Genesis Proof

Originally posted by Encoberto I think that it is perfectly acceptable to believe in some parts of the Bible and not in others.

Hi encoberto, I cannot agree with you in this statement, as clearly this would be very inconsistent. For example this thread is called "Genesis proof" and as you know, I have been pointing out that the Bible has said for thousands of years that humanity is descended from Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:20. Science now through DNA studies have confirmed that this is true by stating humanity is descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. This as you know startled the scientific community as the most popular belief prior to the DNA studies was that humanity arose in different parts of the world and from different groups. This conclusion was as a result of conclusions drawn from skulls from different parts of the world due to cranial size and resemblance to humanity.

Originally posted by Encoberto . However, I can find in the Bible some notions that can be most helpful to people and are deeply humanist, like Jesus profound Humanist message. And although it is probable that Jesus did exist and passed on that message, some other parts of the Bible might not possibly be true, at least not in a literal way. Namely, the creation of the world.

I am glad you recognise the profound message of Jesus and this is where the inconsistency becomes apparent. For example Jesus made reference directly to the historicity of Adam and Eve in His teachings. Thus the position that says the book of Genesis is not credible contradicts the very position of Jesus Christ. Jesus would "never" contradict the book of Genesis. Over and over Jesus supported the reality of Genesis and would never encourage a "new interpretation" of scripture. Note His direct reference to Genesis and the events regarding Adam and Eve in respect to them becoming one flesh, in Mattew 19:3-9 Here is the passage,

3 Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" 4 He answered, "Haven't you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife; and the two will become one flesh?' 6 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don't let man tear apart." 7 They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?" 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. 9 I tell you that whoever will put away his wife, except for sexual immorality, and will marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is put away commits adultery."

Thus Jesus refers directly to the "beginning" in Genesis when the institution of marriage was first given to, you guessed it to Adam and Eve. The language above that Jesus used in referring to Genesis is used in many marriage ceremonies to this day. These very words, God the Father is quoted by Jesus, He said to "Adam and Eve" in the beginning.

Originally posted by Encoberto What�s more, I don�t find it necessary to anyone professing any faith to believe in every single axiom or truth to be considered a Christian, Muslim, etc.

Christianity has a standard of authority as you know Encoberto, and that standard is the New Testament, which is considered to be the Word of God to Christians. It must be followed and many of the problems that people complain about have do with the historical developments in denominations as a result of manmade doctrines that are not in the New Testament as stated in 2Timothy 4:1-4. Here is a quote of the passage,

1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

As we can see Christians are to preach the "Word." In the passage above, the Word is the "Truth" and "sound doctrine." Thus that which is NOT in the New Testament is not sound doctrine or the truth.

Originally posted by Encoberto I have to agree with Theophos that it is not necessary to believe in every single word of the Bible to make you a Christian.

You may agree with Theophos, however I think you can see the logic I have presented in regards to the Word of God, as being the standard that must be adhered to and that is a necessity, if one is a Christian. As we can see Christians are to preach the "Word." As you can read in the passage above, the Word is the "Truth" and "sound doctrine." Thus that which is NOT in the New Testament is not sound doctrine or the truth.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy What do you honestly believe is the reason for evolution? It's adaption! Small changes now may get exaggerated in the future. Do you not understand that. Those examples I gave you show small changes, and speciation. Science isn't about finding things in biblical proportions like those you seem to be searching for. Science is studing things over time.

Search adaptation only proves Micro Evolution! You have only supported my position by showing the "only" proof we have is change within kinds. You have absolutely "no proof" for Macro Evolution in the examples you cited. You mention "TIME" is a factor needed in the developement of Macro Evolution occuring. However clearly if Macro Evolution is happening it would be observed in the "insect world" as "time" is not a factor there. You know how long a fly lives? Yes you get the point, enough time to demostrate Macro Evolution if it is occuring. However, since Macro Evolution is NOT ocurring even in the "insect world" we see the FALLACY of Macro Evolution. Note this quotation regarding the fruit fly dropsohila experiments. This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org

Quote: Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism�an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information). In Dobzhansky�s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism�s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.

