Adam of Eden - Double standards

Started by Private User on Monday, February 1, 2016
Problem with this page?


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 61-90 of 251 posts
2/3/2016 at 2:38 PM

thank you Shmuel-Aharon Kam (Kahn / שמואל-אהרן קם (קאן, i am sure you're correct and that if i had taken the time to push the "show path" button it would have become obvious there was no path. It is a pity that the software flag for connected cannot "unwind" but cest la vie.

Private User, not that i'm planning anything in the immediate future but just curious, does threatening the life of a Curator get a user banned from Geni?

Martin Andreas Karl (Dries) Potgieter, the term "day" in genesis is also very confusing. If i remember correctly the more accurate translation from the oldest versions to English is "age" not "day". So 7 (or 8?) "days" of Creation could actually cover any time period you like, 4.5 Billion years even!

Yes I meant it like that

2/4/2016 at 12:19 AM

Could "day" be translated as a negative number? Because that's what's necessary to create day/night before the sun. What about imaginary numbers? Because that'd at least explain the day when the firmament gets created.


day 1 = X
day 2 = day1+ i (imaginary)
day 3 = day2 * 2 (still imaginary, since dry land isn't firmly separated from water)
day 4 = day3^2 (since i^2 is -1 then the sun gets created before day1)
day 5 = the mess... since birds cannot be created before land-dwelling creatures are, which come on day 6, and land dwelling creatures require spine, which cannot come before fish, which must be created on day 5... maybe they were translated as a division by 0 or 0 to the power of 0 or something.

2/4/2016 at 2:18 AM

You might have something with day 5 but 1 through 4 is meaningless when "day" is replaced with any word for a time span that is not based on the solar system.








Any word for a non-specific time period works just fine.

Private User
2/4/2016 at 5:11 AM

At one certain point in history, there would have been one "Adam" who were the first man to give rise to the homo sapiens sapiens, and we are all descendants from just that man, so no matter what, it was a deviation that led the human mankind apart from the ordinary animal kingdom.

2/4/2016 at 5:30 AM

As far as I can figure it, there actually must have been a lot of ape like 'men' who gave rise to the homo sapiens that are us. If we track back our DNA to our very oldest Y chromosome male, he will have had lots of male relatives. (whose Y chromosomes will have died out.)

2/4/2016 at 5:39 AM

Private User and Roland Henry Baker, III - whose field this is, can stop me making a fool of myself here: but I'd say that the stage at which we could identify only one original entity that is our Source gr grandparent, it would definitely predate anything we'd call human.

Private User,
that is not exactly true. It seems there were a number of different species that interbred, including the rather different Neanderthals, so there would not have been one clear ancestor.

Also there isn't really a "deviation" that makes us different from the "ordinary animal kingdom". Look around you, humans are just as much animals as everything else.

Whoever is making merges in these early mythology trees, please STOP. Combining mythologies is NOT "cleaning up" duplicates.

It should be RATHER obvious, that a tree of Assyrian Mythology is NOT a tree of Sumerian Mythology, so how these two became "brothers" is a good question. When the profiles SAY this in the names, how anyone can complete a merge is beyond understanding.

Private User
2/4/2016 at 6:34 AM

Hi Sharon, yes, we can trace the path of humans backwards through evolutionary history to the origin of life. There is a charming book written by Richard Dawkins called The Ancestor's Tale that addresses this topic. It was written back in 2004, but the main idea is still relevant. Here is a link to the wikipedia page:

Now, for tracing our DNA back to our oldest Y-chromosome male or mt-DNA female. We can think of a Y-DNA Adam, but that does not imply that he was the first, or only, man on Earth during the time he lived. He is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many men who came before him and many men who came after, but his life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew.

Researchers have estimated the most recent common ancestor (Y-DNA Adam or MtDNA Eve to range around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, consistent with the emergence of modern humans. Interestingly, the age estimates for the most common ancestor for Y-DNA and MtDNA overlap. This does not mean that they lived at the same time. Possible overlaps of 10,000 years are possible. Sources: Kamin et al, "A Recent bottleneck of Y Chromosome Diversity Overlaps with a Global Change in Culture" in Genome Research, 2015, and this from Science magazine.

2/4/2016 at 7:34 AM

Thanks Noelle. Another question, while I have your attention:
=Y-DNA Adam..., simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy=
Is it actually .. 'can trace back their Y genealogy?' - and autosomal (ie the rest of the chromosomes) would be much older, if we could accurately track them?
(This may be the Dumbest question you hear all week, I know :-))

2/4/2016 at 7:38 AM

Trace Y genealogy

You all had it wrong. Men and Women are two species that have to come together to reproduce. Men with the Y chromosome determine the next specie.

