Adam & Eve

[Vanyo]

First,

3) Two people may have a "grand-eve" and "grand-adam" that never met. For instance, they may have the same mother, but their fathers may be brothers, with the mother (the "grand-eve") having never met the father of the brothers (the "grand-adam").

Now, if you assume some pair of individuals (a male and a female) that is ancestor to us all ("Adam & Eve"), then:

1) Any two people share some female ancestor, and hence have a "grand-eve".

2) Any two people share some male ancestor, and hence a "grand-adam".

More on that initial assumption later...

[Vanyo]

The problem (from my point of view) with my assumption of everyone having some common male ancestor, and some common female ancestor, is that I don't have a good understanding of how male & female organisms evolved from asexual organisms. It may be that in fact we all have a single female humanoid ancestor (there is scientific evidence for this). We may also have a single male humanoid ancestor.

But it is not necessarily the case (i.e. it could have been otherwise) that we all have a common male or female ancestor, humanoid or otherwise.

If the first sexually reproducing organisms evolved, as a population, from a population of asexually reproducing organisms, then it is possible that in the latter population of males and females, some pair of individuals had no common ancestor except as far back as when they were asexually reproducing. Thus, they would have no "grand-eve", and no "grand-adam" (though perhaps a "grand-pat" or something (SNL reference)).

[CrystyB]

"Perhaps", but not necessarilly. You can have distinct genealogical trees right up to a DNA piece or an atom of carbon

[Da5id]

Well, the problem with that is that not only is the word mother/father used but ancestor as well. Ancestor specifically refers to people. While Homo Heidelbergensis (and others) may have been remarkably similar to a man he was not a man. And any asexual organism is most definitely not a person.

If you believe the Bible or other similar creation myths then it follows that we do have a grand-eve or grand-adam.
If you have a logical mind and have faith in evolution then you must consider the following:
Did humans come about in an isolated area from one 'tribe' or wear there convergent uplifts?

If humans came about in separate areas then the answer to all three is no.
If humans came about in one area then all three can still be no.
With the old question 'Which came first the chicken or the egg?', the answer is the egg because at some point an egg came out of a not-chicken and hatched as a chicken. So too must the first human have been born from a non-human. If this happened with one individual or set (male/female) then the answer to the first two is yes.
However, this is not likely. More likely there were several humans born around the same time. It is possible that these humans maintained discrete blood lines since the dawn of time, but not very likely.
So it is highly likely (about as much like 100% as .99999...... is like 1) that we have a grand-eve and a grand-adam.
But you're right, they don't have to know each other.

------------------
It's a hundred and six miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.

[Wonko the Sane]

The third part is easy and was already answered, and yeah, we have to have a complex solution set for the first two.

1. If you believe in creationism
a) Everyone has a grand-adam
b) Everyone has a grand-eve
c) They are not necessarily the same. For there would inevitably be relations of grand-adams and grand-eves furthur down the chain than the original two. But again, it's a fallback.
2. If humans evolved slowly
a) Everyone need not have a grand-adam in the human species.
b) Everyone need not have a grand-eve in the human species.
c) If they two have one, they need not have the other, and the two may not know each other.
3. If humans evolved through freak mutation, which is a possibility.
a) Everyone must have either a grand-adam or a grand-eve.
b) They need not be the same.

The reason for 3a under the assumption of humans evolving through a random series of gene mutation requires that one member (the original) of the human species mated with a member of the species from which they were derrived and had enough dominant genes to actually carry on the gene pool. However, there would be much cross-mating, which would still allow for a large number of "humans" in the first generation.

Basically, it depends on your view of the origin of humanity. Personaly, I think we were found in an intergalactic bread basket... ;-)

------------------
It's not the size of the spork, it's whether or not it's made of #7 recyclable plastic.

[Vanyo]

I don't believe "ancestor" implies human, or even primate, mammal, vertebrate, etc...

Simply put, my ancestors are my parents and my parents ancestors.

That would include (unless you are a strict creationist) non-humans, non-primates, etc...

[Da5id]

Ancestor n
A person from whom one is descended, especially if more remote than a grandparent; a forebear.

