Adam and Eve?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Adam and Eve?
<arts@arts.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Adam and Eve who? Can you give us a country?
Bruce
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
Adam and Eve who? Can you give us a country?
Bruce
-
mickg
Re: Adam and Eve?
arts@arts.net wrote:
you're very close to that line!
MickG
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
Well the records get a bit fuzzy in the troll dynasties and I suspect
you're very close to that line!
MickG
-
f/fgeorge
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:00:48 GMT, arts@arts.net wrote:
VERY BIG BUT, during the middle ages people often paid to be related
to famous people of ancient times. There is NO proven lineage that can
go back to "adam" and "eve" from someone of today's times.
IF you believe in the bible then you can find lineages that trace from
"adam" and "eve" into the roman times. Are they PROVEN, not on your
life! Are they TRUE lineages, no one is still around that wrote it
down and the level of proof is WAAAAAY beyond "I saw it in a book"!
ESPECIALLY when that book is about "faith".
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
There ARE lineages that DO go to "adam" and "eve", BUT and that is a
VERY BIG BUT, during the middle ages people often paid to be related
to famous people of ancient times. There is NO proven lineage that can
go back to "adam" and "eve" from someone of today's times.
IF you believe in the bible then you can find lineages that trace from
"adam" and "eve" into the roman times. Are they PROVEN, not on your
life! Are they TRUE lineages, no one is still around that wrote it
down and the level of proof is WAAAAAY beyond "I saw it in a book"!
ESPECIALLY when that book is about "faith".
-
Joe Roberts
Re: Adam and Eve?
"f/fgeorge" wrote:
There's that great line in Gilbert & Sullivan's "The Pirates of Penzance"...
Major General Stanley has just bought an estate. Of course he isn't
descended from anyone who lived there; he just bought the place. But now he
has a heritage:
"I don't know whose ancestors they WERE,
but I DO know whose ancestors they ARE."
Joe
...
...during the middle ages people often paid
to be related to famous people of ancient times.
There's that great line in Gilbert & Sullivan's "The Pirates of Penzance"...
Major General Stanley has just bought an estate. Of course he isn't
descended from anyone who lived there; he just bought the place. But now he
has a heritage:
"I don't know whose ancestors they WERE,
but I DO know whose ancestors they ARE."
Joe
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Adam and Eve?
arts@arts.net wrote in news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0
@netnews.insightbb.com:
I am descended from Eve - on my mother's side.
Wanna buy a bridge?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
We could do that, but it would be wrong, that's for sure.
@netnews.insightbb.com:
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
I am descended from Eve - on my mother's side.
Wanna buy a bridge?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
We could do that, but it would be wrong, that's for sure.
-
Charani
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Mon, 30 May 2005 02:00:48 GMT, arts@arts.net wrote:
No, is the simple answer.
There's no proof they even existed outside of a bible story used to
explain Man's existence.
(Apologies to anyone devout)
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
No, is the simple answer.
There's no proof they even existed outside of a bible story used to
explain Man's existence.
(Apologies to anyone devout)
-
sylak
Re: Adam and Eve?
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
No, is the simple answer.
There's no proof they even existed outside of a bible story used to
explain Man's existence.
(Apologies to anyone devout)
I don't know that it is impossible, at least not on paper. There are a
lot of odds bits and pieces to deal with. For instance, when Cain was thrown
out of Eden for killing off his brother he went to the cities of men. Cities
of men? His descendents were apparently the various craftspeople (workers of
wood, artificers of brass etc) Then there is the global flood which would
have destroyed all life except for what was on the ark. Since Noah only had
sons and there is no mention where the wives came from it is a little
sketchy. If nothing else, it is an interesting exercise especially when you
compare the Jewish, Christiona and Moslem versions of Abraham. Provinence
may be a little tough but it is still a fun exercise.
Raymond
-
CWatters
Re: Adam and Eve?
<arts@arts.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Well that depends on how much proof you want.
I've seen some trees online that claim to show a line back to Adam and Eve
but I've also seen other people point out blatent errors in the more recent
parts of the tree (say in the last few hundred years).