2/4/2016 at 11:27 AM

Adam of Eden is my 78th grandfather – I had no idea. Apparently William Hilton of York, Maine has a recorded pedigree that spans further than I had imagined.

What you all are attempting here reminds me of my Chadbourne ancestor who in 1893 helped organize the ambitious project of the first Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago and sponsored the travel and attendance of Vivekananda to represent Hinduism. A speech written by one of my cousins, Mary Baker Eddy, was also read to represent Christian Science. Other attendees included representatives of Southern Buddhist, Zen, Jain, Islam, Bahia and others. The fruits of this Interfaith dialog are still ongoing. And it is fascinating to see how many parallels exist.

My field is molecular genetics but the word genetics has the same root as the word for genealogy meaning race or kind. And there is a biological definition of the word genealogy meaning a group of individuals or species having a common ancestry as in “The various species of Darwin's finches form a closely knit genealogy.”

Sharon Doubell raises an interesting question – Who is our great-X Grandparent who gave us our Y chromosome? In fact I am a small financial donor to a project that hopes to answer this question. If we look at the biological genealogy of all Y chromosomes of living homo sapiens was can see that they all descend from a common Y chromosome of the haplotype A0. We can also determine that the A0 male progenitor lived well over 100,000 years ago. But we have recently discovered one small exception. There were at first two men discovered who carried a Y Chromosome that belonged to a pre-human haplotype we now call A00. They inherited their Y chromosome not from the A0 progenitor but from some species in the genus homo from which A0 sprang. The current research is to study all extant examples of A00 and we have recently discovered what appears to be a Nexis of individuals living in Cameroon who are A00. And so we are sampling males in Cameroon and comparing their SNPs to learn as much as we can about our pre-human Y chromosome origins. So to answer Sharon’s question – yes our Y chromosomes came from a homo sapien who had an A0 Y chromosome well over 100,000 years ago. He would have had many cousins who died out leaving us with a genealogical bottleneck for living descendants. This homo sapien in turn was a descendant of a pre-human species who carried an A00 Y chromosome. And some A00 Y chromosomes still exist! And we are still learning…

When we speak about populations we speak about the frequency of “alleles” within the population such as accumulated SNPs and STRs which everyone here is familiar with. And we compare these derived states against the state of the ancient state of these same markers. Novel derived SNPs and STRs accumulate over time and each one has a point of origin in time and space (and there may even be parallel identical derived states of different origins). So as we look at each of these derived alleles it might be best to think of them as each having their own progenitor with a different date and place of origin. So while the A0 Y chromosome has one specific date and place of origin that is not the same as the origin of any other marker necessarily. Some of these markers (in their ancient state) originated before our species. Others are quite recent. And we keep re-mixing and re-shuffling these markers over time. So what I am saying is each genetic marker has an origin and an ancestor associated with that origin. But we as carriers of many markers have many diverse origins of our genetic state.

It is vital to distinguish the concept of a common ancestor of the state of a marker or the state of a group of markers such as the A0 Y Chromosome well over 100,000 years ago and concept that any two people may share at least one common ancestor say 2,000 – 4,000 years ago for example. Just because you and I share at least one common ancestor about 3,000 years ago does not mean that person had the same Y chromosome haplotype as you or I for example (assuming this person was male). In fact it is possible that his Y haplogroup went extinct. So instead we may want to think of the latter as the “last common ancestor” I shared with my most distant cousin regardless of if we inherited any derived states of markers from that last common ancestor. But I also have a last common ancestor that I share with everyone whose ancestors inherited a specific derived state that occurred at a specific time and place. For example I know of a specific SNP on my Y chromosome that must have occurred in a specific ancestor, Eli Forbes Baker, about 200 years ago that he passed on to all his male children. He is the last common ancestor for all of his male descendants whose ancestors carried this trait. But other traits are 50,000 years old or 100,000 years old and for each of these traits there is a “last common ancestor.” The further we trace our ancestors back the more we find that they had the ancestral state of each marker we follow. Eventually we get to a very small population very long ago.

I’ll add to this that the ~3,000 year old estimate for a last common ancestor has some “assumptions” that should make you cringe a bit. It does to a degree try to factor in random breeding assumptions and geographical isolation. But just how isolated were the Aboriginal Australians from the Aboriginal populations from Europe or South America? Did they really share a common ancestor 2,000 – 4,000 years ago? Probably not! So while this is heuristic and we can learn something from the method employed we need to carefully deconstruct the assumptions made before we employ this method to our own research because clearly we did not have random mating and we did have some very geographically isolated populations on this planet.

I had to look up a new word alleles
Thank You.

I am fascinated by our similarities as well as our differences.

