Explain this to me please

dna proves we all came from the same mother .
So there was one woman and one man who started this all the human race.

Please give me a reasonable reason and how it would be the chance...
All life started that way?
We evolved then man found the only WOMAN on the planet and poof we are here lol

Just seems the odd would be astronomical to find 1 person on this planet when there are only 2 in existence.

same would go for all species.

Not to add to the fact have you ever seen a human child defend itself?
it cant even hold its huge ole head up..much alone find food by itself.

So my point is i have been my head into a wall wondering this.

Only thing i can come up with is this woman and man was adults and put here at same time and same place.
as a pair.
otherwise they would have died the first winter regardless not to mention babies dont forage for food at least human ones dont.

I know the biblical answer.
I what another answer...cause there has to be 2 sides to every thing.

and thanks for all replies in advance

The answer to this is obvious.

However little questions like this are taboo amongst most scientists and those who do not believe in a creationist point of view.

There is a magnitude of proof for things that science deem illogical….

To paly devil's advocate, as it were, if an intelligent race put us here - it stands to reason they would put us here together.

reply to post by TheAmused


Scientists today agree that only one human male and one human female are the ancestors of the modern living human race. Of course that doesn't mean they didn't have parents. They did.

That is a very good point. Do ape babies take care of themselves or are they cared for by their parents? Are they born foraging for food? No. but they are born a bit more advanced than human babies.

It could still mean we are related to apes as we share 99% dna but I also think humans were "created" from what already existed on earth and mixed with the "gods" dna. Nurtured in a monitored setting until of age then turned out of the garden.

Understand what I am saying. I don't believe we evolved FROM apes but our dna was lended to us by scientific means. We are a created species. The big questions is who or what species created us? Some species who is way more advanced than our present earth culture, thats who. Call it what you want, aliens/god. It doesn't matter. The 'creators" had to have a complete grasp and understanding of dna, cloning and breeding.

Its like this. There was never only one human. Populations developed alongside each other. There were always other members of the opposites sex around since we evolved together.

Now, i read once there was some man who somehow managed to pass on his DNA to EVERYONE. This only means that he was a player and like his children and grandchildren were players. Bow chika wow wow.

Now, you could have, instead of posting a thread about it, done some research first.

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by TheAmused

 

Scientists today agree that only one human male and one human female are the ancestors of the modern living human race. Of course that doesn't mean they didn't have parents. They did.

And to clarify this, if I'm not misunderstanding the reference - 'mitochondrial Eve' and the corresponding male ancestor of all currently-living people did not live at the same time. The tracking back to common ancestors on the male/female side refers to different bottlenecks of human population thousands of years apart from which human descent can be established (barring updates I'm not aware of as yet).

What surprises me about us having one original mother is that science says that for a specie to be viable, you need 25 of each gender, at a minimum.

Were humans different then?, or is the actual humanity the result of inbreeding, since the "first" families HAD to be very closely related.

In substance, we all are rednecks!!!

reply to post by TheAmused
From an evolutionary standpoint, it's not that complicated - the population would have lived/evolved in the same area, so there would be no need for them to cross the world looking for one another.

Granted, I've got my own issues with the theory of evolution, but this wouldn't be one of them.

I think that when they say we all came from the same mother, it means that we all have a common genetic/chemical source, that can only be broken down so far.

I mean, how far can you break down some prehistoric goo until you conclude that we all came from it?

3 Words : Ancient Alien Theory

Originally posted by Praetorius

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by TheAmused

 

Scientists today agree that only one human male and one human female are the ancestors of the modern living human race. Of course that doesn't mean they didn't have parents. They did.

And to clarify this, if I'm not misunderstanding the reference - 'mitochondrial Eve' and the corresponding male ancestor of all currently-living people did not live at the same time. The tracking back to common ancestors on the male/female side refers to different bottlenecks of human population thousands of years apart from which human descent can be established (barring updates I'm not aware of as yet).

Precisely. And to further clarify (sorry )

The MRCA of everyone alive today could thus have co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of a subset of people alive today. The existence of an MRCA does therefore not imply the existence of a population bottleneck or first couple.

