asian population are descendents of Kahn. I don't know if that implies that 92% are not his descendants but presumably the authors did not feel that their methods were incapable of producing the quntitative results they reported.

I think they are saying that their genetic test shows that 8% have that genetic marker, showing that 8% definitely are descendants of khan. I don't think that they are saying that there are exactly 8%. Hence, I'm not saying they are wrong.

Of course, as gluadys pointed out, a descendant may be missing that marker, simply by chance, so the actual % of descendants can be much higher.

Are you saying that all of Asia are in fact Kahn's descendants? That would seem to invaldate any study of this kind.

No, it wouldn't. Even if everyone is a descendant, only a few may have the marker looked at. For instance, consider the whole Y chromosome. That'll ony be in people who are pure male line descendants. Even a single female in the line, anywhere in the 800 years since Khan, means that the y present is from some other male (the mate of that female). So a MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMFMMMMMMMMMMM line has lost Khan's Y, and if Khan's Y is what you are looking at, there is no evidence that person is Khan's descendant, even though he is.

Hence, if you had 1 million actual, recorded descendants of khan, only a tiny, tiny percentage would have his Y. The same applie to any genetic marker (remember, one only get's 50% of a given parent's genome)So their study is fine.

Based on the math (800/25=32 generations, 2^32=4 billion), it seems very likely that most people in Asia (especially in the middle of the mainland) are descendants of Khan. I'd guess there are still a few people in remote areas that are not.

In fact, remembering that Khan set up sons and grandsons ruling areas in Easter Europe in the mid 1200's, it seems that a good chunk of (and perhaps most) Europeans are descendants of Khan. There is a decent chance that you, Gluadys, willtor, and I are descendants of Khan. That's more likely if you Czeck or Serbian ancestry, less likely if your ancestry is pure Brit. My ancestry is mostly German, so it seems like I've got a good chance of being a descendant of Khan.


Papias "give me back my horses!"

 

[mark kennedy]

Papias

P. S. Mark wrote:

Take a look at Luke's genealogy

I hope Mark realizes that the geneologies are figurative. They can't be literal because if taken literally, Lk contradicts Mt, who contradicts 1 Cr.

That's simply not true:

In each of the two genealogies every name is different up until David with the exception of Joseph, Zorobabel and Salathiel. Therefore it is practically impossible to reconcile them by matching the persons and say, they are just listed by their different names (as we've seen many times before in the Bible). This suggests that the two genealogies do not trace the same lineage.

Since you can trace a person's ancestors through their father, and also through their mother (and the two genealogies should naturally be different) it is easy to come to the conclusion that one of the two genealogies in the gospels must list Jesus' ancestors through his "father", while the other one lists them through his mother.​

Genealogy of Jesus

This erroneous argument has been addressed repeatedly over the years and invariably is based on a superficial treatment of the text.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

I hope Mark realizes that the geneologies are figurative. They can't be literal because if taken literally, Lk contradicts Mt, who contradicts 1 Cr

.

That's simply not true:

In each of the two genealogies every name is different up until David with the exception of Joseph, Zorobabel and Salathiel. Therefore it is practically impossible to reconcile them by matching the persons and say, they are just listed by their different names (as we've seen many times before in the Bible). This suggests that the two genealogies do not trace the same lineage.

Since you can trace a person's ancestors through their father, and also through their mother (and the two genealogies should naturally be different) it is easy to come to the conclusion that one of the two genealogies in the gospels must list Jesus' ancestors through his "father", while the other one lists them through his mother.
​

Genealogy of Jesus

This erroneous argument has been addressed repeatedly over the years and invariably is based on a superficial treatment of the text.

Mark, first, I too have heard the above from literalists, but it simply contradicts the written word. They both list Mary, not Joseph, and take the geneology of Joseph. That's what the Bible says, in black and white. You can see that if Luke's geneolgy were through Mary, Luke would have noted this, just as he did in the similar case in the verse before by pointing out that Joseph wasn't Jesus' father. Can you show me any place in the Bible where it actually says that Heli was Mary's father? The plain text says that Heli was Joseph's father.

*****************************

OK, you did respond (by cut and paste from an apologetic website to the contradiction between Luke and Mt. You ignored the contradiction between Mt and 1 Cr. Both give the descendants from Solomon leading toward Jesus. But Mt has apparently cut out several people to make his 14, 14, 14 theological point work. Here they are, side by side:

Mt Gen# ...................Gospel of Matthew has ......................................1st Chron. Has:
1 ..................................7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .........................10 Solomon's son was
2 .....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah, ..............................Rehoboam,
3 ........................................Abijah.............................................................. Abijah his son,
4 ..........................................8Asa................................................................. Asa his son,
5 .......................................Jehoshaphat .....................................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6 ............................................Jehoram.......................................................... Jehoram his son
............................................Skipped....................................................................................... Ahaziah his son,

..............................................Skipped ....................................................................................Joash his son,
..............................................Skipped ......................................................................................12 Amaziah his son,
7 .................................9Uzziah the father of Jotham, .......................Azariah his son,
8........................................... Jotham .......................................................Jotham his son,
9 ........................................Ahaz ..........................................................13 Ahaz his son,
10 ..................................10Hezekiah .......................................................Hezekiah his son,
11 .....................................Manasseh ..........................................................Manasseh his son,
12 ...........................................Amon........................................................... 14 Amon his son,
13................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah,.................................... Josiah his son.


Do you agree that Mt cut out these people to make his 14 thing work? That shows it is a figurative geneology, not a literal one.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you agree that Mt cut out these people to make his 14 thing work? That shows it is a figurative geneology, not a literal one.

Papias

No. Do you admit that Matthew and Luke do not contradict one another but are two separate lineages, one for Mary and the other for Joseph?

P.S. The poll results are interesting, one man would seem to be the consensus.

 

[gluadys]

No. Do you admit that Matthew and Luke do not contradict one another but are two separate lineages, one for Mary and the other for Joseph?

No, I don't. There is nothing in either text to suggest one of the lineages is Mary's.

P.S. The poll results are interesting, one man would seem to be the consensus.

True, but that does not make it an anti-TE consensus, since many TEs agree Adam was one historical individual.