More
http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/genea ... /day6.html
Quotes:
Gunderson points out a couple of primary reasons we can't trace our
genealogy to Adam and Eve. First, there's not a single documented line to
Jesus Christ, on whose lineage reported in the Bible we depend for a link to
Adam. Secondly, the Bible's genealogies aren't documented and the two given
for Jesus don't even agree with each other.
If we compare the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew with his genealogy in Luke,
we find them identical for the 14 generations from Abraham to King David;
then they fall to pieces. Matthew reports 25 generations from King David to
Joseph, stepfather of Jesus of Nazareth. Luke reports 42 generations. Worse,
the names that exist on both don't match.
So, how far back can a genealogy be proven? Only to the Merovingean Kings
who ruled Central Europe just before Charlemagne's reign, 768-814 A.D.,
Gunderson said. Perhaps a bit longer in China, but Chinese genealogies also
soon run into problems with proof
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
Well that depends on how much proof you want.
I've seen some trees online that claim to show a line back to Adam and Eve
but I've also seen other people point out blatent errors in the more recent
parts of the tree (say in the last few hundred years).
More
http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/genea ... /day6.html
Quotes:
Gunderson points out a couple of primary reasons we can't trace our
genealogy to Adam and Eve. First, there's not a single documented line to
Jesus Christ, on whose lineage reported in the Bible we depend for a link to
Adam. Secondly, the Bible's genealogies aren't documented and the two given
for Jesus don't even agree with each other.
If we compare the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew with his genealogy in Luke,
we find them identical for the 14 generations from Abraham to King David;
then they fall to pieces. Matthew reports 25 generations from King David to
Joseph, stepfather of Jesus of Nazareth. Luke reports 42 generations. Worse,
the names that exist on both don't match.
So, how far back can a genealogy be proven? Only to the Merovingean Kings
who ruled Central Europe just before Charlemagne's reign, 768-814 A.D.,
Gunderson said. Perhaps a bit longer in China, but Chinese genealogies also
soon run into problems with proof
-
f/fgeorge
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:56:25 GMT, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
Vikings that then leads to the 300's.
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/genfam.htm#ancien
clicking on Viking01 STARTS with someone born in 240 and comes forward
in time
clicking on Ireland02 gives you someone that died in 357 as a STARTING
point and works BACK from there
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
So, how far back can a genealogy be proven? Only to the Merovingean Kings
who ruled Central Europe just before Charlemagne's reign, 768-814 A.D.,
Gunderson said. Perhaps a bit longer in China, but Chinese genealogies also
soon run into problems with proof
I "believe" that there is some belief in the Genealogies of the
Vikings that then leads to the 300's.
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/genfam.htm#ancien
clicking on Viking01 STARTS with someone born in 240 and comes forward
in time
clicking on Ireland02 gives you someone that died in 357 as a STARTING
point and works BACK from there
-
f/fgeorge
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:56:25 GMT, "CWatters"
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
has some that start with Adam and Eve
as described before though a grain, or a truckload, of salt is
required when viewing them as a "proven" line.
<colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
arts@arts.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
Well that depends on how much proof you want.
I've seen some trees online that claim to show a line back to Adam and Eve
but I've also seen other people point out blatent errors in the more recent
parts of the tree (say in the last few hundred years).
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/genfam.htm#ancien
has some that start with Adam and Eve
as described before though a grain, or a truckload, of salt is
required when viewing them as a "proven" line.
-
Charani
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Mon, 30 May 2005 08:25:37 -0400, sylak wrote:
If everyone was descended from just two people, inbreeding would have
been essential - and you know what happens when there's that amount of
inbreeding. Therefore, it isn't possible.
The bible talks about a "global" flood but knowledge of the world was
pretty restricted in those days.
You might find Graham Phillips' book "Act of God" interesting reading.
To me, trying to trace the impossible is an exercise in futility. I'd
be satisfied if I could get my tree back to and connect with the first
recorded person with my surname, the date of which is 1380.