As we can see, TIME is not a factor if Macro Evolution is ocurring. It would be happening in the insect world. However, we see in the insect world what we see in "higher" animals, changes within kinds or Micro Evolution or changes!

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see. You have no idea whether there was a population of tens of thousands as nobody was there. "You believe that and want to believe that," however you have no proof, it is nothing more then your opinion, as NO BODY was there. In fact one study separates them by a 12,000 years! A second in time, but I am not saying that is the definitive time.

 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by what scientists have said, most of them don't even study evolution.

My quote above was in regards to when Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve lived. You "assume" there were other Adams and Eves, however different DNA studies have given different dates, none are the same so your misusing my statement above to make a point that is not relevant. The fact is the times are all over the place as to when Adam and Eve existed as far as DNA studies! However as I pointed out DNA studies may eventually conclude they were together. I gave you the Hammer DNA study, one of the authoritive studies and he puts Adam and Eve 12,000 years apart! A second in time! Thus my point about your assumptions stands.  

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Intellligent design says some big guy in the sky snapped his fingers and life appeared. That sounds a whole lot more realistic to you?

Your incorrect here, scientists have to go where the evidence takes them and that is what Intelligent Design scientists have done. As I pointed out to you in this post and the one I did before to you, Micro Evolution is all you have proved in the examples you have given. You have not given evidence of Macro evolution, however you "blindly" believe it happens. You implied "time" is a factor why we don't see Macro Evolution and so I gave you the results of experiments on fruit flies. That is the kind of "evidence" for an Intelligent Design scientist.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Reproductive Isolation in Thirteen Generations : Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation.  http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm#Rings

Search as you can see, as in "your" other examples from your other posts you have given me, this is "MICRO EVOLUTION," changes within kinds. They are still "salmon." Also did you notice from the quote you gave me above a concern? "News media" overstated the case! Do you understand what they OVERSTATED? The Media "concluded" from this study that SPECIATION does NOT take "hundreds of thousands of years" that Macro Evolution teaches! You have supported my position in the quote above. This quote is what an Intelligent Design scientist would expect, rapid change within species as a result of adaptation if the envirement requires it, which contradicts the Darwinian Macro Evolutionary theory.  

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy The bible is not reason, it's telling you, it doesn't change and only gives you a quick answer.

I have never given the Bible as a proof for Intelligent Design. Instead note the evidence I have given you in this post, adaptation within kinds which supports Micro Evolution. Even your "own" quote regarding salmon supports adaption or micro evolution due to envirement much faster then taught by Darwinian Macro Evolution. Darwinian evolutionists had to get a handle on the "media" and stop their conclusions.  

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Alot of evolutionist believe in Chritianity, but they also believe you can't take a book literally.

Your incorrect here. In fact your giving lots of opinion. You "believe" that many Darwinian Macro Evolutionist are THIESTIC EVOLUTIONISTS as you suggest above, however it is from that group who have "converted" and come to realize there is "NO EVIDENCE" for Darwinian Macro Evolutionary theory. In fact I at one time believed in the darwinian macro evolution theory myself, until I studied both sides. The website is www.ridgecrest.ca.us 

Quote: In the September 2005 Gallup poll, 53% endorsed the creationist position, 31% believed in theistic evolution, and only 12% selected the atheistic evolution option. This could be the beginning of a trend, but it might just be a one-time anomaly. If the change is real, it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isn�t. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs. Intelligent Design is a new idea that allows rejection of evolution without acceptance of the Judeo-Christian god. In the September, 2005, Gallup poll, 31% think Intelligent Design is true, 32% think it is false, and 37% don�t know what to think.)

As we can see people were at one time THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS, however with further study as suggested by the Gallup organization they changed to become supporters of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Note there assessment, "it appears that people are moving from the theistic evolution position to the creationist position. Our guess is that some people who used to believe in theistic evolution formerly thought that there was scientific evidence for evolution, and now realize that there isn�t. Therefore, they no longer feel the need to add evolution to their Christian beliefs." As you can see people are converting from the "theistic evolution" position to believe in Intelligent Design and your assumption Search is incorrect. 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy And have you seen the fossil record of the horse, they say it explains Macro-evolution perfectly because the transitionals fit right in them all.

