If Adam was the first human, why is the xy (male) gene 80,000 years younger than xx (female) gene.?

Question

If Adam was the first human, why is the xy (male/Adam) gene 80,000 years younger than xx (female/ Eve) gene.
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/999030.stm

Wouldn't that make Eve the first human, and who was Eve's mate or partner if Adam was not around until 80,000 years later?

Whats your point of view, & please explain why/why not?

Answer 1

Are you suggesting there were no males for 80,000 years?

Answer 2

Well, first of all, the X and Y chromosomes didn't appear with the human species. There were males and females long before the first humans appeared. It's not contradicting the bible at all since in that book some superior being created animals (males and females with Y and X chromosomes) before humans. The reason why there is a difference in the age of those chromosomes is that sexual reproduction appeared somewhere along the evolution process. Archaic life forms only reproduced by mitosis or scissiparity.

Although your intention to denounce a myth is noble, you're making the same mistake creationists do by centering everything around humans.

Answer 3

rofl. There is no way whatsoever to tell how old the genes of mankind are. None. There is not a single dating method in the world that will tell you that. Now... dating methods can tell you how old the earth is, how old the sun is, how old dinosaur bones are, how old plant life is, but it CANNOT tell you how old human genes are. It most definately cannot tell you whether the xy gene is older than the xx gene.

How do I know this? After all my years involved in paleontology, and archaeology, I think I have some kind of clue what the dating methods can and can't do.

It doesn't matter what some newspaper says. Papers say alot of things to sell papers. Its the media. Its what they do.

That article only talks about the oldest known speciman of human beings. it does not tell that the genes for man are older than the genes for women.

Answer 4

The most obvious answer is that this whole thing should throw serious doubt on both the latest theory as well as evolutionary theory as well. What they are doing is known as extrapolation from a mathematical model. Problematic to say the least. Isn't it expected that we should question scientific findings, especially when the statistical sample used is ridiculously small and the genome tree is hypothetical? Come on now! Gimme a break!

Answer 5

Mankind, in general, can make mistakes. To include scientists and doctors. I have much respect for them. I don't take man's word as perfect.

I think they should keep digging for 80,000 year old bones of a male. I'm sure it's buried out there some where.

Answer 6

Carbon dating has been debunked by many scientists and is not scientific at all but is still only a theory. Genetics is still early stages of information and theory also in the matter of you question. The theories of some are pushed too fast to prove or dis-prove peoples perception on existence of man and God.

Answer 7

Never mind that. How did the human race survive for 80,000 years without reproduction?

The data or method seems to be flawed.

Answer 8

I am no scientist, but the females must have had a killer time mating if that was the case, either that or they lived a long time to wait for the males to evolve.

Answer 9

The Bible and science agree that our most recent paternal ancestor was younger than our maternal one. Remember, all the males not descended from Noah died in the flood.

Answer 10

The answer to the question lies in the question itself. People of religion, perforce and by choice (paradox) have no avenue open to them to answer this without refuting their beliefs. Faith for some and logic for others determines their respective courses in life.