How could Dr. Spencer Wells ever hope to identify ONE pair of humans to give start to all of us? (see more details on the NatGeo DNA project at www.nationalgeographic/genographic )
This sounds very much like a attempt to "prove" the holly or extraterrestrial start of human civilization, contrary to the Darwin's theory... If they did not mean to diminish Darwin's theory, how can they be able to trace the Pair of Humans.
They may only trace at least a tribe or two, AND THEN they may trace it back to supermonkeys and even dolphins or something in the ocean! Not just ONE pair of humans, especially and if only Dr. Spencer Wells admit that the DNA is THE biological HISTORY code, not a book of revelation.
Altynbek
2007-01-18 16:39:22 · 7 answers · asked by Alt 1 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
A good point Lanscimaster, it resolves the "pair" might not be the "pair'. And, indeed, I suppose the DNA research did not mean to call those people "non-humans" who were left over from the tree due to single lineage or born next village to "Adam" or "Eve". Let's say it was just another misformulation of the goal.
Yet, your answer still leaves the question open as to "How can they tell that a human being BEFORE "Adam" or "Eve" may be called NON-humans?"
I suppose that Dr. Well is actually looking for HISTORICALY earliest (a couple of hundred of) humans WHO left their traces in all our DNAs, but NOT the EARLIEST HUMANS per se!
2007-01-18 18:44:46 · update #1
Aren't they trying to find the origins of human DNA as far back as they can go? Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale" describes quite well that the common male ancestor and the common female ancestor, that we are all descended from, were not a couple, but probably lived about 100 thousand years apart.
Perhaps this is their goal. To find out where and when they lived.
Any scientific evidence they find will, I imagine, strengthen the theory of evolution, as has all scientific evidence before it.
2007-01-18 16:53:20 · answer #1 · answered by Labsci 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're talking about the mitochondrial DNA project. Mitochondrial DNA is found in the mitochondrion of the cell, not in the nucleus. It does not go through recombination, so it only changes through mutation. In addition, it is passed only from mother to offspring - never from father (the egg contains the cell body structures). By examining peoples' mitochondrial DNA, we can see how closely-related they are. We can work backwards with these mutations to a single source. This woman is called "Eve," not because it proves the bible, but because of simple mythology. "Eve" is also not necessarily the first human or the first homo sapien. She's just the world's great-great-great-great -(etc.)-grandma.
We can do something similar for the Y chromosome for males, though it's not as well developed.
This project does not disprove evolution - in fact, it is impossible without evolution.
2007-01-19 07:52:37 · answer #2 · answered by stormsinger1 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am familiar with all the words that you use, but I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're talking about. You seem to be upset about something, but I'm just not sure what.
First of all, it's not just the work of Dr. Spencer Wells, but the work of many researchers in many fields that have led us to this point.
Secondly, it's not a "hope to" situation, since they already have an idea about how long ago these ancestors lived. They are certainly not saying that these were our first ancestors or the first humans. We're not talking about Adam and Eve in the Biblical sense. We are saying that these are individuals that all of us just happen to have in our family tree, along with thousands of others. We don't know their names. We don't know where they were buried or anything like that. We just know what's left of them in our own DNA.
I don't know of anybody who believes we are descended from dolphins. Humans and dolphins are both highly evolved animals who descended from mammals that lived a long, long time ago.
Tribes are fairly highly-evolved political organizations, too. I don't think anybody is going so far as to say this Adam or this Eve belonged to one of those, either. For quite a lot of human history, and a good chunk of modern history for many cultures, people have been organized at the clan or village level, where all politics truly is local! They may occasionally form an alliance with this neighboring village or go to war with that one, but they do not necessarily form themselves into tribes or believe they belong to anything like an ethnic group.
2007-01-18 16:56:18 · answer #3 · answered by Beckee 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nat Geo Dna Project
2016-12-10 15:23:17 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As Paul B describes properly, there is no conflict between lineage and evolution. All people alive on earth might want to properly be the descendants of a pair who lived in reality some thousand years in the past, and nonetheless be the made up of evolution. the blunders is to imagine that this couple were the in reality people on earth ... they maximum likely were no longer. there have been many different people also alive ... yet all of their "blood-strains" only lifeless-ended in some unspecified time sooner or later. You further "Am I astounding to think that Dr. properly is very searching for HISTORICALY earliest people WHO left their strains in our DNAs, yet no longer the EARLIEST people !" sure, it truly is strictly astounding. those are literally not the earliest people. only the most present day people who've strains in all of our DNA. Their mom and father were in reality, human. Their siblings were human. The others of their village were human. the in reality ingredient particular about this couple is that of all the human beings of their time, in reality their bloodline takes position to proceed to exist on the prompt. by the way, the reason we go by the Y-chromosome of fellows (or the mitochondrial DNA of ladies folk), is that it truly is the in reality DNA it truly is promptly traceable technology-to-technology. All different chromosomes are mixed-and-matched with each pairing. I.e. in case you're a boy, all of your chromosomes might want to properly be very distinct from any of your brothers, cousins, father, etc. yet ALL of you've the very similar Y-chromosome (provide or take a mutation or 2). a similar holds for mitochondrial DNA in women folk. also, after we come across "Y-chromosome Adam", he extra than likely did not understand "mitochondrial Eve" ... they were likely separated by a minimum of 60,000 years ... so that they were no longer the "first couple." besides the undeniable fact that, after we come across "Y-chromosome Adam", then we actually have found a pair we are all descendants of ... fairly, that would want to both be that male and his mate (if he became monogamous), or on the very worst, his mom and father.
2016-11-25 19:44:56 · answer #5 · answered by scheiber 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your attempt to rationalize the existence of a creation theory is hampered by the inactitude of a viable alternative. Darwin, has always admitted his failings, and he postulates again, and again, that he is not assuming he knows all the answers. The creation story takes less faith to believe in. It makes more sense than the offering of a plausible scientific theory of evolution, as a biproduct of circumstance.
2007-01-18 20:24:25 · answer #6 · answered by persnicady 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
can u link the article? i want ot read it...
2007-01-19 16:09:35 · answer #7 · answered by bluecolouredflames 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