This is not the artice I first saw, however it has most of the same information. People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.

I have a distant cousin we are related thru Lady Godiva my 29th GGM her 30Th. Our eyes are very close to Identical Hazel. If you pulled my eye out and stuck it in her head they would be the same except for the blood....... Ok they are really similar in the change of color and hue. Lady Godiva is the closest match we has as of now

2/4/2016 at 7:16 PM

Roland Henry Baker, III, Thanks for that interesting post.

I personally believe that the Bible genealogy "begats" do represent an early, serious, and considered attempt to construct a genealogical record. Of course, without DNA evidence, we have the problems of rapes, adultery, and adoption to contend with as corruptions of the genealogical record -- but even leaving that aside, many Reform and LiberalJews (of which i am one) are (unlike most Christians) NOT into the belief that Adam was the first homo sapiens. Rather, many of us think that he was the earliest NAMED ancestor from whom our particular lineage descends.

2/4/2016 at 8:49 PM

Private User,

I understand that you are a genetic literalist and that you believe that "at one certain point in history, there would have been one "Adam" who were the first man to give rise to the homo sapiens sapiens, and we are all descendants from just that man."

I do not think that is necessarily true. See Roland Baker's long post.

Additionally, i think that naming this first common male ancestor of homo sapiens "Adam" is a bad idea, because the Biblical Adam is simply the first known ancestor of a particular descendant line of Jews. Remember, in the Bible, there are other people running around in addition to Adam and Eve;s children. Atheists use this to point out "contradictions in the Bible" and make a mockery of what seems to have been a good, solid, genealogical record. Others see no contradiction at all, because they see the Bible as a genealogy (like Geni) that needs to be substantiated with DNA evidence when and where possible.

Other nations and tribes have their own named "first man" or "first woman." Each is the best that the people of that nation or tribe know to be the originator of their line of descent.

For example, if i trace my linage up the tree on my mother's side, i arrive at Adam and Eve. That's because i am an Ashkenazi Jew of a certain (rather large) family.

But if i trace my lineage up the tree on my father's side, i arrive at John Marino -- and the data stops there.

Were i to write a book on the history of my father's family, it would start with John Marino.

Were i to write a book on the history of my mother's family, it would start with Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve may not be YOUR ancestors. They are, apparently, mine.

Private User
2/5/2016 at 7:30 AM

We can trace different sets of genes to very far back, well before homo sapiens, even well before the male and female sexes evolved. Richard Dawkins explains this nicely [ Ancestors Tale].

Lets also consider the concept of the identical ancestors point, the last point in a given population's past where each person then alive turned out to be either the ancestor of every person alive now or have no currently living decendants. This point lies further in the past than the population's most recent common ancestor.

For example, the identical ancestors point of one generation unites the population of full siblings; an identical ancestors point of two generations unites the population of double first cousins. An identical ancestors point of three and four generations would unite the population of quadruple second cousins and octuple third cousins, respectively.

The most recent common ancestor lived with many other people of both sexes. Many but not all of these people had descendants all the way to today's population. Some of those people are ancestors of no one in today's population. Others of those people are ancestors of some but not all of today's population.

We can therefore continue to find less recent common ancestors by pushing back further in time. Eventually we will reach a point in the past where all humans can be divided into two groups, those who have no descendants today and those who are common ancestors for all living people today. Each person living today receives genes in different proportions from these ancestors in the identical ancestors point. All living people share all ancestors from the identical ancestors point all the way back to single celled organisms.

Our most recent common ancestor did not pass all of his or her genes to every person alive today. Due to sexual reproduction, an ancestor passes half of his or her genes to the next generation. Therefore, the percentage of genes inherited from our most recent common ancestor becomes smaller and smaller at every successive generation.

As a biologist at heart, I must point out how all life on planet earth is genetically similar, for example, fruit flies share about half of their genes with humans!

[ Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans]

[ Background on Comparative Genomic Analysis]

2/11/2016 at 5:56 AM

Noelle, you say, "All living people share all ancestors from the identical ancestors point all the way back to single celled organisms" and "we will reach a point in the past where all humans can be divided into two groups, those who have no descendants today and those who are common ancestors for all living people today" and "all life on planet earth is genetically similar, for example, fruit flies share about half of their genes with humans" At the cellular level do we (and our fruit fly cousins) share any DNA with any plant forms?

Private User
2/11/2016 at 6:21 AM

Hi William, Yes, we do share DNA with plants! According to this article, we share 26% of our genes with a weed (thale cress)

Though we need to be careful interpreting this information. Every living thing that we know of today on Earth shares one type of DNA, consisting of 4 letters that code for the same amino acids from which all proteins are made.
Its not a surprise that all animals and plants have the majority of their genes in common. For example, the mechanism by which sugars are oxidized to release energy (respiration) is almost universal to all living things. There are dozens of enzymes involved with respiration alone. Each enzyme is a protein and each one needs to be coded for in DNA. There are even enzymes involved in the replication of DNA itself!