------------------
How does it turn? How does it work?
-I know not my liege.
Consult the Book of Armaments!

[Vanyo]

[url=http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=ancestor*1%2B0]Cambridge Dictionary Online[/url]
ancestor noun [C]
a person, plant, animal or object that is related to one existing at a later point in time

American Heritage includes:
The actual or hypothetical organism or stock from which later kinds evolved.

It just seems natural to me that a parent of an ancestor must also be an ancestor. If you accept that (and evolution, and that parents are ancestors), then you have to accept one-celled organisms as ancestors.

[Ewan2]

What use guy are forgettin' is dat, </wierd accent> with modern advances in genetics and cloning it is not inconceivable that you could have a human (or chicken) with no ancestors at all.

[Wonko the Sane]

Perhaps, but no humans have yet been cloned, at least that we know about. However, using the definitions provided, everyone probably has a grand-adam and grand-eve, because even if you reject creationism (like I do), the organic material that eventually becames cells, then organisms, probably came from the same source.

[ZenBeam]

If you believe in creationism, but not necessarily that the creator started with only Adam and Eve, then there doesn't have to be a grand-adam or a grand eve. Anyone here ever read What can you say about Chocolate Covered Manhole Covers? by Larry Niven? Thinking about that story now, it seems they only had to wait less than three more decades for the internet, and a place like the Grey Labyrinth. I still don't trust Paladin. By the way, who's winning his competition?

Anyway, other than part 1, I agree with Wonko the Sane's explanation.

------------------
It is too clear, and so it is hard to see.

[Quailman]

Is it necessarily the case that you and I have a grand-eve? Yes. Mitochondrial DNA is passed maternally (the mother is the sole contributor) and has been traced to a woman who lived approximately 200,000 years ago. Not everyone's mitochondrial DNA is identical, but the result was found based on variations in the current population and extrapolating using mutation rates. If any variations are missed or the mutation rate is inaccurate, then she lived at a different time, but she existed.

Is it necessarily the case that you and I have grand-adam? Yes, although the existence of this man would be harder to pinpoint. Using y-chromosome analysis, males have been determined to have a common ancestor who lived tens of thousands of years ago.

And finally, if you and I have a grand-eve and a grand-adam, must they have known each other? No. If you trace your family tree back along your father's lineage until you get to an ancestor in common with me, they will not necessarily meet at the same point as if we went matrilineally.

The Mitochondrial Eve, as she is called, was not a mother-of-all-mankind type when she lived. There were other human women at the time, and if the means existed, their MDNA could have been traced back to an earlier ME. What gives the current ME her title is the fact that all MDNA of presently living humans has been extrapolated back to her.

[Ghost Post]

(My first post here; Hi all!)

Just a couple of points; First, it's fairly probable that any two people share not one but _several_ Grand-Adams and Grand-Eves, scattered throughout history, most of whom will never have met each other.

Secondly, even a cloned human would have ancestors, since his or her genetic material has to come from _somewhere_; Dolly the cloned sheep had a mother, but not father, so she had fewer ancestors than normal, at least if we only go back a few generations, but she did have ancestors.

[HyToFry]

I didn't read this.. too lazy..

I say

Yes we must have a "Grand Eve"
Yes we must have a "Grand Adam"
No they may not have met.

Also Grand Eve and Adam may be clear the hell back to two amino acids mixing together, or "Adam and Eve" themselves, although if you believe the "Adam and Eve" religious part, Noah would be a lot closer than Adam and Eve. (If you belive all that crap)

(Which I do) [=

[Top Gun]

In summary:
1/ Any two people share a grand-eve
2/ They also share a grand-adam
3/ Grand-eve might not have met grand-adam

Except for Bill Clinton. There is no way I am related to that !@#$%^&

[Vinny]

Don't mean to be rude, y'all debates are very interesting, but I just have to ask: How is this a puzzle? This seem more like a philosophic question, a discussion of evolutionism vs. creationism.