I don't know that it is impossible, at least not on paper. There are a
lot of odds bits and pieces to deal with. For instance, when Cain was thrown
out of Eden for killing off his brother he went to the cities of men. Cities
of men? His descendents were apparently the various craftspeople (workers of
wood, artificers of brass etc) Then there is the global flood which would
have destroyed all life except for what was on the ark. Since Noah only had
sons and there is no mention where the wives came from it is a little
sketchy. If nothing else, it is an interesting exercise especially when you
compare the Jewish, Christiona and Moslem versions of Abraham. Provinence
may be a little tough but it is still a fun exercise.
If everyone was descended from just two people, inbreeding would have
been essential - and you know what happens when there's that amount of
inbreeding. Therefore, it isn't possible.
The bible talks about a "global" flood but knowledge of the world was
pretty restricted in those days.
You might find Graham Phillips' book "Act of God" interesting reading.
To me, trying to trace the impossible is an exercise in futility. I'd
be satisfied if I could get my tree back to and connect with the first
recorded person with my surname, the date of which is 1380.
-
Dave Hinz
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:24:48 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:
You have to keep in mind that those lines are based on the only
available information, the Heimskringla Sagas. I've tried to follow and
mpa them, and there is a ton of genealogical information in there, but
it's a single source written centuries after the facts. While the books
are transcriptions of much older poems, and the poetic form itself acted
as a means to make sure things weren't changed (unless they'd rhyme and
have the right number of syllables), it's the best available
information. Not saying it's right, but there's no proof one way or the
other.
Interesting. There goes my evening
Dave Hinz
On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:56:25 GMT, "CWatters"
colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
So, how far back can a genealogy be proven? Only to the Merovingean Kings
who ruled Central Europe just before Charlemagne's reign, 768-814 A.D.,
Gunderson said. Perhaps a bit longer in China, but Chinese genealogies also
soon run into problems with proof
I "believe" that there is some belief in the Genealogies of the
Vikings that then leads to the 300's.
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/genfam.htm#ancien
clicking on Viking01 STARTS with someone born in 240 and comes forward
in time
You have to keep in mind that those lines are based on the only
available information, the Heimskringla Sagas. I've tried to follow and
mpa them, and there is a ton of genealogical information in there, but
it's a single source written centuries after the facts. While the books
are transcriptions of much older poems, and the poetic form itself acted
as a means to make sure things weren't changed (unless they'd rhyme and
have the right number of syllables), it's the best available
information. Not saying it's right, but there's no proof one way or the
other.
clicking on Ireland02 gives you someone that died in 357 as a STARTING
point and works BACK from there
Interesting. There goes my evening
Dave Hinz
-
f/fgeorge
Re: Adam and Eve?
On 31 May 2005 15:05:30 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
there.
On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:24:48 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:56:25 GMT, "CWatters"
colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
So, how far back can a genealogy be proven? Only to the Merovingean Kings
who ruled Central Europe just before Charlemagne's reign, 768-814 A.D.,
Gunderson said. Perhaps a bit longer in China, but Chinese genealogies also
soon run into problems with proof
I "believe" that there is some belief in the Genealogies of the
Vikings that then leads to the 300's.
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/genfam.htm#ancien
clicking on Viking01 STARTS with someone born in 240 and comes forward
in time
You have to keep in mind that those lines are based on the only
available information, the Heimskringla Sagas. I've tried to follow and
mpa them, and there is a ton of genealogical information in there, but
it's a single source written centuries after the facts. While the books
are transcriptions of much older poems, and the poetic form itself acted
as a means to make sure things weren't changed (unless they'd rhyme and
have the right number of syllables), it's the best available
information. Not saying it's right, but there's no proof one way or the
other.
I totally agree, the proof as required by todays standards is not
there.
clicking on Ireland02 gives you someone that died in 357 as a STARTING
point and works BACK from there
Interesting. There goes my evening
Dave Hinz
Yes I have spent SEVERAL/MANY evenings using those databases.
-
Dave Hinz
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Tue, 31 May 2005 20:16:27 GMT, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:
Right, but again, without anything to the contrary, it's "best available
information". I have a line that's solid back to a Norwegian landowner
who bought a particular parcel in 1358; the same family still owns it
today. At that farm, they have an ancestry chart which goes back
through the Jarls of Orkney back through Bloodaxe and Fairhair himself.