Then, some genes are present but never used. We have inherited a huge amount of DNA from our past that may or may not be useful. Several studies have examined proteins which all organisms share. One is Cytochrome C, a protein involved in respiration. The number of different amino acids (mutations) between humans and other organisms has been studied. Information like this can give a numerical difference between human and plant. However, these amino acid differences (mutations) are not in the essential part of Cytochrome C that enables it to carry out its function. These types of studies are useful to tell us how closely organisms are related, but cannot tell us how different we are because the Cytochrome C works the same in all organisms! For more information:

Have a look at this articles too

2/11/2016 at 10:22 AM

Very interesting. Thank you.

2/12/2016 at 4:47 PM

Hmmmm. So we share 26% of our genes with a weed (thale cress) according to

The reason I asked the question about our plant cousins is because of the Indigenous notion about connectedness or all things - Ginawaydaganuc. Also, to the Wendat and other Haudenausonee people, the life force in all things was akin to spirit or "Orenda", a supernatural force believed to be present, in varying degrees, in all objects or persons, and to be the spiritual force by which human accomplishment is attained or accounted for. There seems to be a DNA basis for this belief. So now my next question. Is there ever DNA in inanimate things?

2/12/2016 at 5:16 PM

the only living thing that has no DNA is viruses.

DNA components can be found in space but not fully formed DNA

2/12/2016 at 8:28 PM

I think most viruses are (almost) nothing but DNA - some use RNA instead, but they still belong in the DNA "family". Sequencing the virii is a basic tool in analyzing new flu strains, for instance.
I wonder where our family trees connect....

2/12/2016 at 9:37 PM

I think William is actually asking if the rocks have DNA, or the waves.

My ignorant guess would be that inorganic material does not include DNA, but i stand ready as ever to be corrected!

2/12/2016 at 9:53 PM

there are viruses that have DNA and viruses that have RNA as their genetic material like Polio virus and Yellow Fever virus.

2/12/2016 at 11:50 PM

I'm with Alex. Waves and rocks are a collection of elements, as far as I know - no DNA. Poseidon however.... :-)

2/13/2016 at 12:26 AM

Viruses are considered by most to not be "life" because they lack one of the characteristics currently used to define life. Keep in mind, of course, that it's almost a question of linguistics by this time, or of convention.

Live is something that:
Can replicate
Can use energy
Has internal biochemistry

It is the last thing that viruses lack, they are a single molecule and have no cell wall to speak of. So they have no distinction of what happens "inside" and what happens "outside". In addition to that most viruses are unable to replicate by themselves, and they require a host to aid their replication process.

Having said that i have come across many biologists who believe that the definition should be changed to something along of:
Life is something which can evolve through the process of natural selection.

This definition would include viruses, since they definitely evolve (in fact they outevolve many other organisms, and it is hypothesised that sexual reproduction evolved in multi-cellular organisms just to combat viruses, asexual reproduction produces almost exact clone, and thus a virus can easily jump from one host to another, while sexual reproduction "scrambles" the genes, and the virus must adopt to each new host).

On the other hand "flame" or "wave" doesn't evolve through natural selection. While it does change, and it reproduces, but the "child flame" or "child wave" relates to the medium in which it exists and has almost no characteristic of its "ancestor". If you use blue flame to light something which burns with red flame, it will burn with red flame and it doesn't matte what colour of the flame you used initially. While if you take an African tribe and move them to Norway, it'll take them about 10000 generations to lose as much melanin.

Private User
2/13/2016 at 6:47 AM

Is there ever DNA in inanimate things? There is DNA within inanimate things.

Inanimate things in themselves do not contain DNA. It gets interesting when we consider organisms called endoliths. Research has demonstrated that endoliths can live within rock, coral, animal shells or in the pores between mineral grains of a rock, So, we can find the DNA of endoliths within inanimate things!

Here is a musing from my inner biologist that does not have anything to do with genealogy (yet): Endoliths also raise questions about our understanding of life. Here we see that organisms living deep within the Earth`s crust may eat hydrocarbons produced inside the Earth, in a way we do not yet understand that is independent of the power of the sun. (Most life on Earth depends on the sun for energy). This has interesting implications for life in places we consider too hostile and remote, such as Mars or even in space.

The Indigenous peoples notion about the connectedness of all things - Ginawaydaganuc is important to consider, especially when we examine the diversity of life on Earth.

Showing 61-90 of 251 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion