I don't for a moment buy into MRCA for our ENTIRE race leading back to a single male and female. A species evolves as a whole, not as a single mutation. One single mutation in one single Man or Woman isn't how a new species is formed. Though, a single mutation can easily grow and spread as as dominant mutation over time, especially if it is massively favored in natural selection . That's far from a single human that all humans "evolved" from as put forth in Genesis. The very best this argument could show is that all humans on earth should be able to trace a single gene back to a single common ancestor, and another gene should trace back to yet another common ancestor. Go back far enough, and you'll be able to trace a gene back to a common ancestor that isn't even Homo Sapien. Mitochondrial DNA, the one in your example, is found in.. uh... pretty much all life (grade 9 biology class, don't fail me now)! In fact it's an example of a gene that scientists use to show the relationships among various species.
Also, your eg of mtDNA fails with one single sentence. "Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."
So much for the "first" woman argument, just happened to be the better evolved one.
My favorite part of MRCA is the fact that in order for this to support Christianity, Y-Adam and M-Eve would have to have mated. A mathematical improbability. This convergence you speak of doesn't not for a moment have to be a single pairing of man and woman. Not to mention, we're still tallking only about a subset of our genes. What makes us Human is more than a single gene.
"... By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time, even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years)."
Talk about a "leap of faith".
Thanks for what on face value is a decent response, but one that isn't hard unravel. Unlike my initial argument which points to the Christian faith being founded on a single, and first, "fallen" man (not single gene) and woman. to which we all owe for his sin. Evolution shows there clearly was not a single first man and woman.
No first man, no fall, no need for Jesus.
Also, your eg of mtDNA fails with one single sentence. "Mitochondrial Eve is named after mitochondria and the biblical Eve.[2] Unlike her biblical namesake, she was not the only living human female of her time. However, her female contemporaries, excluding her mother, failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to any living woman in the present day."
So much for the "first" woman argument, just happened to be the better evolved one.
Quote:Secondly, at some point in the very distant past there would have been a male/female pairing that gave rise to the mutations that became our ancestors and eventually Homo Sapiens, so while they were almost certainly not Homo Sapiens there will be some kind of convergence in our far-off distant past.
My favorite part of MRCA is the fact that in order for this to support Christianity, Y-Adam and M-Eve would have to have mated. A mathematical improbability. This convergence you speak of doesn't not for a moment have to be a single pairing of man and woman. Not to mention, we're still tallking only about a subset of our genes. What makes us Human is more than a single gene.
"... By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time, even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years)."
Talk about a "leap of faith".
Thanks for what on face value is a decent response, but one that isn't hard unravel. Unlike my initial argument which points to the Christian faith being founded on a single, and first, "fallen" man (not single gene) and woman. to which we all owe for his sin. Evolution shows there clearly was not a single first man and woman.
No first man, no fall, no need for Jesus.
