Roots of human family tree are shallow (agrees with the Bible)

by Deputy Dog 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Swan

  I don't understand. That article says nothing about the Bible or Adam and Eve. It is a hypothesis based on a mathematical model.

  It does talk about a common ancestor in Taiwan, Malaysia, or Siberia, not the Garden of Eden in Mesopotamia. (Wouldn't it be a hoot though if it was discovered we were all "Made in Taiwan")?

  It talks about origins in Africa more than 100,000 years ago. But the interconnections, basically, the number of ancestors a person can have mathematically, equals the population at approximately 3000 years ago, not 4500 or 6000 years ago.

  Also, the same ancestors are repeated in a persons family tree. So we are one big giant family. We already knew that.

  That's what the article is saying.

  Tammy
• 

  skeptic2

  A little off topic, but here are a some pictures of skulls from my favorite hominid homo sapiens
  Archaic Homo Sapiens from Broken Hill Mine, Kabwe, Zambia, Africa; 125,000 years old
  
  
  Archaic Homo Sapiens from Broken Hill Mine; 30,000 - 40,000 years old
  
  
  
  On the left more modern European Homo Sapiens, on the right Archaic Homo Sapiens from Qahzeh, Middle East, ~90,000 years old
• 

  rebel8

  They have kept changing their theories so often through the years.

  My understanding is that it wasn't a case of individuals changing their minds, but different scientists have created different theories--much like the many different theories each individual religious leader created on the same topic....and even within each religious group, different leaders have different ideas.
• 

  Gill

  What happened to the 'Mitochondrial DNA' Theory? According to this theory, we are all related to 7 females who lived in the middle east many thousands of years ago.
• 

  skeptic2

  "They have kept changing their theories so often through the years."
  Thats kind of how science works... it doesnt matter how much you like a particular idea, if new evidence comes to light that doesnt fit, then you have to modify your idea to fit the new evidence as well as old. That way you always have the best possible explanation given the facts. Science is not at all analogous to religion, and neither are scientists analogous to religious leaders. Most religious leaders start off with what they have decided through faith is the best possible explanation, then refute any evidence that disagrees.
• 

  skeptic2

  Gill - I think you're referring to the idea of the Mitochondrial Eve, rather than Mitochondrial DNA.