  Search you seem to be unaware of the studies of the so called "horse evolution series" that have been founded to be false. Here is a quote that makes that point.

Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74

 Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy The bible says Earth is 6000 years old. The oldest I saw doing a search is 10,000 years old. The youngest Earth age is 5800. You said that the latest research for Adam is about 12,000 years old. That double what the Bible says. Which you said, "ONE SEPERATE STUDY" said that. That is one study up against hundreds of other studies that have all different times but most farther back, probably tripling that. So, one study doesn't prove anything, 12,000 years is already 2000-6000 over the mark the Bible says the Earth was created, the Y chromosme is in constant change and even if it takes 100,000 years thats still just a snap of a finger in time, and according to a few studies we share alot of chromosomes with apes. Here's a few site that say the earth is 6000 years old. Just a few, do a search and you can find more. So if your devoted to hanging onto every word of the bible, then your study that says Adam and Eve were together 12000 years ago is already wrong. Now this is from the bible, saying Earth is 6000 years old.

Search, I read all the these sites, "none" gave a verse that says the earth is 6000 years. Give me the verse that the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. If you don't have a verse then the Bible does not say that! I don't really care what these sites say. However do you realize the FAST SPECIATION of the SALMON you brought to MY attention is EVIDENCE for a YOUNGER EARTH then DARWINIAN Macro Evolutionist believe? Do you realize that is why the MEDIA over reacted according to Macro Evolutionist and they could not allow for that idea to be accepted!

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Search, my friend please pay attention as my answer seems to have given you trepidation as this post of yours is a purely emotional response, and all reading our thread can obviously see you did not address the points in my post. 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Obviously you don't understand evolution. At one point a few human species lived during the sametime. Even interacted with each other. That doesn't mean evolution does not happen. Obviously your viewing evolution is a straight line from one point to another. That is far from the truth. If the ancestor could live also, then why would or should it die out? It's not as if it's evolutionary garbage.

Search you are the one that brought up the "Horse series" and said and I quote you, "transitions fit right in them all!" National Geographic does not agree with you that the ancestor could live also. Maybe you did not understand the point the magazine was making, for that is the very reason the horse series is "false" because the supposed ancestors lived together! It seems you don't understand Darwinian Macro Evolution. Here is "our" dialogue I posted in my last post,

SearchAndDestroy wrote: And have you seen the fossil record of the horse, they say it explains Macro-evolution perfectly because the transitionals fit right in them all.

  Search you seem to be unaware of the studies of the so called "horse evolution series" that have been founded to be false. Here is a quote that makes that point.

Quote:  Fossils of three-toed and one-toed animals, which are said to be evolutionary ancestors of the modern horse, have been found preserved in the same rock formation (Nebraska, USA). This proves that they lived together at the same time, and it is obvious that one could not have evolved into the other. Evolution demands that there has to be many millions of years between the three-toed and the one-toed species in the 60-65 million year evolution of the horse. National Geographic, January 1981 p:74

 Search, as you can see the so called horse series are not "facts" and are not credible! The so called horses are not credible because they are "not" in line. In fact as we can see, the so called horse ancestors lived at the same time! Did you notice the source for the horse series problem? National Geographic! Did you notice the date of the dicovery? 1981! And even though the so called horse series is "false" they are still teaching it in universities and high schools, where you learned it! Could "Darwinian Macro Evolutionists" have been purposely misleading us?  Your the one that put them in a straight line, NOT me. I responded by citing "National Geographic" magazine!I assumed nothing except what you said that all transitions fit.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy It may take millions of years for evolution to happen, but thousands of factors count.

Search again, you said TIME was a factor and I answered you with studies from the "insect world." You failed and ignored this point that "time" is not a factor when we consider the insect world. Here is our dialogue in the last post.

SearchAndDestroy wrote: What do you honestly believe is the reason for evolution? It's adaption! Small changes now may get exaggerated in the future. Do you not understand that. Those examples I gave you show small changes, and speciation. Science isn't about finding things in biblical proportions like those you seem to be searching for. Science is studing things over time.