------------------

[Logain]

As long as we don't consider this a religious beliefs debate and go only on science...then

1) Yes, they share a grand-eve
2) Yes, they share a grand-adam
3) No, they don't need to have known each other. Reason: The grand-adam can be further up the lineage tree than the grand-eve.

[Tom]

In response to vinny, I think it's sort of half puzzle, half debate .. the first half (need our grand-thingies have met) is the puzzle, the second bit the debate.

The problem is, if the Minotaur just puts up a puzzle with a definite answer, someone answers it in about 30 seconds, and that's the end of that. We need the second part to give us something to do.

[Alfie]

Seconding Tom's comment.

[Y2Alec]

Da5id: "(about as much like 100% as .99999...... is like 1)"

.9999...... IS one. Every number with a repeating decimal is rational; ergo, it has a fraction equivalent. .1111... is 1/9. .2222.... is 2/9, up to 8/9 which is .888.... .9999...is 9/9, or 1.

.999...=x
9.9999.....=10x
10x-x=9.9999..... - .99999.......
9x=9
x=1
.999... = 1

[Vanyo]

Hey, look, the new guy thinks .999... is 1

[JF]

Da5id:

Not to pick nits (but you know I love to), but your definition of ancestor is only the first in the dictionary listing. Consider, for example, the fourth listing for "ancestor":

4. Biology. The actual or hypothetical organism or stock from which later kinds evolved.

Still, I think even that is too restricting. My grand-eve AND my grand-adam were the quantum singularity.

John

[Ghost Post]

If we are going to refer to the Bible, everyone descended from Adam and Eve or Noah and his wife (after the flood). But somewhere down the line, there were some verses in the Bible that says that some angels or sons of Gods found earthly females beautiful and had children through them, these are the giants of those times. In this case, the answer is no to all three questions.

Without reference to the bible, the answer to all three questions might still be "no". This is considering relations that developed due to marriages and also the time element.



[This message has been edited by KRISSIE (edited 10-19-2000).]

[Ghost Post]

If we are going to refer to the Bible, everyone descended from Adam and Eve or Noah and his wife (after the flood). But somewhere down the line, there were some verses in the Bible that says that some angels or sons of Gods found earthly females beautiful and had children through them, these are the giants of those times. In this case, the answer is no to all three questions.

Without reference to the bible, the answer to all three questions might still be "no". This is considering relations that developed due to marriages and also the time element.



[This message has been edited by KRISSIE (edited 10-19-2000).]

[firemeboy]

Most interpret the Sons of God to refer to the righteous people, not the litteral Sons of God. Christianity expecially recognizes Jesus as the only literal Son of God.

[Amy]

Given that I am a space alien from the planet Zargon, I do not share a grand-eve or grand-adam with any of you.

[Quailman]

Amy? Is that really you? How have you been?

[Ghost Post]

Yes, i believe you Firemeboy but the "sons of Gods" here are those who came to earth and had relations with women. Most bible scholars believe that these angels in Genesis 6:1-4 refer to fallen angels who had cohabited with the daughters of man (and immediately punished because of the gravity of their sin) and produced a race of giants, the Anakim.

[hank]

could the anakim be the neanderthals ? Apparently they cohabited the earth tens of thousands of years ago.

[This message has been edited by hank (edited 10-20-2000).]

[Ghost Post]

Just to take this in a completely different direction, the answer to the question depends on how you define "most recent." Once we allow that any two people will have at least one common ancestor (I know that this was a subject for debate above, but I'm ignoring it) do they have a most recent common ancestor?

I've come up with basically two ways of defining how "recent" an ancestor is and they both have some odd quirks. First, as an example, we define how recent an ancestor is by when they were born. Under this definition, if you and I have common ancestors, we have a most recent common ancestor. (I'm assuming that the odds of two being born at exactly the same time are infinitesimal).

However, this definition does lead to a surprising result: it is possible that your most recent male ancestor is not your father, or that your most recent female ancestor is not your mother. Example: a 20 year old woman with a 40 year old father marries and has kids with a 60 year old man. This is completely possible biologically speaking, and it means that the kid's maternal grandfather is in fact "more recent" than their father.

