Originally posted by Suzianne
Think about this for five seconds, please.

Would you deny that Eve was much older than Noah?


(To the others: And no, I'm not saying the female common ancestor they found was Eve, and I'm not saying the male common ancestor they found was Noah. What I am saying is that it's not completely necessary for these two to be of the same generation; there a ...[text shortened]... f mankind. Just trying to exercise RJH's brain a little, to get him out of his little box.)

Yes I agree, the female common ancestor was not eve and the male
common ancestor was not Noah. According to the Holy Bible, Adam
and Eve are the common ancestor of mankind. I don't believe God
made them look like apes. I think He made them perfect humans,
even more perfect than any man or woman living today.

P.S. God must have know something about this Mitochondrial DNA
for Jesus was born through the seed of a woman.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I agree, the female common ancestor was not eve and the male
common ancestor was not Noah. According to the Holy Bible, Adam
and Eve are the common ancestor of mankind. I don't believe God
made them look like apes. I think He made them perfect humans,
even more perfect than any man or woman living today.

P.S. God must have know something about this Mitochondrial DNA
for Jesus was born through the seed of a woman.

Erm, only if Jesus had children that are around today that have had there mitochondrial DNA tested (to thus appear
in the tests).
Otherwise Jesus's DNA would be irrelevant as it would never have been passed on.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Erm, only if Jesus had children that are around today that have had there mitochondrial DNA tested (to thus appear
in the tests).
Otherwise Jesus's DNA would be irrelevant as it would never have been passed on.

I am referring to the women from Eve to Mary.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We all share a common female ancestor who live about 200,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
It is reasonable to consider the people living at that time 'human', because their characteristics would have been within the range of human characteristics that we see today.
There is also a common male ancestor more recently: 142,000 ...[text shortened]... be forgotten that change is gradual and naming is really only for classification purposes.

Wow, Eve puts Methuselah to shame, looks like she lived 58,000 years!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, Eve puts Methuselah to shame, looks like she lived 58,000 years!

Where do you get that idea? Our common female ancestor was not married to our common male ancestor.
Of course, if our common male ancestor had only one wife, then she too was our common female ancestor, but not in the female line.
We may, (and probably do) have more recent male and female common ancestors, but not in the male or female line.
Ancestry gets complicated.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Where do you get that idea? Our common female ancestor was not married to our common male ancestor.
Of course, if our common male ancestor had only one wife, then she too was our common female ancestor, but not in the female line.
We may, (and probably do) have more recent male and female common ancestors, but not in the male or female line.
Ancestry gets complicated.

It sure does. At least the way you explain it.