Marriage as it was in the beginning, Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? How come with recent DNA studies it shows that all of mankind descended from one female from Africa? Maybe her literal name isn’t Eve, but science has dug up evidence that we have a single biological ancestral matriarch. Unfortunately, DNA can’t be used to prove that there was also one man.
She is called Mitochondrial Eve. If you want a couple from whom all living humans are descended, the just think about M-Eve’s parents.

The male equivalent is Y-Chromosome Adam, who lived many thousands of years later. Again, his parents would also be a potential pair ancestral to all living humans.

rossum
 
She is called Mitochondrial Eve. If you want a couple from whom all living humans are descended, the just think about M-Eve’s parents.

The male equivalent is Y-Chromosome Adam, who lived many thousands of years later. Again, his parents would also be a potential pair ancestral to all living humans.

rossum
Ros,

I lose interest in a request for a source for science and then am referred to wikipedia. This means that I have to start reading everything for the bias, read it for what is and is not true, ask myself several questions until I find a source that makes sense. It gives my brain a charley horse.

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth only beliefs and this is one of them.

I found a reference that I looked at and when I see “hypotehsis”…then this is not fact only speculation. To form opinion of speculation is as much fun as contemplating my navel.
  1. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam The Genetic Genealogist
thegeneticgenealogist.com/2007/07/20/mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosomal-adam/
In the past decade, scientists have repeatedly referred to ‘Mitochondrial Eve‘, the **(hypothesized) **source of mtDNA for all humans alive today.
and here…

books.google.com/books?id=5tP5Wb92wT4C&dq=The+Real+Eve:+Modern+Man%27s+Journey+Out+of+Africa+2003&hl=en&ei=E-_cTuCTNaXo0QHWy-F7&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
Much of Oppenheimer’s** theory **relies on recent advances in studies of mitochondrial DNA, inherited through the maternal line, and Y chromosomes, inherited by males from their fathers.
Genetics is looking and sepculating not stating fact. It is interesting and remains a Hypothesis & Theory, just like evolution, a Theory.
 
Do you have to believe in Adam and Eve?

It is not often that I find myself in agreement with Professor Jerry Coyne, but this is one of those occasions. Over at his Website, Why Evolution is True, Professor Coyne has written a lengthy post entitled, Catholics proclaim complete harmony between science and their faith, trot out Aquinas again, in which he cites (without naming me) a post of mine from 2010 on Why Aquinas’ views on Scripture would have prevented him from becoming a Darwinist.
I stand by the conclusions I reached in that post, regarding Aquinas’ views on God, creation and Scripture, and I share Coyne’s sense of indignation with the following statement, made by a prominent Catholic theologian from the University of Oxford and a scientist from the American Museum of Natural History:
Evolutionary biology and faith in God are not incompatible, two professors asserted at the international Rimini Meeting, an event that brings hundreds of thousands of people to Italy.
“A proper understanding of creation, especially an understanding set forth by a thinker such as Thomas Aquinas, helps us to see that there is no conflict between evolutionary biology or any of the natural sciences and a fundamental understanding that all that ‘is’, is caused by God,” Professor William E. Carroll of Oxford University’s theology faculty told CNA Aug. 22…
Professor Carroll was a keynote speaker at the Rimini Meeting, an international gathering organized by the Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation…
Sharing a platform with him was Professor Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Unlike Aquinas, I happen to be a Catholic who believes in common descent. However, I know enough about the history of the Church’s teachings on human origins over the last 2,000 years, to realize that some things are not up for grabs for Catholics, as Professor Carroll seems to think they are. The contemporary scientific consensus on evolutionary biology clearly contradicts Catholic teaching on several points – notably, Adam and Eve. I thought I’d assemble the evidence here, and let readers judge for themselves.
As I’ll show below, the Catholic Church is still committed to the view that the human race is descended from a single original pair, Adam and Eve, and from nobody else. I’d also like to mention that Fr. Brian Harrison, a conservative Catholic priest who is Associate Professor of Theology, at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, has written a two part article entitled, Did Woman Evolve From the Beasts? – A Defence of Traditional Catholic Doctrine – Part I and Part II, has gone further, and argued that argued that Catholics are, to this day, bound to believe as infallible Catholic teaching the proposition that Eve was formed from Adam’s side, and that IF Adam was descended from the animals, the final step in his physical evolution must have been accomplished not naturally, but by supernatural intervention: “Hence, … a last-minute supernatural intervention at the moment of Adam’s conception would have been necessary in order to give his embryonic body the genetic constitution and physical features of a true human being.” Fr. Harrison defends the same view in another article entitled, Did the Human Body evolve naturally? A Forgotten Papal Declaration. As I am not a theologian, I will content myself with presenting the evidence, so that people can judge the matter for themselves. I will say, though, that Fr. Harrison makes a very good case for his view that while Adam may have evolved, Eve was created.

more…
 
Genetics is looking and sepculating not stating fact. It is interesting and remains a Hypothesis & Theory, just like evolution, a Theory.
This is from TalkOrigins talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html:

The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact (unless something like a multiple-origins theory of human evolution i.e. the human species arose independently in different geographically separated populations, and that the present-day ease of interbreeding is the result of a remarkable convergent evolution, is true. Few people subscribe to the multiple-origins theory, and the Mitochondrial Eve observation is a refutation of multiple-origins).

There follows a very simple explanation of the maths. It just shows that there had to be a woman who was the maternal ancestor of everyone alive today. It’s not a theory in either sense of the word.

I think that they used ‘hypothetical’ in the example you highlighted because it cannot be narrowed down to a specific woman and indeed, the identity of the woman has changed over time. We just know that a woman matching the description must have existed. But there was nothing special about her.

And again, using some very basic maths, we can see that the paternal ancestor (Y-chromosome Adam) lived a lot later than she did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top