Whici is interesting, but while Bloodaxe was definatly a real person,
the jury is out (and probably always will be) regarding if Fairhair was
a real person; if so, if he was just one person, and so on.
Oh, darn...
So, how solid is their information? Have any problems been found with
the data? I know the Thompsett database has some real problems, and the
guy who runs it doesn't seem to take feedback and do anything with it.
Dave Hinz
On 31 May 2005 15:05:30 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
You have to keep in mind that those lines are based on the only
available information, the Heimskringla Sagas. I've tried to follow and
mpa them, and there is a ton of genealogical information in there, but
it's a single source written centuries after the facts. While the books
are transcriptions of much older poems, and the poetic form itself acted
as a means to make sure things weren't changed (unless they'd rhyme and
have the right number of syllables), it's the best available
information. Not saying it's right, but there's no proof one way or the
other.
I totally agree, the proof as required by todays standards is not
there.
Right, but again, without anything to the contrary, it's "best available
information". I have a line that's solid back to a Norwegian landowner
who bought a particular parcel in 1358; the same family still owns it
today. At that farm, they have an ancestry chart which goes back
through the Jarls of Orkney back through Bloodaxe and Fairhair himself.
Whici is interesting, but while Bloodaxe was definatly a real person,
the jury is out (and probably always will be) regarding if Fairhair was
a real person; if so, if he was just one person, and so on.
Interesting. There goes my evening
Yes I have spent SEVERAL/MANY evenings using those databases.
Oh, darn...
So, how solid is their information? Have any problems been found with
the data? I know the Thompsett database has some real problems, and the
guy who runs it doesn't seem to take feedback and do anything with it.
Dave Hinz
-
Dani
Re: Adam and Eve?
Yes and No.
Yes in that you could alays put it in and cite the bible.
No in that nobody would accept that as a good enough citation.
: )
Nice thought though!
Dani
<arts@arts.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Yes in that you could alays put it in and cite the bible.
No in that nobody would accept that as a good enough citation.
: )
Nice thought though!
Dani
<arts@arts.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
-
Joe Roberts
Re: Adam and Eve?
Just to pop out another genealogy line from Gilbert & Sullivan.
This one's from "The Mikado". Pooh-Bah says:
"I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and
exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent.
You will understand this when I tell you that I can
trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial
atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is
something inconceivable. I can't help it.
I was born sneering."
- - -
Joe
This one's from "The Mikado". Pooh-Bah says:
"I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and
exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent.
You will understand this when I tell you that I can
trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial
atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is
something inconceivable. I can't help it.
I was born sneering."
- - -
Joe
-
f/fgeorge
Re: Adam and Eve?
On 31 May 2005 20:34:23 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote:
some lines do not match up with each other in lines on other sites.
This site in particular:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/
I have also checked out supposedly "good" books on Royalty lines and
they seem to call the same person by totally different names depending
on which line you are working on. I cannot currently say which site is
good and suspect that each site has some good info but also some info
that is suspect. I guess we are back to checking out the research of
others before we publish our data.
Yes I have spent SEVERAL/MANY evenings using those databases.
Oh, darn...
So, how solid is their information? Have any problems been found with
the data? I know the Thompsett database has some real problems, and the
guy who runs it doesn't seem to take feedback and do anything with it.
Dave Hinz
No I have not checked the sources independently but I do know that
some lines do not match up with each other in lines on other sites.
This site in particular:
http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/
I have also checked out supposedly "good" books on Royalty lines and
they seem to call the same person by totally different names depending
on which line you are working on. I cannot currently say which site is
good and suspect that each site has some good info but also some info
that is suspect. I guess we are back to checking out the research of
others before we publish our data.
-
James A. Doemer
Re: Adam and Eve?
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but if we all
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hr4ne.25$k91.22@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
"Dani" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hr4ne.25$k91.22@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Yes and No.
Yes in that you could alays put it in and cite the bible.
