Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LucidElement

Mysterious Extinction

28 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

LucidElement

Can someone help me better understand where this article is going?

If this is deemed true this will alter the stories of the Bible. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and breakdowns on this.

Quote

All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
49 minutes ago, LucidElement said:

Can someone help me better understand where this article is going?

If this is deemed true this will alter the stories of the Bible. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and breakdowns on this.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

Interesting article, I have not heard of said paper it's based upon. Maybe this should be in the scientific section or are you looking for a religious vs skeptical point of view? 

In my very unqualified opinion I think it's incorrect, it doesn't make sense. Obviously of you go back through the evolution of an animal there is a common ancestor. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DebDandelion

Interesting read. Religious point of view my internal sarcastic person wants to go 'duh'.

My logical side says- further investigation and findings needed.

So I am settling on ' mmmmm, interesting read... Worth following up on'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
1 hour ago, LucidElement said:

Can someone help me better understand where this article is going?

If this is deemed true this will alter the stories of the Bible. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and breakdowns on this.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

I believe that we can all be traced back to these individuals, it doesn't mean they were the first or the only ones, it just means their genes have managed to be passed on for many, many generations.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

This is obvious bullshii. 9 out of 10 animals existing today did not all mysteriously Spring into existence from a common ancestor a 100000 to 200000 years ago. Gorillaz alone diverge from other primates 3.2 million years ago. We know this from fossil remains.

And while mitochondrial eve is thought to be around 150kya, y chromosome Adam could be anywhere from 180kya to 550kya.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

I am curious about the findings and if they are valid, as it reveals some new things about the past we seem not to know. If true, I wonder what happened, I wonder if they have data on where they were on the planet. What were they? Homo Sapiens? We have heard of other near extinction events seemingly in other branches of the evolutionary trail like this. Maybe instead of being alone, they are a leap in change and their brats were the first Sapiens? Just wondering. It is an interesting article.

Why the first thought is what would the Bible say puzzles me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
5 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

I am curious about the findings and if they are valid, as it reveals some new things about the past we seem not to know. If true, I wonder what happened, I wonder if they have data on where they were on the planet. What were they? Homo Sapiens? We have heard of other near extinction events seemingly in other branches of the evolutionary trail like this. Maybe instead of being alone, they are a leap in change and their brats were the first Sapiens? Just wondering. It is an interesting article.

Why the first thought is what would the Bible say puzzles me. 

Read the link Stiff posted. Shows the many errors and poor assumptions made.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

I did. This needs a lot of review and fact checking. It is interesting if true, though. It sounds scientific until you hear the rebuttal.

One can say oh it was adam and eve, or simply the birth of the first kid with the right genes turning up in a large tribe. We assume a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
6 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

I did. This needs a lot of review and fact checking. It is interesting if true, though. It sounds scientific until you hear the rebuttal.

One can say oh it was adam and eve, or simply the birth of the first kid with the right genes turning up in a large tribe. We assume a lot.

This is the main problem here;

Moreover, the same is true of nine out of every 10 animal species, meaning that nearly all of Earth’s creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang-like event.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

I would have thought that if this was true we would have had indications before, so it needs a heavy bit of reviewing and checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coil
Quote

"What caused animal life on Earth to be almost completely renewed such a short time ago? For now, it remains a mystery."

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve


When Nature sees that the evolution of animals can not move on, it sweeps away the created and begins a new round of animal species.
What is Nature going to? I do not want to repeat myself, but earlier Nature and creatures were eternal, lived in harmony and beauty( Para-Prakriti -Pure Nature) and Nature remembers it well and longs for this happy life and when she sees that the creatures cannot fulfill her plans, she prepares new creatures and gives them a chance to do it.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Not to give validation to the paper, but here is my take.

My layman's understanding of evolution of species is that it is based on change over time. maybe punctuated by rapid change.   Individuals that  best fit their environment produce the most offspring.  There are a lot of statistical studies that show the results of this over hundreds of generations.  Bacteria has been a study subject because the reproductive cycle is so short.  It is surprising how in a few hundred generations, a successful mutation can come to dominate a population.  

