"Genetic ‘Adam and Eve’: All Humans are Descendants of One Man and Woman Who Lived Over 100,000 Years Ago

According to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, Adam and Eve were the first man and woman and the ancestors of all humans. While non-believers refute the idea of a God that created human beings in the Garden of Eden, scientific research has revealed that all humans alive today are descendants of one man and one woman who may have lived at the same time over 100,000 years ago.

In 1987, studies of mitochondrial DNA (which tracks maternal ancestry), suggested that all human beings were descendants of one woman who may have lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Similar research has been carried out on the Y chromosome of men (which tracks paternal ancestry), from various places, but here the estimates of research vary quite widely—from 60,000 years to 580,000 years ago. However, in 2013, a study published in the journal Science showed that almost every man alive today can trace his origins to one man who lived approximately 135,000 years ago, and that this ancient man was alive at the same time as the woman who his known as the ‘mother of all women’, providing evidence for an ancient ‘Adam and Eve’, popularly known as Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

The research team reached their conclusions by carrying out the most complete study to date on the male sex chromosome. The study involved sequencing the entire genome of the Y chromosome for 69 men from seven global populations. By assuming a mutation rate linked to archaeological events (such as the migration of people), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.

Mitochondrial Eve
A similar analysis has also been conducted to trace back a common ancestor of all women, known as ‘mitochondrial Eve’. The DNA from mitochondria, the energy centre of a cell, is carried inside a female’s egg, so only women pass it on to their children. The DNA held inside mitochondria can therefore reveal the maternal lineage to ancient ‘Eve’, who is believed to have lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago – almost the same time period during which the Y chromosome ‘Adam’ lived.

Adam and Eve Did Not Reproduce
Before getting too excited, the research team were eager to emphasize the fact that the genetic ‘Adam and Eve’ are not the same as the biblical Adam and Eve. “They weren't the first modern humans on the planet,” reports LiveScience “but instead just the two out of thousands of people alive at the time with unbroken male or female lineages that continue on today”.

Scientists point out that this ancient ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ probably didn’t live near each other, let alone reproduce. The dates provided on both the male and female side are only an estimation. Different DNA samples lead to different estimates of how old our common ancestors really are and only further analyses will help to pinpoint a more precise date range. Variations in results are due to the fact that gene studies always rely on a sample of DNA, which can never provide a complete picture of human history.

Researchers are now working on studies that incorporate more diverse populations and are aiming to narrow the time window to a more precise range."

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/genetic-adam-and-eve-all-humans-are-descendants-one-man-and-woman-who-021536?nopaging=1

There are two adams. A small group in africa has a different male ancestor.

Would you care to elaborate?

Your very own OP supports dogblogger

>
> However, in 2013, a study published in the
> journal Science showed that ALMOST every man
> alive today can trace his origins to one man...


"Almost" has a very definite meaning, and its use in your cited study should have been all the confirmation you needed concerning dogblogger's post.

That didn't answer my question or elaborate for dogblogger.

He can speak for himself. Why make presumptions you cannot support?

The article didn't support or cite what you say it did.

It says One Man and Woman, not two. Nor two men from Africa.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2018 11:29AM by Amyjo.

What they are saying is "all modern humans" have a common female ancestor and a common male one.* The mathematics of the "proof" simply point out that others descended directly from humans who were contemporary with the "Mitochondrial Eve" belonged to lineages that died out, although their contributions to autosomal, i.e. "nuclear" DNA continue to exist. The same is true of the y-chromosome research and findings.

/grad school writing experience voice on

For not "referring" to the "Biblical Adam and Eve," the sources cited certainly use innuendos--and pictures--to bring them into the discussion.

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

/gomer pyle voice off

*And as the poster "Wichkedwitch" (loved the Oz books when I was kid) notes below, the probability they lived at the same time is infinitesimally small.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2018 06:02PM by SL Cabbie.

Who did the children of Adam and Eve marry and produce children with?

#creationists are nucking futs

Not that the scientists don't have their "late night moments" as well; this is unwarranted hyperbole:

>> However, in 2013, a study published in the journal Science showed that almost every man alive today can trace his origins to one man who lived approximately 135,000 years ago, and that this ancient man was alive at the same time as the woman who his known as the ‘mother of all women’, providing evidence for an ancient ‘Adam and Eve’, popularly known as Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

This is a bit of "junk journalism" abusing science; the appropriate wording should be "a study suggested," or "offered evidence." The "certainty" is unwarranted.

I see they walked it back a few paragraphs later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2018 11:10AM by SL Cabbie.

Click bait?

From their site:

"We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2018 11:46AM by elderolddog.

First of all, we're not talking about archaeology; this one one is in the ream of molecular biology, a "hard" science, while archaeology if it is a science, is strictly a "soft" one; actually the definition I like is "it's a discipline" that uses science...

Or misuses it, depending on the agendas of those promoting their pet notions.

Item: We are descended from African ancestry; I see Nat Geo is being promoted, and that one gives a date of 60,000 years for the "Out of Africa" migration; it's reasonable to add another 10-20,000 years for that figure (and I note from my reading that different numbers are "selected" by different authorities--and I stick with peer-reviewed science material as much as possible), and there was, apparently, interbreeding with Neandertals and Denisovians who contributed a miniscule percentage to the modern genome of those without recent African Ancestry.

Beware of salesmen masquerading as scientists...

Article makes distinction clear it isn't referring to biblical Adam and Eve. It is distinguishing our DNA earliest progenitors.

