Christians. Could you be wrong?

[Diablo]

But in evolution, there was clearly a first human. Just as there was a first human in the Bible. How do they contradict according to genetics ? (not using dating)

Sorry, but that is absolutely incorrect. Evolution is a micro, micro accumulation of changes over a very long period of time. It's the same concept as moving a pile of sand from one place to the other. At what point does the new accumulation become a new "pile"?

At no point can you stop the clock and say, "there! that thingy is a human".

Doesn't work like that.

That's a very good analysis. But there is a point at which a new species originates - that was the point of Darwin's essay, after all. When the genetic drift is far enough, and the animals can no longer interbreed, I suppose we can say that a new species has arisen. It may not be a precise point, but precise enough.

The whole point is that species originate because of those grains of sand.

[JesusHChrist]

I agree with that explanation. But I still want to know, how are the genetics involved incompatible with Adam and Eve? According to evolution, we are all descended from one person/ape/whatever- pick any stage in history. I'll ask once more as clearly as I can: Why is Adam and Eve proven impossible by genetics?

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...a-contest/

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.

I think the reality is a bit more complex than you are envisioning it. Think of how complex family lineages can be. Extrapolate that to thousands of families over millenia, spread across a large geography.

At no point *ever*, were their only two humans. Never happened. Nor were there ever two dogs, two cats or two wombats.

A&E is a dead duck. The trick for the non-fundy is how to reconcile these facts with all of the A&E baggage.

[ignoramus]

They estimate that it got to as low as 7 cheetahs about 10,000 years ago.
This is why they are all identical twins today. All inbred with very low sperm count.
Not the slightest difference 10,000 years later.
That alone blows any possible Noah's arc story away.
Nature takes hundreds of thousands of years for even the slightest genetic variations to occur, let alone a big enough drift to cause speciation.

[Undeceived]

Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people

At no point *ever*, were their only two humans. Never happened.

But Adam and Eve were not a bottleneck-- they were the first two. There had to be a first homo sapien male and a first homo sapien female: i.e. the most distant ancestor capable of mating with humans today. The point is, humans are perfectly capable of emerging out of one gene pool. Adam and Eve are not impossible. The only ammo an evolutionist has regarding this topic is dating-- but we know that genes are dated circularly off the assumption that evolution is true, so they cannot qualify as proof. And the claim that Adam and Eve would have lived thousands of years apart misses the point. Obviously a man of the same species (homo sapien) mated with homo sapien mitochondrial eve. That's simple logic. The idea that there was a more recent bottleneck of males has no bearing on this discussion. Should it?

[Bad Wolf]

You don't understand evolution.

[Esquilax]

But Adam and Eve were not a bottleneck-- they were the first two. There had to be a first homo sapien male and a first homo sapien female: i.e. the most distant ancestor capable of mating with humans today.

No, actually. You don't understand just how small these gradations are, is the problem. It's not like a set of stairs, where each generation is one step up from its parents, separate and distinct. It's more like a spectrum:



Can you point to the place where blue becomes green, there? Of course not, since the difference is minute and seamless... just like with human evolution.

The point is, humans are perfectly capable of emerging out of one gene pool. Adam and Eve are not impossible.

Yeah, because we're liable to take your baseless assertion seriously, after you just demonstrated how little you understand a cornerstone of basic biology.

The only ammo an evolutionist has regarding this topic is dating-- but we know that genes are dated circularly off the assumption that evolution is true, so they cannot qualify as proof.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about: since we can literally observe that evolution is true, live in front of our eyes, then any dating that does proceed based on those observations is not an assumption, and to presume that evolution isn't a real phenomenon at this point would make our data hilariously incorrect.

And the claim that Adam and Eve would have lived thousands of years apart misses the point.

They lived thousands of years apart, and also were not the only examples of the species present at the time, if you really want to persist with this argument. In essence, mitochondrial Eve could not have been the biblical Eve, as she wasn't a lone woman.

[Cyberman]

So U/D's sole support for the claim of the existence of A&E is that "it's not impossible"? Shifting of the burden of proof aside, that's a damn shaky piece of ground on which to base a worldview.

[Esquilax]

So U/D's sole support for the claim of the existence of A&E is that "it's not impossible"? Shifting of the burden of proof aside, that's a damn shaky piece of ground on which to base a worldview.

It's more likely that he believes on faith, and is now scrabbling at any form of justification for his beliefs in a scientific sense that he can get.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Isn't it funnier that you call talkorigins unbiased? is a stylized way of writing eight. It also can mean "person remaining" which itself is interesting. Your source even says "The upper part is a primitive ideograph for "divide," though it looks the same as the character for "eight.'" So it could mean both. But right now I'm looking and I can't find anything that backs up the "divide" meaning.

I repeat my request for an unbiased source for this claim. Are you going to ignore it again?

Please provide this requested source from a linguist.

Unless, of course, there is none, in which case a simple acknowledgement of that fact will do.

[Whateverist]

So U/D's sole support for the claim of the existence of A&E is that "it's not impossible"? Shifting of the burden of proof aside, that's a damn shaky piece of ground on which to base a worldview.

So even acronyms have unsupported beliefs. Personally I would never worship an A&E. Of course I'm not sure I've ever met a U/D. Is it some sort of quotient?