A population traced back to common ancestors does not imply that the ancestors were the sole survivors of a catastrophe.  In fact, sole survivors would probably provide too narrow a gene pool to survive the next catastrophe. Rather individuals with a useful adaptation breed with the existing stock and pass to future generations that dominant trait.  That could have been anything, better adaptation to a climate change, solar radiation fluctuation, gas balance in the atmosphere, better digestive enzymes whatever.  Most likely different traits for every species in this study.   And it seems that 100,000 years uncertainty range might be long enough for some sort of gradual change to effect many species.  Those 3.5 million year old gorillas of imaginarynumber 1 have likely survived dozens of gradual changes by altering  tiny fractions of a % of their DNA.  And they were not necessarily the same timing or same events that affected a human population in a different area.

I am not even sure if the so called "Adam" and "Eve" even had to live in the same generation or been in contact.  Each passed their useful trait on to offspring that eventually bred and combined the two effective trait into offspring that were more successful yet.

The paper if it is validated may not be all that surprising and certainly  does not imply any sort of biblical event or seminal big bang event.  It seems very consistent with gradual environmental changes.  What it may give an inkling about is how frequently truly beneficial changes happen to species.  Every couple of hundred thousand years a mutation occurs with positive rather than negative consequences.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

"If this is deemed true this will alter the stories of the Bible."

The Bible is mostly made up propaganda. The creation of man is a ripoff of the Sumerian creation myth involving a pantheon of Gods.

I heard of the bottle neck of humans hypothesis where some unknown disaster reduced the population about 150,000 years ago. But the article states all species? I find that highly dubious. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
4 hours ago, LucidElement said:

Can someone help me better understand where this article is going?

If this is deemed true this will alter the stories of the Bible. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and breakdowns on this.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

I finally tracked down the original paper:  it is about mitochondria used to identify species.  Most of what FoxNews says is a misrepresentation.

"About 100,000 years" can be a lot of time.  On average, a miscopying of DNA bar codes in humans occurs about once every 700 to 1000 years.  Keep that in mind.

About 74,500 years ago, Mt. Toba erupted in Indonesia.  Mt. Toba is a super-volcano, rivaling Yellowstone.  It is believed that human populations may have shrunk to a few thousand as a result of it.  Those few thousand lived in India, Africa, possibly the Near East.  There were seven population clusters (See Seven Daughters of Eve).  We are all descended from them.  Considering the accuracy of genetic dating, 74500 is about the same as 100,000.  We could be talking about the same event.

 

But the article is talking about how barcode uniformity develops and that has nothing to do with Mt. Toba.

Lets take you as an example:  you have two parents, and they each have two parents, and they each have two parents, and they each have two parents and by the time you reach your gggggggggggggggg-grandparents, you have 129,032 ancestors.  That's about 500 years.  Go back a thousand years and you had 250,000 ancestors and at 2000 years, it was a million.  You're soon going to run out of ancestors.  UNLESS:  you are descended from the same people through multiple lines.

It doesn't matter who you are, you're inbred.  So if just one of your ancestors 50,000 years ago had a trait and if that trait gave a 1% advantage in survival, the odds are that everybody on earth has it now.  But if that trait gave no advantage, then random evolution has probably eliminated it from the gene pool.  And that's how uniformity is achieved.

And another thought:  Mitochondrial Eve might have lived 100,000 year ago, while Evolutionary Adam lived around 50,000 years ago.  Nothing whatever says they ever knew each other, even in a biblical sense.

Doiug

Stoeckle, M. Y. and D. S. Thaler.  2018.  Why should mitochondria define species?  Human Evolution, 33 - n. 1-2(1-30) - 2018, 30p.

 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/06/13/276717.full.pdf     http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/276717     11/26/2018.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
8 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Not to give validation to the paper, but here is my take.

My layman's understanding of evolution of species is that it is based on change over time. maybe punctuated by rapid change.   Individuals that  best fit their environment produce the most offspring.  There are a lot of statistical studies that show the results of this over hundreds of generations.  Bacteria has been a study subject because the reproductive cycle is so short.  It is surprising how in a few hundred generations, a successful mutation can come to dominate a population.  

A population traced back to common ancestors does not imply that the ancestors were the sole survivors of a catastrophe.  In fact, sole survivors would probably provide too narrow a gene pool to survive the next catastrophe. Rather individuals with a useful adaptation breed with the existing stock and pass to future generations that dominant trait.  That could have been anything, better adaptation to a climate change, solar radiation fluctuation, gas balance in the atmosphere, better digestive enzymes whatever.  Most likely different traits for every species in this study.   And it seems that 100,000 years uncertainty range might be long enough for some sort of gradual change to effect many species.  Those 3.5 million year old gorillas of imaginarynumber 1 have likely survived dozens of gradual changes by altering  tiny fractions of a % of their DNA.  And they were not necessarily the same timing or same events that affected a human population in a different area.