No in that nobody would accept that as a good enough citation.
: )
Nice thought though!
Dani
arts@arts.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BEBFDE3D000109B9F02845B0@netnews.insightbb.com...
Is it possible to go back to Adam and Eve in your search?
-
Charani
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:28:38 -0400, Joe Roberts wrote:
Just to pop out another genealogy line from Gilbert & Sullivan.
This one's from "The Mikado". Pooh-Bah says:
"I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and
exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent.
You will understand this when I tell you that I can
trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial
atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is
something inconceivable. I can't help it.
I was born sneering."
Love it)
-
f/fgeorge
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, "James A. Doemer"
<ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
next but from dozens of generations to you and I it would be almost
indistinguishable.
<ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but if we all
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
I believe it changes over time, not so much from one generation to the
next but from dozens of generations to you and I it would be almost
indistinguishable.
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Adam and Eve?
"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:kg7r919k7373621ivafr0ku8itqgs22d78@4ax.com...
Yet isn't 98% of our human DNA still identical to that of chimpanzees, or is
that something entirely different?
Bruce
news:kg7r919k7373621ivafr0ku8itqgs22d78@4ax.com...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, "James A. Doemer"
ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but if we all
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
I believe it changes over time, not so much from one generation to the
next but from dozens of generations to you and I it would be almost
indistinguishable.
Yet isn't 98% of our human DNA still identical to that of chimpanzees, or is
that something entirely different?
Bruce
-
Dave Hinz
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, James A. Doemer <ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
Nope. MtDNA has a known rate of mutation - think branches on a tree.
Looking at the patterns of the mutations, they can see a history of how
diverse two individuals' maternal lines are.
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but if we all
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
Nope. MtDNA has a known rate of mutation - think branches on a tree.
Looking at the patterns of the mutations, they can see a history of how
diverse two individuals' maternal lines are.
-
Dave Hinz
Re: Adam and Eve?
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 07:54:37 -0400, Bruce Remick <remick@cox.net> wrote:
That's nuclear DNA, the DNA that makes us, us. MtDNA is in the
mitochondria, which deal with cell biology and physiology rather than
the development of a new individual. Simplistically speaking.
"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:kg7r919k7373621ivafr0ku8itqgs22d78@4ax.com...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, "James A. Doemer"
ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but if we all
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
I believe it changes over time, not so much from one generation to the
next but from dozens of generations to you and I it would be almost
indistinguishable.
Yet isn't 98% of our human DNA still identical to that of chimpanzees, or is
that something entirely different?
That's nuclear DNA, the DNA that makes us, us. MtDNA is in the
mitochondria, which deal with cell biology and physiology rather than
the development of a new individual. Simplistically speaking.
-
James A. Doemer
Re: Adam and Eve?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3mhne.9071$%Z2.589@lakeread08...
I think that's different. I believe they are talking about our overall DNA,
but I'm not sure. I know that my brother looked like a chimp when he was
born.
news:3mhne.9071$%Z2.589@lakeread08...
"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:kg7r919k7373621ivafr0ku8itqgs22d78@4ax.com...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, "James A. Doemer"
ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but if we
all
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
I believe it changes over time, not so much from one generation to the
next but from dozens of generations to you and I it would be almost
indistinguishable.
Yet isn't 98% of our human DNA still identical to that of chimpanzees, or
is
that something entirely different?
Bruce
I think that's different. I believe they are talking about our overall DNA,
but I'm not sure. I know that my brother looked like a chimp when he was
born.
-
James A. Doemer
Re: Adam and Eve?
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3g60h3FaqssmU12@individual.net...
Ah, I see. Thanks.
news:3g60h3FaqssmU12@individual.net...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, James A. Doemer
ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but if we
all
were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have the exact same
mitochondrial DNA?
Nope. MtDNA has a known rate of mutation - think branches on a tree.
Looking at the patterns of the mutations, they can see a history of how
diverse two individuals' maternal lines are.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Adam and Eve?
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in
news:3mhne.9071$%Z2.589@lakeread08:
No. Mitochondrial DNA changes every new generation in the female line.
