Evidence for God from Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal lines of their family tree). Many studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago [1] and possibly as recently as 60,000 years ago.[2] All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier about 190,000 - 200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time."

I just realized something that could account for this. Biblically, Noah is our most recent common father because only he and his sons are the only males that lived the flood(which was total in human population). But four different females lived through the flood(Noah's wife and the three unrelated wives of the sons). That means that our most recent common mother is still Eve, which would account for why the scientific evidence says that the Mitochondrial Eve is older than the Y-chromosomal Adam(or noah). Thoughts? Was this already thought out?

I think I've read your idea about most recent common ancestors before, but I agree it's a neat idea. The only thing you have to remember is how raw those estimates are, and the wikipedia article even admits that the Y-chromosomal Adam estimate is very much open to revision because of very limited data about the whole human species today. Any revision would have to push that estimate back, if it were to occur.

Of course, that idea is hard to deal with scientifically because you would have to demonstrate the ancient history of humans in the Bible is true.

I should also note that archaeological and genetic evidence suggest both Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived in East Africa, not the Middle East.

Reasons.org has had info on this for a while now:http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=Mitochondrial+eve

Not sure if I read it right, but the articles seem to assert that Adam and Eve in the genetic context were together, but the Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve were not together, according to what we know now.

Ivellious wrote:Not sure if I read it right, but the articles seem to assert that Adam and Eve in the genetic context were together, but the Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve were not together, according to what we know now.

What do you mean?

I think I've read your idea about most recent common ancestors before, but I agree it's a neat idea. The only thing you have to remember is how raw those estimates are, and the wikipedia article even admits that the Y-chromosomal Adam estimate is very much open to revision because of very limited data about the whole human species today. Any revision would have to push that estimate back, if it were to occur.

Of course, that idea is hard to deal with scientifically because you would have to demonstrate the ancient history of humans in the Bible is true.

Noted.

I meant that the articles seemed to confuse Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve as the biblical Adam and Eve, which isn't the case (even in biblical history, as you noted). They don't seem to make a distinction showing that Y-Chromosome Adam is actually Noah.

Ivellious wrote:I meant that the articles seemed to confuse Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve as the biblical Adam and Eve, which isn't the case (even in biblical history, as you noted). They don't seem to make a distinction showing that Y-Chromosome Adam is actually Noah.

I've heard Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana from reasons.org, talk about this issue, and they did mention the differing dates. Mitochondrial eve being older.

Ivellious, if you go to YouTube, and search for " Hugh Ross who was Adam", you'll hear his ideas on this. It's pretty interesting.