Yes, dosnt seem so strange.
I just read something about people with blue eyes all came from one person that have a mutation. Brown eyes are normal, blue eyes are actually a defect(un-beneficial mutation) in the dna code

I agree the whole scenario is odd. If you believe in evolution, there could be no way that dna could really point to a single man and woman. Logically, if you beleive in evolution, the dna should point to a group of people, and before that should point to a group of prehumans. While scientist say we share alot of dna with animals, they cannot explain why there is still no evidence of a pure evolution of mankind. It does appear that we were possibly genetically altered at one point in time, or created out of organic building blocks. Either way, I feel that the evidence points to an intelligent creator. That may be god, or another alien, or mother species. I don't know, I doubt anybody really does.

Also, look at the banana. That fruit appears as genetically altered as we do.

Wow, it's pretty sad to see how many people don't understand evolution at all. That's not how it worked at all dude.. You are just completely misunderstanding the concept of "Mitochondrial Eve". There weren't 1 man and 1 female who had to magically find each other across the whole world. They weren't the only humans alive at the time, that doesn't even make sense... that's creationism not evolution. She could mate with any male of her parents' species that were living all around her, she didn't have to search the world for one special male.

Please at least read everything here:

en.wikipedia.org...
evolution.berkeley.edu...

"Common fallacies

Not the only woman
One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. There may have been many other women alive at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, those lines of descent included at least one male, who do not pass on their mother's mitochondrial DNA, thereby breaking the line of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[10]

Not a contemporary of "Adam"
Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier"

reply to post by darkest4


You know this was a thread asking to have it explained. You dont have to be be so mean, just explain it nicely.

MEANY!

reply to post by remyrange


I'm telling him he is misunderstanding it and linking him to where he can be educated, how is that mean?
Cause I said its sad how many people misunderstand evolution? Well, it is sad, it's not meant to be a "diss", it's just a tragedy that people are basing their world views/religions/life decisions around misunderstandings or poor education by their teachers.

reply to post by darkest4

OK, I'm glad that you redirected him, I just feel that you were kinda mean in your responce. Maybe you didn't mean for it come off that way, its just the way I read it.

did i miss something, when did anyone say we came from one man and one women

DNA also proves that most(probably all) life on earth, human and non-human, are of common decent.

So, while you like the DNA proofs that can be molded into your beliefs, keep in mind it's hypocritical to cast aside those that don't even though they've lived up to the same scientific standards.

Anyways, instead of just using your vague understandings to make your point, research them yourself and see where that takes you.

A few links to start.
Mitochondrial Eve
Y-chromosomal Adam
Biological Adam and Eve

3 completely neutral links, not spinning it one way or the other. Good reads if you're actually interested in the topic.

Also, for clarification, they are called Adam and Eve as a homage to the Names in the christian origin story, they aren't actually talking about the same characters. Christian genesis story is a story, this is history with the names inspired off the story.

*Morning post, in addition to last nights*

Originally posted by TheAmused
Only thing i can come up with is this woman and man was adults and put here at same time and same place.
as a pair.
otherwise they would have died the first winter regardless not to mention babies dont forage for food at least human ones dont.

No, they didn't come as a pair, they were different places and times. But they both had parents, probably siblings, ect. They didn't poof into existence, they weren't one of a kind. It's just survival of the fittest, over many generations, it ended up M.Eve's family line(Though diluted by breeding with other males at the time, from both her and her children) stayed alive.

[edit] Not a contemporary of "Adam" Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.[12]

Originally posted by TheAmused
I know the biblical answer.
I what another answer...cause there has to be 2 sides to every thing.

The 'biblical answer' is largely incompatible with the DNA evidences we have. For example, this specific case gives us a rough time frame of M.Eve and Y.Adam, that's over 10 times older than what the bible provides as possible for the age for the whole human race. Along with this case being specific in that they weren't the first humans either. And other DNA evidences such as our cousin relation with the great apes.

When I was younger, I was told about how DNA evidence proved that there were originally only 1 man and 1 woman like the bible told, but that's a drastic stretch from the truth. That's not what it says, you have to do some harsh simplifying and altering to get it to coincide with the genesis account.

However, there's far more than two sides. The scientific side I've provided is supported by all the evidence, and while some details may be somewhat unsettled (easy to expect from judging such an old event by the DNA of their distant descendants), but it's overall supported by the scientists that work in those fields.

If the bible has it's own side because it's written in a religion, and loosely matches the story, I'd imagine all the other religions that talk about 1 original man and women should be equally supported by this.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, if this knowledge we have of our DNA supports the biblical account, it supports most of those mythologies as well. But none of them give the exact(or even close) story science tells. So truely, it supports none of them.