I am not even sure if the so called "Adam" and "Eve" even had to live in the same generation or been in contact.  Each passed their useful trait on to offspring that eventually bred and combined the two effective trait into offspring that were more successful yet.

The paper if it is validated may not be all that surprising and certainly  does not imply any sort of biblical event or seminal big bang event.  It seems very consistent with gradual environmental changes.  What it may give an inkling about is how frequently truly beneficial changes happen to species.  Every couple of hundred thousand years a mutation occurs with positive rather than negative consequences.  

 

After further reading, turns out that not only is this paper over 2 years old, but has been WILDLY misrepresented. The whole "adam/eve/catastrophe" angle was made up by whomever wrote the first article about the paper. All it really suggests is that extant species today all have a mitochondrial eve around 100kya-200kya. There are a lot of problems with the assumptions made by the authors, however. Read Stiffs link.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
17 hours ago, LucidElement said:

Can someone help me better understand where this article is going?

If this is deemed true this will alter the stories of the Bible. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and breakdowns on this.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

it has been known for a long time that most humans have one common mitochondrial DNA ie came from one  female in Africa. I thought it was much harder to trace paternal DNA

Looking back this is not that surprising

  It just means that the human line descended from one very successful female. We already knew that not ha t far back in pre history the entire human population numbered only in the thousands 

There may have been other  humans but their offspring dis not survive or prosper and did not survive until the present day.

however many humans have a t least 3 human species in their DNA. Ie homo sapiens, Neandertal, and one other (sometimes denisovan )

it i thought that about 75000 years ago a super volcano eruption might have reduced the human population to as low as a few thousand, world wide .

 

lol i see this has already been discussed.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozymandias
18 hours ago, LucidElement said:

Can someone help me better understand where this article is going?

If this is deemed true this will alter the stories of the Bible. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and breakdowns on this.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-mysterious-extinction-event-precede-adam-and-eve

Oh, for God's sake! It is not biologically possible for one pair of adult humans to give rise to the entire human race, never mind the morality of incest.

Fox News? Get a life!!??

Edited by Ozymandias
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette

I didn't read the article but I've read about the subject before and it seems some people are missing a couple things. Mitochondrial eve and Adam didn't actually meet, the Adam was dated at 500,000 years ago while the eve was more like 150000 years ago.

Mitochondrial Adam and eve doesn't mean they were the first people or just sprang into existence, it means they are the genetic most recent common ancestor of all living humans today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nnicolette
4 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Oh, for God's sake! It is not biologically possible for one pair of adult humans to give rise to the entire human race, never mind the morality of incest.

Fox News? Get a life!!??

Hate to break it to you but we are all inbred at some point. They didn't say one pair gave birth to everyone. The female common ancestor lived a long, long time after the male one. This just means it's the person that they traced back as being related to all surviving humans today, it doesn't mean the first person or anything it's not like the biblical Adam and eve it's just a title to explain that they are the point all current genetics stem from. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LucidElement

I have heard that Adam and Eve is just a parable to something other sort of truth and that Adam and Eve were fictious. My wife went to bible study and they told her it was a parable.

 

Edited by LucidElement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 hours ago, Nnicolette said:

I didn't read the article but I've read about the subject before and it seems some people are missing a couple things. Mitochondrial eve and Adam didn't actually meet, the Adam was dated at 500,000 years ago while the eve was more like 150000 years ago.

Mitochondrial Adam and eve doesn't mean they were the first people or just sprang into existence, it means they are the genetic most recent common ancestor of all living humans today.

Maybe you should read the article prior to commenting on it because it literally states this: "All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday."

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do

 

Who do you think Nod was? 

You know, the fella who they named the "land of Nod" after. Where Cain went "to get a wife."

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
7 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Who do you think Nod was? 

You know, the fella who they named the "land of Nod" after. Where Cain went "to get a wife."

 

 

Hi Will

Just thought I would help you out and give you a couple of links to help answer your question.

http://www.urantiabook.org/dave-holt/the-nephilim-and-the-land-of-nod

http://www.urantiabook.org/newbook/ose-sections/ppr077_4.html

Now I know a lot of people don't look at the About Us but I did and what do you know they have an organised fellowship like with a top dog and all. Why didn't you mention it? Just for ease I will post that page with this link.

http://www.urantiabook.org/index-about-the-urantia-book-fellowship.htm

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.