DECEMBER 13, 2002

National Geographic reported today that Geneticist Spencer Wells has discovered that "all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago." Naturally, the genetic findings do not agree with archeological findings.

Are we getting closer the discovery that mankind descended from an 'Adam"? or is science again clutching at straws? How would this affect the long-debated creationism v. evoltion theories?

The link to the article is provided below:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

[This message was edited by vedere on 12-13-02 at 07:21 PM.]

First of all, it is well to keep in mind two statements made in the article:

"His work adds to an already crowded field of opposing hypotheses proposed by those who seek answers in 'stones and bones' . . . ."

And

"Of course, not everyone agrees with him."

Only time and further investigation will determine how valid his ideas are.

quote:

---

Are we getting closer the discovery that mankind descended from an 'Adam"? or is science again clutching at straws? How would this affect the long-debated creationism v. evoltion theories?

---

If by "Adam" you mean the Biblical Adam, then, No.

Science does not clutch at straws. Science does science, which is always an ongoing pursuit for knowledge and truth. That it makes mistakes, runs into blind corners, or is overturned from time to time is just the nature of doing the business of science.

Any effect it would have on the creation V. evolution issue is solely up to the creationists. It is they that have a problem with what science says. Science does not concern itself with religious matters unless, as is the case with creation "science," it attacks and misuses science to advance its goals.

From the article: "While the most recent male common ancestor identified through the y-chromosome lived 60,000 years ago, the most recent female common ancestor traced through mitochondrial DNA lived around 150,000 years ago."

It's very important to note the phrase 'most recent common ancestor'. There were humans before the hypothetical common ancestor. (If 'Adam' had happened to have an only son, that son would be our most recent male common ancestor.) As with 'Mitochondrial Eve', the Genesis scenario is supported only in the misleading nickname given. Both these most recent common ancestors would have lived at a time when the human population was so small, an ‘evolutionary bottleneck’, that they could have a disproportionate effect on all subsequent humans.

In actuality, refering to Adam and/or Eve has no bearing on the Biblical personalities.

I have found that referring to these two names often puts things into the proper perspective as the beginning of humankind, without regard to how they became the first of the species. So to speak, it becomes an Adam or an Eve.

Apologies if you have, but I wonder if you've got the point that these two most recent (male/female) common ancestors that we're discussing are emphatically not the beginning of humankind. There were many humans before them.

Although it is true that this field has been excessively saturated, what is wrong with approaching an old problem from a new angle? In their days, Copernicus and Galileo were probably called scientific heretics because they sought after truth in their fields of study.

Spencer Wells, Ph.D., has used two characteristics of DNA, being the factors of the y-chromosome and mitochrondia, instead of the commonly used x-chromosome. His research centers on molecular biology and has discovered that mutations happen more often in the material that he has selected as his subject matter.

His work can be viewed as a genetic odyssey. By looking at an old problem from a new perspective, Dr. Wells has been able to construct a biological clock.