Search adaptation only proves Micro Evolution! You have only supported my position by showing the "only" proof we have is change within kinds. You have absolutely "no proof" for Macro Evolution in the examples you cited. You mention "TIME" is a factor needed in the developement of Macro Evolution occuring. However clearly if Macro Evolution is happening it would be observed in the "insect world" as "time" is not a factor there. You know how long a fly lives? Yes you get the point, enough time to demostrate Macro Evolution if it is occuring. However, since Macro Evolution is NOT ocurring even in the "insect world" we see the FALLACY of Macro Evolution. Note this quotation regarding the fruit fly dropsohila experiments. This quote is from, www.trueorigin.org

Quote: Furthermore, a genetic, mutational change alone, while it may qualify (in a broad sense) as evolution ("micro-evolution"), does not demonstrate evolution per se: Evolution does not require mere change, but progressive change (i.e., from simple to complex, from one organism to another organism�an increase in both quantity and quality of genetic information). In Dobzhansky�s work, numerous varieties resulted from radiation bombardment: fruit flies with extra wings, fruit flies with no wings, fruit flies with huge wings, fruit flies with tiny wings... In the end, however, they were all ... fruit flies! Dobzhansky meddled with the genetic code of an organism and effected changes on the organism�s offspring. Nearly all of the changes were detrimental to survival, and none of them resulted in an advantage over other fruit flies.

As we can see, TIME is not a factor if Macro Evolution is ocurring. It would be happening in the insect world. However, we see in the insect world what we see in "higher" animals, changes within kinds or Micro Evolution or changes!

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy You tell me I assume things, yet all your sources are from Christian sites that are pretyy biased.

Search in my quote above, "National Geographic" is that a Christian "source?" Here is another authority, that is a quote from a disillusioned "darwinian macro evolutionist," tell me is this from a Christian source? Quote:

Jerome Lejeune - Professor (Chair of Fundamental Genetics, University of Paris), internationally recognised geneticist, and evolution teacher. "The neo-Darwinist is now reaching the point of dignity in the history of science that the Ptolemaic system in astronomy, the epicycle system, reached long ago. We know that it does not work." Quoted from the conference paper "The Beginning of Life", in October 1975, by Jerome Lejeune. "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact ....." Comments made by Jerome Lejeune at a lecture in Paris on March 17, 1985. Notes are from a recording of the message.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy They are trying to prove something, scientist are trying to showcase work that take years and Christians just say it's not true.

 Search again your saying "time" is a factor. What about the "insect world." The quote of the "salmon" study you brought to my attention, undercut darwinian macro evolution that says "speciation" is to take "hundreds of thousands of years" and yet it was ocurring in "only" 60-70 years! Here is "our" dialogue regarding that point,

SearchAndDestroy wrote: Reproductive Isolation in Thirteen Generations : Salmon in a US lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 60-70 years, researchers have revealed. Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear. The research paper by Hendry et al., appeared in Science 290 (5491)::516-518. It generated some interesting debate within the scientific community in later correspondence in that journal. News media reports about this paper typically overstated the case as demonstrating observed speciation.  http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm#Rings

Search as you can see, as in "your" other examples from your other posts you have given me, this is "MICRO EVOLUTION," changes within kinds. They are still "salmon." Also did you notice from the quote you gave me above a concern? "News media" overstated the case! Do you understand what they OVERSTATED? The Media "concluded" from this study that SPECIATION does NOT take "hundreds of thousands of years" that Macro Evolution teaches! You have supported my position in the quote above. This quote is what an Intelligent Design scientist would expect, rapid change within species as a result of adaptation if the envirement requires it, which contradicts the Darwinian Macro Evolutionary theory. Let me add the later part of our dialogue here. Search do you realize the "fast speciation" of the "salmon" you brought to my attention is "evidence" for a "younger earth" then "Darwinian Macro Evolutionist" believe? Do you realize that is why the MEDIA "over reacted" according to Macro Evolutionists and they could not allow for that idea to be accepted! 

