Adam and Eve were genetically citizens of every country in the modern world, true or false?

[MycroftWilliams]

Did the original human beings have the genes of every single nationality? Adam and Eve must have had genes common to French, African, Indian, Australian, Chinese people etc to have spawned the human race.

On a side note, that must have made them look rather strange. 

Were they multicoloured, for instance? Can you imagine a human being who is equally Caucasian, African, Asian and European all in one?

Adam probably had a pink nose and a yellow face. He probably had brown hands and a black chest.

Does this rather curious theory make sense? 

or in other words...

IF, and only if, in BC ad infinitum...

THEN, in 2022...

Edited February 27, 2022 by MycroftWilliams

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

Did the original human beings have the genes of every single nationality?

Did you know that nationality is not genetic?

 

4 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

Were they multicoloured, for instance?

Absolutely! Just like Americans.

What was you intention in putting this under Genetics?

5 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

Does this rather curious theory make sense? 

You'll be gratified to learn that it has no merit whatsoever in any field. 

[MycroftWilliams]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Did you know that nationality is not genetic?

I meant like...the modern world has people of seperate genes, like African genes, Asian genes etc. Therefore the father of the human race, Adam, must have been all three 'nationalities' or 'genes'...whatever the right term is...

 

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Absolutely! Just like Americans.

 

The American gene is different than the African gene, or the Chinese gene, if you know what I mean.

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You'll be gratified to learn that it has no merit whatsoever in any field. 

You are focussing on exactness of terminology. It's hardly a question of wether the right word is 'gene' or 'nationality'...for the purposes of the topic, the question is straightforward enough: were Adam and eve a coalscion of every citizenry in the world today, and did they exhibit, as a result, characteristics common to every single human being today? 

[Genady]

The "Adam", i.e. a male ancestor of all living humans, and the "Eve", i.e. a female ancestor of all living humans, have never met and lived tens of thousands of years apart. The "Eve" lived long-long before the "Adam."

[MycroftWilliams]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

The "Adam", i.e. a male ancestor of all living humans, and the "Eve", i.e. a female ancestor of all living humans, have never met and lived tens of thousands of years apart. The "Eve" lived long-long before the "Adam."

OK, so Cain and Abel were multicoloured?

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by MycroftWilliams

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

if you know what I mean

Do you?

 

15 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

You are focussing on exactness of terminology.

That's standard practice in science.

I suspect you want to discuss 'race' and I'm pretty sure that will be as airworthy as a balloon made of lead. But that's a different branch of science.

 

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

OK, so Cain and Abel were multicoloured?

 

 

"Adam" and "Eve", since they have never met, did not have children together.

[CharonY]

The common ancestor of all humans were black, as that is the population were humanity came from different skin colours developed later after dispersal from Africa. Nationality are a modern construct, so it really does not figure into the biology here. 

[MycroftWilliams]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Do you?

 

That's standard practice in science.

I suspect you want to discuss 'race' and I'm pretty sure that will be as airworthy as a balloon made of lead. But that's a different branch of science.

 

No, it isn't. It's genetics. The question is straightforward enough however; if you dissected the genome of the earliest human beings on the planet, would you find DNA of russians, chinese, britons, etc...in equal proportion? 

[zapatos]

There is not different DNA for Russians, Chinese, Brits, etc.. So the answer to your question is NO.

[DrmDoc]

6 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

No, it isn't. It's genetics. The question is straightforward enough however; if you dissected the genome of the earliest human beings on the planet, would you find DNA of russians, chinese, britons, etc...in equal proportion? 

More like the DNA of the earliest humans would appear in the Russians, Chinese, and British rather than conversely.

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

Adam and Eve

!

Moderator Note

Adam and Eve are from the Bible, which has no relevance to a discussion of genetics

 

33 minutes ago, MycroftWilliams said:

The American gene is different than the African gene, or the Chinese gene, if you know what I mean.

!

Moderator Note

You will need to establish that such genes exist. 

 

[Genady]

Genetic adam and eve are accepted terminology in evolutionary biology.

[DrmDoc]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Adam and Eve are from the Bible, which has no relevance to a discussion of genetics

 

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Genetic adam and eve are accepted terminology in evolutionary biology.

I agree, it's  Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Genetic adam and eve are accepted terminology in evolutionary biology.

!

Moderator Note

Which is not the terminology used by the OP. Cain and Abel was a dead giveaway.

 

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, Genady said:

Genetic adam and eve are accepted terminology in evolutionary biology.

While it is sometimes used in lit as an analogy, I think it is severely misleading for many folks, unless very technically versed in the subject. As it is clear from OP, it may confuse things more than it helps.

Edit: crossposted with several others.