But it changes an exact amount, so you can take many samples and
calculate how many generations it's been since they were identical. It
produces a common female ancestor about 2 million years ago.
It's actually closer to 99%. (98.764, according to an old Discover
magazine)
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
The following statement is not true:
news:3mhne.9071$%Z2.589@lakeread08:
"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:kg7r919k7373621ivafr0ku8itqgs22d78@4ax.com...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, "James A. Doemer"
ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but
if we all were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have
the exact same mitochondrial DNA?
No. Mitochondrial DNA changes every new generation in the female line.
But it changes an exact amount, so you can take many samples and
calculate how many generations it's been since they were identical. It
produces a common female ancestor about 2 million years ago.
I believe it changes over time, not so much from one generation to
the next but from dozens of generations to you and I it would be
almost indistinguishable.
Yet isn't 98% of our human DNA still identical to that of chimpanzees,
or is that something entirely different?
It's actually closer to 99%. (98.764, according to an old Discover
magazine)
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
The following statement is not true:
-
Bruce Remick
Re: Adam and Eve?
"Christopher Jahn" <xjahn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9668CD910BE44xjahn@216.196.97.136...
Then I *DO* have an excuse after all. I told my wife it's not my fault I look
this way.
Bruce
news:Xns9668CD910BE44xjahn@216.196.97.136...
"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in
news:3mhne.9071$%Z2.589@lakeread08:
"f/fgeorge" <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote in message
news:kg7r919k7373621ivafr0ku8itqgs22d78@4ax.com...
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:35:03 GMT, "James A. Doemer"
ckdbigtoeNOSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm going to ask a question and pardon me if it sounds stupid, but
if we all were "begot" from the same couple, wouldn't we all have
the exact same mitochondrial DNA?
No. Mitochondrial DNA changes every new generation in the female line.
But it changes an exact amount, so you can take many samples and
calculate how many generations it's been since they were identical. It
produces a common female ancestor about 2 million years ago.
I believe it changes over time, not so much from one generation to
the next but from dozens of generations to you and I it would be
almost indistinguishable.
Yet isn't 98% of our human DNA still identical to that of chimpanzees,
or is that something entirely different?
It's actually closer to 99%. (98.764, according to an old Discover
magazine)
Then I *DO* have an excuse after all. I told my wife it's not my fault I look
this way.
Bruce
-
sylak
Re: Adam and Eve?
The DNA discussion is fun BUT, according to the King Jimmy version of the
Old Testament Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. I believe in
the Torah Adam had a mate prior to Eve that didn't work out. At any rate,
there were the cities of men in existence at the time that Adam and Eve were
made up special. They (A&E) had the same genetic makeup as those in the
cities of men as they interbred with them (check out the fate of Cain).
Several different lines of hominids have been identified although I expect
the cities of men were most likely occupied by Homo sapiens. At any rate, if
you are going to do the DNA shuffle you need to figure on more than just the
one couple. I think most are in agreement that the Noah flood was not
actually global. We still don't know the gene mix of Noah's family but it is
safe to assume there was interbreeding with the other indiginous peoples.
The plot thickens. Then there was Lot who procreated with his own daughters.
Good luck!! I still think it is a fun exercise; just don't take yourself too
seriously. It is difficult enough to verify genetic provinance for three
generations let along dozens upon dozens.
Raymond
Old Testament Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. I believe in
the Torah Adam had a mate prior to Eve that didn't work out. At any rate,
there were the cities of men in existence at the time that Adam and Eve were
made up special. They (A&E) had the same genetic makeup as those in the
cities of men as they interbred with them (check out the fate of Cain).
Several different lines of hominids have been identified although I expect
the cities of men were most likely occupied by Homo sapiens. At any rate, if
you are going to do the DNA shuffle you need to figure on more than just the
one couple. I think most are in agreement that the Noah flood was not
actually global. We still don't know the gene mix of Noah's family but it is
safe to assume there was interbreeding with the other indiginous peoples.
The plot thickens. Then there was Lot who procreated with his own daughters.