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy Then they pull up "Professors" who performed ONE study, or talk against the reasons for it and say thats all the proof you need.

Search my friend, this shows the inroads that Intelligent Design have made for if darwinian macro evolution was as factual as you seem to think it is, why are scientists abondoning the theory? Notice that the professors are from prestigious universities and notice the date of this quotation. Quote:

Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin�s Theory By: Staff Discovery Institute February 20, 2006 The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list is now located at a new webpage, www.dissentfromdarwin.org. SEATTLE � Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement reads: �We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.� The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington..

Search, my friend, don't miss my point here. The fact that you have professors from prestigious universities that are willing to reject "darwinian macro evolution" so openly shows "Intelligent Design" is making "inroads." Just a few years back, one would be hard pressed to even find "ONE" professor to take such a position.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy See, if micro-evolution keeps changing a creature, miilions of years later you honestly believe they'd look alike? That they could even be called the same species? If it takes 4000 years for a big change to happen in Salmon seperated, imagine a million years.

TIME again? One source above I cited, the "insect" study on fruit flies! Time is "not" a factor in the insect world. I think you know how long a fly lives. A second "source" you cited was "salmon speciation," it did not take hundreds of thousands of years, but 60-70 years! Time is not a factor and please accept the conclusions of the studies, even the study you cited.

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy And I knew you were going to bring up the 6000 years in the bible.

Search I did not bring up 6000 years in any of my posts, "you did." If the Bible has a verse that says 6000 years, give it to me, because I never brought that up and why would I bring up something the Bible never says.  

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy You brought up one study saying Adam was from 12,000 years ago, but scientific community doesn't believe that due to the timeline alone. That was the Ice Age, man was already out of Africa.

Search you need to read carefully. I never said that Y Chromosome Adam lived 12,000 years ago! What I did say is that there was a DNA study, the Hammer study, that put 12,000 years between the existence of Adam and Eve. Here is our dialogue so you can read it more carfully. It includes the study that "separates" Adam and Eve by 12,000 years. Search as you know these studies based on DNA are new. I am sure they will become more exact, and once again neither of us can predict whether they will be placed in the same period. Thus you are actually the one, that is making assumptions as you can see. You have no idea whether there was a population of tens of thousands as nobody was there. "You believe that and want to believe that," however you have no proof, it is nothing more then your opinion, as NO BODY was there. In fact one study separates them by a 12,000 years! A second in time, but I am not saying that is the definitive time. Don't miss my point, it is too early to establish that yet. That study is the Hammer study that arrives at the time I referred to above, and as you know, his study is one of the definitive studies on this subject. I will quote it here, the site is, http://wrsv.clas.virginia.edu,

Quote: About 10 years ago, molecular biologists found evidence in human genes that all people share a common female ancestor, dubbed Eve, who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago. The claim has been challenged on both genetic and fossil evidence, and it has been supported by a repetition of the same kind of analysis. There is an argument that one would expect all current humans to have one common ancestor based on sampling statistics alone. Now comes corroboration from a different kind of genetic study. While the earlier claim was based on DNA transmitted only through the maternal lineage (mitochondrial DNA), the new report uses DNA transmitted and possessed only by males (the Y chromosome). Michael F. Hammer, a researcher in molecular evolution at the University of Arizona in Tucson, reported in the Nov. 23 Nature that his analysis of a part of the Y sex chromosome indicates that modern humans descended from a common male ancestor who lived 188,000 years ago. Although the new report does not say where that ancient man, whom some are calling 'Adam,' lived, his age is close enough to Eve's for this kind of work. Search, this thread is called "Genesis proof" and as you know, I have been pointing out that the Bible has said for thousands of years that humanity is descended from Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis 3:20. Science now through DNA studies have confirmed that this is true by stating humanity is descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. This as you know startled the scientific community as the most popular belief prior to the DNA studies was that humanity arose in different parts of the world and from different groups. This conclusion was as a result of conclusions drawn from skulls from different parts of the world due to cranial size and resemblance to humanity. Who would believe that now after these DNA studies that show we are decended from one couple.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc