Scientific Adam?

rebel8

Did anyone watch the Discovery Channel show this weekend on "scientific Adam"? I imagine it was a re-run, so maybe someone has watched it in the past. I found a blurb about it here: http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channel/blog/2005/06/explorer_adam.html.

I am far from being a scientist, but I have to say the entire show was disturbing. I thought the National Geographic had a good reputation. Now I'm not so sure.

The premise of the how was to find out if all humans were born of one man. They said that most of the people in Mongolia can be traced to Gengis Khan (not sure of the spelling there). They "proved" this by some genetic testing that was poorly explained. The conclusion drawn seemed to be quite a leap of faith. For example, they said Khan came with his soldiers and they all had children with the locals, but most ended up being offspring of Khan. How is that possible? Of all the hundreds (thousands?) of soldiers he brought, plus the native males, how did most of the kids end up being Khan's? Just glossed over that.

They took a skull and a pic of an Ethiopian's head and came up with a sculpture of what Adam's head would have looked like. That didn't even qualify as science to me.

Then they went about trying to prove people all came from one man. Again, the science presented was murky and the conclusions drawn suspect. Perhaps there was a good basis for the conclusions, but if so it was poorly explained. They said at the end that science and the bible agree, all came from one man. Yet a moment before, they said scientific Adam had less intelligent predecessors. How does that agree with the bible???

googlemagoogle

haven't done too much research on that either, but for what i have learned there are different theories of how we developed, the "one source" theorie being the most popular afaik.

i doubt that most mongols are genghis khan's offspring, but i'm sure they have same ancestors. in fact the "adam" aint that important, but the "eve". it's possible to trace back female ancestry for millennia, due to some female DNA only passed from mother to daughter... i hope i presented this more or less correct, there are plenty of people on here who know more about the issue.

DannyBloem

There is some part of our DNA makeup that goed from father to son. There is also DNA that goed from mother to daughter only as google points out.

From the paternal DNA, it can be traced back to the common ancestor in the same way as can be done with the meternal DNA.
Both show that there is a single common human ancestor.

This common ancestor on the father side is called: Y-chromosomal Adam.
The common ancestor on the mothers side is called: mitochondrial eve.

The common male ancestor is believed to have lived 60000-90000 years ago. The common female ancestor is date earlier. That they are not dated back to the same time is very well possible.

Look for those terms to get some more info....

Danny

Satanus

This doesn't prove that there was only the one ancestor, iether in mongolia, or on the earth in general. There were many ancestors in both instances. It's just that one strain gained ascendency over the others, blotting them out. It is a matter of looking at things in a backward way, from the present to the past. If this is not kept in the proper perspective, it can easily skew the whole picture. Creationists do that when they look at creation extrapolated from the present backwards. It enables them to manufacture a ridiculous statement about the chances of things happening the way they did. I wonder if there is a term that describes this way of thinking. Labelling it would help in stearing clear of it.

S

rebel8

The common male ancestor is believed to have lived 60000-90000 years ago. The common female ancestor is date earlier. That they are not dated back to the same time is very well possible.

That is very interesting indeed.

I wonder if there is a term that describes this way of thinking. Labelling it would help in stearing clear of it.

I googled "logic errors science" and the first hit was this web site. Interestingly, they are using these terms to criticize evolutionists, but it seems most of those things apply to creationists. The term they use that fits this situation is "extrapolation". http://www.train2equip.com/20LogicErrors.asp

You should have seen the Ethiopian bit. They claim a tribe there has the Arc of the Covenant (hope I have that right). The tribe claims to be descendants of Soloman and their genes show Middle Eastern ancestry. Then they took a pic of the chief's head and computer-melded it with an ancient skull. They came up with a "picture" of Adam. It was so stupid.

logansrun

rebel,

I think they are calling this proposed common ancestor "Adam" simply due to the metaphorical connotation. No, National Geographic is not about to go Creationist.

B.

rebel8

If you could have seen that program, you would have been shocked. They kept making total leaps in logic based upon shaky or no evidence, then claiming it supported the bible. It was said several times.

googlemagoogle

You should have seen the Ethiopian bit. They claim a tribe there has the Arc of the Covenant (hope I have that right). The tribe claims to be descendants of Soloman and their genes show Middle Eastern ancestry. Then they took a pic of the chief's head and computer-melded it with an ancient skull. They came up with a "picture" of Adam. It was so stupid.

lol. yes, the ethiopian kings thought of themselves as solomon's descendants, queen sheba's children. they refered to themselves as the "lion of judah". that's where the rastafari religion comes from (remember all the zion songs... "iron like a lion in zion"). it's also said that the arc of the covenant is hidden in some church and - of course - noone is allowed to see it. ;-)

rebel8

Oh, now it's making sense with the Rastafarians. Remembering some music lyrics....so the Ethiopians immigrated to Jamaica I guess.

Another strange thing is they showed these tribesmen carrying the Arc on their shoulders. Funny they didn't bother to show a close up of it or present any proof that this is the genuine Arc. They just said, look, they have the Arc, they are legit. Seems if they're going to all the trouble to determine if these people are really Solomon's descendants, they could have at least tried to determine if the Arc was real....was it from the correct time period, did it match the description, etc.

The problem I keep coming back to in my mind is they do not have DNA from Solomon, Gengis Khan, or Adam.

NG may have done the appropriate research for their conclusions, but maybe they all got edited out. All I can say is, I'm not impressed by what I saw on the program.

peacefulpete

National Geographic, just like Discovery Channel and History Channel, have to get ratings to stay on the air. They often play drivel that caters to the Christian audience. Like any other source of information the argument being made must be analysed on it's merit not it's reputation. The magazine seems a bit more cautious but still slips in a wacky idea or two now and then.

Scientific Adam?

Share this