Question regarding the theory of common descent?

Question

I am not a scientist, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on this subject. But based on the premise that a group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor, would Adam (and Eve) qualify as a common ancestor? Is this at least a possibility according to this theory? If not, why? Thanks....

Answer 1

Yes. You are technically correct. According to science, there was indeed a couple who are ancestors to all *living* humans ... and they were undoubtedly human themselves. But, (1) they weren't the first or only humans ... there were lots of other humans alive at, and before, their time, but these other bloodlines are just not represented today; (2) they lived much further back than 6,000 years ago (more like 60,000 years ago), and (3) there is no way to tell if they were literally named "Adam" and "Eve." Details follow:

According to the theory of common descent (which would have been Darwin's preferred name for what we now call the theory of evolution), any two (or more) individuals have a common ancestor somewhere. Based on genetics, we can estimate how far back (how many generations) that common ancestor was.

We do this by counting the differences in the genes/DNA of the living individuals, and knowing the rate at which these differences appear over the centuries due to mutations.

We can do this for any two living individuals ... or for any group of living individuals ... including the entire population of living humans (by taking many samples of DNA from all over the world).

It is fairly easy to do this down the straight patrilinear path (males-to-males) using Y-chromosomes (as this is inherited only from the father without any combination with the mother's DNA) ... and down the matrilinear path (females-to-females) using mitochondrial DNA (this is DNA in the mitochondria of cells, which is inherited entirely from the mother). Doing this we can compute approximately how far back the most recent patrilinear ancestor was ... what geneticists affectionately call "Y-chromosome Adam" ... and the most recent matrilinear ancestor (what they call "mitochondrial Eve").

Through DNA, we estimate that Y-chromosome Adam lived about 60,000 years ago. Of course, if he was monogamous, then his mate is also our common ancestor as well. But certainly his parents were also a common ancestral couple to all of us.

Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 140,000 years ago. And if she was monogamous, then her mate would also be a common ancestor. And certainly her parents were also an ancestral couple.

So Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve did not know each other. And there is no scientific way to know whether they (or their mates) were actually called "Adam" or "Eve". (In fact, we would consider it pretty unlikely ... but you did ask if it was "at least a possibility.")

But yes, both of these indicate that there actually was a common ancestor to all living humans ... and that this common ancestor (having lived well within the time frame that Homo sapiens was fully developed) was *human* ... as was his or her mate.

And incidentally, just as we can do this genetic/DNA analysis for any two (or more) living humans ... it also works for any two (or more) living members of any two species ... which is what allows us to compute how far back any two species split or branched from each other. That is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for evolution.

Hope that helps. See source for more information.

Answer 2

This is probably a question better suited for the religion and spirituality board, but I'll give it a try.

Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about any religion, let alone how Adam and Eve fit into the theory. But if you are not a creationist or biblical literalist, there is the idea that Adam and Eve were the first in the genus Homo that God bestowed the powers of thought, speech, and consciousness to, an idea that can never come close to being investigated as actual fact or not (at least, not with our current technology). So I guess it could be a hypothesis (not really on the level of a theory, though), just very tough for any side to provide evidence for.

Of course, creationists and strict literalists will have none of it, because evolution is just "bad science", or some sort of trick brought about by an evil atheist to prove that God doesn't exist, or it is "just a theory, and is not a fact".

Answer 3

no, adam and eve would not qualify if it is proposed that they had no ancestors themselves. a common ancestor typically refers to two or more species, such as humans and chimpanzees, not just all individuals of one species. besides, there is no scientific evidence that adam and eve ever existed, and much evidence that counts against such a scenario (there are plausible fossil ancestors for humans, and population genetics models for human genetic diversity do not easily accomodate origin from two individuals, and certainly not a recent origin). the hypothesis of common descent is held to be universal to all life on earth. much evidence supports this view, although it seems possible that way back when, bacteria and archaea formed independently.

Answer 4

You're tangling science with religion. Since no evidence exists that Adam and Eve lived, it's meaningless to ask if they could be a common ancestor. Kinda like asking "Are unicorns the ancestor of horses?" Of course, no evidence supports unicorns ever existed, and the question becomes a futile exercise in imagination.

Science is "based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."
[source: wikipedia]

Christianity is based on dogma, the unquestioned blind belief that truth has been given us through the Bible.

These are too contrasting schools of thought - one requiring evidence and logical reasoning, the other blind belief.

Answer 5

When the term common ancestor is used it's referring to an organism, not a specific set of parents. It's saying that two related species may have originated from the same species. Here's an example, lets say that there is a species of reptile living along a fault line. The fault line splits and the land becomes separated. Each area is exposed to different conditions over time and what was once the same species develops into two different species.

Answer 6

Not at all possible. The whole of the human race did NOT come from two human parents. Just dwell on it a while. You'll see how illogical it is. The common ancestor was a species not an individual.

Answer 7

A top paleontologist found a likely candidate for the common ancestor for man in Africa. She named it Lucy and said it was a direct ancestor just behind the so called homo erecticas. One of our ancestors (races, that didn't make it onto the Ark.)
Unfortunally for Leaky the sceintist in question. She found a human skull at the same sight of the same age as Lucy. There by displacing Lucy from the human line of evolution.
So looks like Adam and Eve are our common ancestors!

Answer 8

Sorry, Adam and Eve don't qualify, they're not early enough.

It's the genetic code -- almost universal -- that leads us to believe that our kind of life originated just once. That's right, bacteria use the same codons to code for the same amino acids that we do. We can hypothesize that we share a common ancestor with ALL living things.

Answer 9

Sure - it's pretty much accepted that there's a recent common ancestor for everything living thing - including humans. Now, whether or not it's your Christian biblical Adam and Eve is questionable - especially since it would almost insinuate we were different species - so I guess it just depends on what you want to believe and how you look at it - I would look into reading about the "mitocondrial eve" if I were you.

Answer 10

You do no understand evolution. Evolution is a non combating technique pushed with the aid of 2 sexes producing offspring we call each new one a ''technology''. it somewhat is this which permits the possibility mutation, decision etc. All human beings are sort of around an identical technology and start up puberty around an identical time. additionally Africa grew to become into not remoted in fact as much as 40% of Africans have a minimum of a few non African (out of Africa) ancestry. No team of human beings are extra stepped forward than the different, in fact human beings are not from now on stepped forward than the different animal. each has stepped forward of their respective procedures. all of the rest you wrote grew to become into your unsuitable opinion written as a sort of pseudoscience built out of your unique ignorant theory related to human evolution.