If so, do you still believe the Biblical story of Adam and Eve?
2007-05-11 06:28:21 · 11 answers · asked by reverendrichie 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I know all about it. It is the proof that makes it very likely that the mitochondria was orginally a seperate living cell and was absorbed by other living cells in a symbiotic relationship so long ago that they are now considered part of an animal cell.
The mitochondiral DNA comes from the mother only and it can show if people are siblings
No I don't believe in Adam and Eve since if there was only one couple then the species would have died..one couple cannot populate a species
2007-05-11 06:35:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've heard of it, and it points to a Mitochondrial 'eve', or a female ancestor to all living himans.
But no, I don't believe in Adam and Eve.
2007-05-11 13:31:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mitochondrial DNA is only passed down from mother to child. It is not passed from father to child.
To "Acid Zebra:" What a child you are. Do your parents know you're using the computer? Apparently, you're unaware that Wiki presents various opinions. Read this, if you're able to understand the big words:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp
2007-05-11 15:00:05 · answer #3 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have, though I couldn't tell you what it is/does. I believe the Adam and Eve story as a way of explaining to a primitive people how they got there, but I'm a Christian evolutionist.
2007-05-11 13:33:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This one woman Suzanne (on here a lot too) actually tried to co-opt the mitochrondrial Eve to mean the literal bible eve.
She even linked to the wikipedia article, which was funny, because that states
"The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottleneck or first couple. They co-existed with a large human population. "
2007-05-11 13:36:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Mitochondrial DNA testifies to the fact that all are decendants of one single person, and backs up the Genesis history of man's beginning.
It's a question of which presupposition one employs, the uniformitarian or creationist.
2007-05-11 13:40:47 · answer #6 · answered by bacha2_33461 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
And just what do you think it proves? It certainly does not prove that there was not an Adam and Eve. Nor does it prove there was.
What it probably does prove is there was a common female ancestor. And tell me, how does that disprove Eve?
2007-05-11 13:43:21 · answer #7 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sure. It goes right along with the story.
If God created adam and eve out of dirt, then they would certainly have bacteria - found in dirt - in their DNA.
2007-05-11 13:42:10 · answer #8 · answered by Max Marie, OFS 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes & yes. Science is faulty. God is not.
2007-05-11 14:27:54 · answer #9 · answered by newshine1022 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I have and no, not literally...
2007-05-11 13:31:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