Good luck!! I still think it is a fun exercise; just don't take yourself too
seriously. It is difficult enough to verify genetic provinance for three
generations let along dozens upon dozens.
Raymond
-
mickg
Re: Adam and Eve?
sylak wrote:
MickG
The DNA discussion is fun BUT, according to the King Jimmy version of the
Old Testament Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. I believe in
the Torah Adam had a mate prior to Eve that didn't work out. At any rate,
there were the cities of men in existence at the time that Adam and Eve were
made up special. They (A&E) had the same genetic makeup as those in the
cities of men as they interbred with them (check out the fate of Cain).
Several different lines of hominids have been identified although I expect
the cities of men were most likely occupied by Homo sapiens. At any rate, if
you are going to do the DNA shuffle you need to figure on more than just the
one couple. I think most are in agreement that the Noah flood was not
actually global. We still don't know the gene mix of Noah's family but it is
safe to assume there was interbreeding with the other indiginous peoples.
The plot thickens. Then there was Lot who procreated with his own daughters.
Good luck!! I still think it is a fun exercise; just don't take yourself too
seriously. It is difficult enough to verify genetic provinance for three
generations let along dozens upon dozens.
Raymond
Now you know back then they didn't procreate! They Begat!!
MickG
-
James A. Doemer
Re: Adam and Eve?
"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:pNSdnQKkPo59wgPfRVn-1w@adelphia.com...
Yes, her name was Lillith. Not only did it not work out, but Lillith was
turned into some sort of blood drinking demoness for daring to think she was
Adam's equal, or something along those lines.
At any rate,
news:pNSdnQKkPo59wgPfRVn-1w@adelphia.com...
The DNA discussion is fun BUT, according to the King Jimmy version of the
Old Testament Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. I believe in
the Torah Adam had a mate prior to Eve that didn't work out.
Yes, her name was Lillith. Not only did it not work out, but Lillith was
turned into some sort of blood drinking demoness for daring to think she was
Adam's equal, or something along those lines.
At any rate,
there were the cities of men in existence at the time that Adam and Eve
were made up special. They (A&E) had the same genetic makeup as those in
the cities of men as they interbred with them (check out the fate of
Cain). Several different lines of hominids have been identified although I
expect the cities of men were most likely occupied by Homo sapiens. At any
rate, if you are going to do the DNA shuffle you need to figure on more
than just the one couple. I think most are in agreement that the Noah
flood was not actually global. We still don't know the gene mix of Noah's
family but it is safe to assume there was interbreeding with the other
indiginous peoples. The plot thickens. Then there was Lot who procreated
with his own daughters. Good luck!! I still think it is a fun exercise;
just don't take yourself too seriously. It is difficult enough to verify
genetic provinance for three generations let along dozens upon dozens.
Raymond
-
sylak
Re: Adam and Eve?
"> Now you know back then they didn't procreate! They Begat!!
And wasn't there a whole of that begatting going on, eh?
Raymond
MickG
And wasn't there a whole of that begatting going on, eh?
Raymond
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Adam and Eve?
"sylak" <sylak@adelphia.net> wrote in news:nuCdndrmJ76eFgLfRVn-
ug@adelphia.com:
They begat CAIN and they begat ABEL
The begat the rabble at the tower of BABEL;
They begat the world, every land and lingo:
It became the rage - it was bigger than BINGO!
(Finian's Rainbow)
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Art is beautiful until it becomes real or the truth. (Jonathan
Carroll)
ug@adelphia.com:
"> Now you know back then they didn't procreate! They Begat!!
MickG
And wasn't there a whole of that begatting going on, eh?
They begat CAIN and they begat ABEL
The begat the rabble at the tower of BABEL;
They begat the world, every land and lingo:
It became the rage - it was bigger than BINGO!
(Finian's Rainbow)
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Art is beautiful until it becomes real or the truth. (Jonathan
Carroll)
-
sylak
Re: Adam and Eve?
They begat CAIN and they begat ABEL
The begat the rabble at the tower of BABEL;
They begat the world, every land and lingo:
It became the rage - it was bigger than BINGO!
(Finian's Rainbow)
ROLF+
Raymond