[Arete]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

While it is sometimes used in lit as an analogy, I think it is severely misleading for many folks, unless very technically versed in the subject. As it is clear from OP, it may confuse things more than it helps.

Edit: crossposted with several others.

To elaborate, mitochondrial "Eve" and Y chromosome "Adam" aren't individuals, but hypothetical genetic alleles determined by the application of coalescent Bayesian statistics to observed human genetic diversity. These alleles were likely to be carried by multiple individuals, and they swept to fixation over generations - so were not the only genetic variants present at the time they arose. 

Take the following image. The purple allele at the base of the tree is the common ancestor of all extant individuals. However, other genetic lineages exist simultaneously alongside the presently fixed allele, and "Adam" and "Eve" are simply the genetic lineages that, through a combination of stochasticity and selection, give rise to the genetic diversity observed at present. 

Re skin color - the melanin content of skin is a highly labile trait, that evolutionarily trades off between skin cancer risk and vitamin D synthesis. Chimpanzees and Bonobos have light skin under dark hair, ancestral human populations had dark skin 1.2 million years ago, and there have been multiple independent lineages of humans that have subsequently evolved lighter pigmentation. Babies born to parents of different skin tones have variable skin pigmentation. The following photograph is of fraternal twins. As you might deduce, melanin content of skin is a poor indicator of genetic lineage in humans - and generally, no, the same individual does not have "multicolored" skin. 

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Arete

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MycroftWilliams said:

It's genetics.

No, it isn't. Shelve the Bible. Start here https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/mhccmajorsbio/chapter/introduction-to-genetics-mt-hood-community-college-biology-102/

and come back when you've completed the course. (Without the colour nonsense, please!)

[mistermack]

Adam was made from dust, so we all have dust dna.

Eve was cloned from Adam's rib, so they were genetically identical. So Adam had sex with his own identical twin, who was also his son, and begat the rest of us.

So all humans are descended from a gay incestuous pedophile. 

Luckily, there have been some spontaneous mutational changes to the genome since then. 

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Adam was made from dust, so we all have dust dna.

Eve was cloned from Adam's rib, so they were genetically identical. So Adam had sex with his own identical twin, who was also his son, and begat the rest of us.

So all humans are descended from a gay incestuous pedophile. 

Luckily, there have been some spontaneous mutational changes to the genome since then. 

Har! 😆

 

[Arete]

Just now, zapatos said:

Har! 😆

My wife loves it when I say that I'm ignoring her because I'm not listening to anything a rib says (disclaimer: she doesn't). 

[Ken Fabian]

22 hours ago, CharonY said:

The common ancestor of all humans were black, as that is the population were humanity came from different skin colours developed later after dispersal from Africa. Nationality are a modern construct, so it really does not figure into the biology here. 

Well, that is a surmise, but one that seems sound. People like Nina Jablonski who have made skin evolution their area of of study think dark hair over light skin came before (misnamed) hairlessness - that being the usual pattern within related apes. She does thinks dark skin probably developed as a response to raised UV exposure in prior furless hominids, before homo sapiens, ie the earliest homo sapiens were dark skinned. In reality no-one knows.

But yes, the variations of skin colour we see in modern humans came after the earliest homo sapiens, as did variations of adult hairiness. The absence of variation of juvenile hairiness across our species was probably present in the precursor species and (I think) probably preceded us, but the variations in adults is a secondary sexual trait that came after.

 

23 hours ago, MycroftWilliams said:

Did the original human beings have the genes of every single nationality? Adam and Eve must have had genes common to French, African, Indian, Australian, Chinese people etc to have spawned the human race.

On a side note, that must have made them look rather strange. 

Were they multicoloured, for instance? Can you imagine a human being who is equally Caucasian, African, Asian and European all in one?

Adam probably had a pink nose and a yellow face. He probably had brown hands and a black chest.

Does this rather curious theory make sense? 

or in other words...

No it doesn't make sense. The genes and traits every member of a species share go back to common ancestors. The genes and traits we don't all share - the variations that make different groups different - will have developed later.

The earliest homo sapiens didn't have (all) the genes of every "nationality", mutation will have introduced new ones, the ones that make them different to their ancestors.

Yes there are genes they had that everyone has. Those are for the traits we share in common.

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

But yes, the variations of skin colour we see in modern humans came after the earliest homo sapiens, as did variations of adult hairiness. The absence of variation of juvenile hairiness across our species was probably present in the precursor species and (I think) probably preceded us, but the variations in adults is a secondary sexual trait that came after.

I had never thought about that! Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I wonder, now, about the variation in juvenile hairiness. It depends on where the cutoff point is between juvenile and whatever comes next - adolescent or prepubescent? Because I've certainly noticed ethnic patterns of body hair in children as young as 8 or 9.