Y Chromosomal Adam? Not quite.

Doesn't the disparity in time periods in which Y Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve lived lend validity to the Genesis account? I believe it does except for one thing; and (sorry Shakespeare) it's all in a name. Swap Adam with Noah and you're good to go. After the deluge a single male bloodline remained, that of Noah and his sons. However there were four female bloodlines; those of Noah's wife and the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Therefore to find the female MCRA you end up back with Mitochondrial Eve.

reply to post by Josephus

How does the fact that mitochondria are highly derived alpha-proteobacteria work with the genesis account?

reply to post by rhinoceros


By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
Genesis 3:19 NIV

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge of microbiology is quite small. I would say that if one was attempting to merge the Genesis account with the theory that Mitochondria are evolved from protoebacteria the person seeking to reconcile the two believes both to be fact, as there would be no point if either were fallacious. With this mindset I would posit that since bacteria are living things they were a direct result of the act of creation. The mitochondria which evolved from those early bacteria would surely be present in the ground which Genesis offers as God's chosen medium from which to create man.

That said I am not nieve enough to consider the Bible a scientific text. The scientific method cannot be applied to most of the assertions and accounts which it gives as we are almost entirely devoid of the capability to duplicate the actions described or the results achieved. I choose to believe that it's possible that what myself and others see as scientific inaccuracies in the Bible result not from the text but rather from a lack of understanding. It is this belief that prompted my OP, the article I read today increased my understanding of our origins. So with the scientificly validated MRCA matching the narrative found in Genesis I felt I was left with a binding tie, small though it may be, it binds nonetheless

reply to post by Josephus


The Bible isn't a science book; stop treating it like one.

Yes I mentioned that I don't view the Bible as a Scientific Text. Your assertion that I treat it like one is unfounded. I will say honestly that there are surely many scenarios which would explain the temporal difference between our maternal and paternal MRCA. All I was saying is that the narrative of Noah and the flood in Genesis would result in a maternal MRCA which predates our paternal ancestor.

how long ago are we talking as far as divergent Solomon-sons Ys versus mito eves?

roundabouts 150K yr ago, both? im thinking that was the time homo sapiens dropped down to 2,000 individuals and almost went extinct due to extreme climate change in Africa right before we spread out

reply to post by Josephus


I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

Any "contradictions" the Bible makes with science, are not a result of science negating the Bible, but are a result of faulty interpretations of scriptures on mans part,

Awesome thread,

S&F

Originally posted by Josephus
The mitochondria which evolved from those early bacteria would surely be present in the ground which Genesis offers as God's chosen medium from which to create man.

Except that the acquisition of mitochondria probably happened in the ancient aerobic ocean, not on land

reply to post by rhinoceros


Keep in mind I'm not proselytizing...but...

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:9-10 NIV

So from that I would infer that the dry ground was previously the ocean floor.

You raise some interesting points but mitochondrial dna keeps its 'genetic integrity' for longer as it cannot perfom recombination (it comes straight from mums cytoplasm) , which can (very rarely) happen in the y chromosome. This would explain the time difference .