Other scientific links for sources:

https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells_2.html

"Tracking Down Our Genetic Adam and Eve"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/evolution/our-genetic-adam-and-eve/

"Adam lived during the same time as Eve"
http://www.medicaldaily.com/adam-lived-during-same-time-eve-geneticists-discover-our-most-recent-common-male-ancestor-249161

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23240-the-father-of-all-men-is-340000-years-old/

Except for Perry and his Cameroon ancestors

From one Amyjo's newest citations:

"'The real significance of the date of our common Y-chromosome ancestor, is that it effectively gives us an upper limit on when our species began to leave Africa,' author and geneticist Spencer Wells told National Geographic."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/adam-lived-during-same-time-eve-geneticists-discover-our-most-recent-common-male-ancestor-249161

Amyjo, does the above have any impact on your belief/assertion that you have no Sub-Saharan genetic connection?

My DNA doesn't carry any strains of it. That isn't to say if it could trace back as far as 100,000 or more years that it would.

My DNA reveals only 100% European. With a trace of Native American Indian from app 400 years ago.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My DNA doesn't carry any strains of it.

For the standards of the time of the test and of the contents of the database used. 23andMe just updated their geographic specificity by quite a bit for example. Things will continue to change and evolve about how we understand DNA and what it indicates about our origins.

Oh, cool.

The oldest DNA progenitors 23 and Me were able to trace when I sent mine wasn't sub-Saharan DNA. It was from the Neander Valley in what is today's Germany.

I have more variables than most people who have their DNA tested, for neanderthal. Some of them I learned recently was things like having red hair, freckles, depression, a prominent occipital bone, etc.

Also hairy arms or legs. Woof woof. :-)

The Scottish red hair isn't a Scottish gene according to the Neanderthal survey. It's neanderthal.

even if our ancestral Adam and Eve each lived some place in the world 100,000 years ago, the chances that they were a couple and progenitors for the all humans thereafter would be astronomically small.

Thank you.

A quick google search tells me that there are a billion trillion stars in the Universe. However I wouldn't be scared of using the astronomically small comparison. Because it is likely impossible, they could have lived 100,000 years, or more, apart. Another point would be that they represent the most recent common ancestor, not the first common ancestor since any ancestor of the most recent common ancestor would still be a common ancestor of everyone. Thereby pushing the mitochondrial eve into an impossible scavenger hunt.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is hugely important. It just isn't that important for genealogy.

What's it all going to mean in a thousand years, when in a hundred years we start replacing gene strands from within the 23 pairs each parent (and what will the number be up to in terms of how many 'parents' can contribute genetic material) contributes to the new zygote? If you can change the gametes to your heart's desire, genetics, as we know it, will perhaps have peaked.

Gene editing, and perhaps genetic expansion!

Jesus probably won't be pleased.

I suspect that Jesus will finally get that rest he was promised. As it is now he has to personally assemble every human's genetic code. I'll bet that is exhausting. What a relief he'll have when we start doing it ourselves.

Praise be to the Google God for those of us in the know...

Here's a summary of some "reasonable sources" evaluating the current "DNA testing craze"; they're still from "popular sources" (as opposed to "tabloids"), but they are at least generally reputable.

One serious factor that's obvious to me is that having paid money for tests from outfits like 23 and Me or Ancestry.com will automatically create a "confirmation bias" in terms of one's own prejudices on the subject and how reliable the results are.

An overview, and then as promised, I'm going to get back to some serious science reporting on Native American migrations and how studying ancient DNA is a vastly different undertaking than what is being offered by the "saliva swabs" folks.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrifying-but-not-for-the-reasons-the-fda-thinks/

This one's nearly five years old, ancient in terms of the information available, but it still offers a good deal of objectivity.

>>If there’s a gene for hubris, the 23andMe crew has certainly got it. Last Friday the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered the genetic-testing company immediately to stop selling its flagship product, its $99 “Personal Genome Service” kit. In response, the company cooed that its “relationship with the FDA is extremely important to us” and continued hawking its wares as if nothing had happened. Although the agency is right to sound a warning about 23andMe, it’s doing so for the wrong reasons.

I have no issue with using DNA findings to look for possible genetic disorders, etc. Given that one of my good friends suffers from Huntington's disease, and the incidence of alcoholism in my ancestry (that one still hasn't been "nailed down," folks, and trauma is a factor as well), I think this amounts to real progress. I am naturally nervous the information will be used by insurance companies, etc. for possible nefarious ends.

https://www.wcpo.com/news/national/how-accurate-are-in-home-dna-tests-like-ancestry-23andme

>>Should you trust the results?

>>Dr. Anil Menon, professor of molecular genetics at the University of Cincinnati, said results can differ because of the database used by the companies.

>>Parts of the database are shared by the companies, but there are also parts that are different, Menon said. He said it’s important to remember there can be discordance with results, meaning one database shows slightly different numbers than the other database.

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-dna-test-23andme-ancestry-national-geographic-2017-4

Just on general principles, I trust Nat Geo more than the other two, but this author notes:

>>Based on next-generation sequencing, National Geographic's test provides three ancestry reports:

>>Regional, which tells you where your ancestors came from more than 500 years ago. This didn't get into as many specifics in my case as AncestryDNA and 23andMe's tests did.

>>Deep, which shows your ancestors' migration patterns thousands of years ago.

>>Hominin ancestry, which tells you how much DNA you have in common with a Neanderthal.

Have fun, folks. I know Simon Southerton reported "problems" with his DNA testing, which were "inconclusive" if I remember correctly, and shoot, I could be persuaded somebody took a look at "who it was for," and decided that was the "prudent result" to offer.

I do know he'll laugh when he reads that part...