Human evolution Intelligent Design News

Adam and Eve could have been contemporaries after all? At 200 kya?

Spread the love
File:Islamic Adam & Eve.jpg
13th c. Iranian Adam and Eve

Interestingly, the people who say so are not who you think:

From ScienceDaily:

In the new research, published in the European Journal of Human Genetics, Dr Elhaik and Dr Graur used conventional biological models to date our most common male ancestor ‘Adam’ in his rightful place in evolutionary history.

The ground breaking results showed that this is 9,000 years earlier than scientists originally believed.

Their findings put ‘Adam’ within the time frame of his other half ‘Eve’, the genetic maternal ancestor of humankind. This contradicts a recent study which had claimed the human Y chromosome originated in a different species through interbreeding which dates ‘Adam’ to be twice as old.

Debunking unscientific theories is not new to Dr Elhaik. Earlier this year he debunked Hammer’s previous work on the unity of the Jewish genome and together with Dr Graur they refuted the proclamations made by the ENCODE project on junk DNA.

“We can say with some certainty that modern humans emerged in Africa a little over 200,000 years ago,” said Dr Elhaik.

Believe what you want. It’s not clear anyone knows.

Some of us think this is good news because our all time favourite palindrome (letters spell same phrase when reversed) is “Madam, I’m Adam.” 😉

As noted, Graur is a big foe of ENCODE (“no junk DNA”). In that context, see also “Another response to Darwin’s followers’ attack on the ‘not-much-junk-DNA’ ENCODE findings

Follow UD News at Twitter!

6 Replies to “Adam and Eve could have been contemporaries after all? At 200 kya?

  1. 1
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    “Madam, I’m Adam”

    The longer version:

    Madam, in Eden, I’m Adam

  2. 2
    sagebrush gardener says:

    My favorite palindrome is “A man, a plan, a canal — Panama!”

  3. 3

    An most essential part was missed out,

    “(…)It is also clear that there was no single ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ but rather groups of ‘Adams and ‘Eves’ living side by side and wandering together in our world.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    here is Another little fact from population genetics that was left out:

    Don’t Mess With ID by Paul Giem (Durrett and Schmidt paper)- video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway – Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe – April 2011
    Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2011.1

    When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....t-collide/

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwin’s Doubt – Reviews – Part 1 – by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW8SLKoSZqM

    Darwin’s Doubt – Reviews – Part 2 – by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPqN0-YiJgg

    Darwin’s Doubt – Reviews – Part 3 – by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mj1thPrSgc

  6. 6

    Madam, I’m Adam (11)
    Madam, in Eden I’m Adam (17)
    Was it a car or a cat I saw? (19)
    A man, a plan, a canal, Panama. (21)
    May a moody baby doom a yam. (21)
    A Santa lived as a devil at NASA.(25)

    Only the last two examples use no invisible punctuation. I don’t know of any palindromes where the punctuation is also symmetric. But there is no limit to the length, if one doesn’t mind repetition–a la Gertrude Stein.

    A Toyota’s a Toyota.
    A Toyota’s a Toyota’s a Toyota.
    A Toyota’s a Toyota’s a Toyota’s a Toyota.

    And of course, this amusement can’t hold a candle to DNA palindromes.

Leave a Reply