If we define "recentness" of an ancestor in terms of any event in the ancestors life that does not directly have to do with them becoming your ancestor we can conceive of a strange situation of this nature. To fix this we need to define recentness in a way so that your mother is always as recent as your father (more generally any two ancestors of yours whose offspring is also an ancestor of yours should be equally recent).

A simple way of doing this would be to define how recent an ancestor is by when their child who is also your ancestor was born (or when you were born in your parents case). Clearly then, all your ancestors will come in pairs of equally recent men and women. The catch is that by tying the definition of recentness to the actual act of becoming your ancestor as it were, two people with a common ancestor need not agree how recent that ancestor is, and as a result the existence of common ancestors does not guarantee the existence of a most recent common ancestor.

Picture the following situation: Eve A and Eve B both have two children. By a remarkable coincidence Eve A's son is born on the same day as Eve B's son. Two years later Eve A's daughter is born on the same day as Eve B's daughter. Through another remarkable coincidence Eve A's son marries Eve B's daughter and Eve A's daughter marries Eve B's son. Both couples have kids. These kids have Eve A and Eve B as common ancestors, and the two women are certainly more recent than any other common female ancestor they have. However, find their maternal grandmother to be more recent than their paternal grandmother, so they don't agree on which one is most recent and they have no most recent common ancestor.

It's amazing what you can think of during an hour long commute.

------------------
"Zathras used to being beast of other people's burden. Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But, at least there is symmetry."

[Ghost Post]

Regardless of the fact that there -may- be a more recent grand eve/adam, all matter originated from the singularity, and therefore is our original (and only definate) grand-eve/adam. After all, if somehow life sparked at two places at the same time, and life continued to evolve seperately down each chain, any pair from both chains would have no earthly ancestors.

And don't even get me started with the problems of looking at this from the fictitious biblical point of view, as it is just that -fictitious- !!

[Vanyo]

I love it when people ask you not to get them started, when obviously they already are.

[Ghost Post]

On second thought, building on the the biblical point of view that Mathieu calls fictitious, i think the answer to the questions may be:

First question : Yes, it is possible that you and i have a grand-eve (with the human race evolving from one female source - Eve)

Second question: Yes, it is necessarily the case that we have a grand-adam (with our female source having a husband - Adam, Anakims or no Anakims)

Third question: No, our grand-eve and grand-adam each may have existed during a different era.

[f1ref0x]

hmm.. this semms like a lousy puzzle becos good puzzles have definite & ingenious answers don't they?

[DaveG]

Look at this on a simple basis.
For 2 brothers born of the same mother, but different fathers, Mum is the Grand-Eve, but the Grand-Adam, if he exists (see later), could be generations earlier.
If the brothers have the same father, but different mothers, the reverse holds, so there is no sequence requirement for the Grand-Adam and Grand-Eve, and they certainly need not have met.

Assuming a common origin for the human race, which is the way modern genetics are pointing, then any of must share a Grand-Adam and Grand-Eve and either could exist anywhere between the last generation and the origin of the species.

PS About Dolly, a clone has the same genes as those that the 'original' inherited from its Mum & Dad, so genetically Dolly had a Dad.

[mlheur]

1. We could all be like cartman where grand-adam became grand-eve, and then we're just screwed...

2. Big bang theory, we all started from that tiny little dot, and grand-dot is all...

[Ghost Post]

Here's a stupid idea..... If you have a grand-adam, and your grand-eve isn't his wife, lover, girlfriend, etc, etc..... than wouldn't you grand-eve be his mother? And he would have to know his mother, even if it was only from the womb.... Unless he was a test tube baby, I guess.

[Vanyo]

Fink is right, Minotaur, and the rest of us, were all wrong.

I'm a bit astounded by this. Did nobody else catch this?

The assumption we all made, which was never specified in the puzzle, was that our grand-Eve was the nearest common female ancestor along a purely female line, and similarly that our grand-Adam was the nearest common male ancestor along a purely male line. In that case, our grand-Eve and grand-Adam need not have known each other.

But the puzzle simply defines grand-Eve and grand-Adam as the most recent female and male common ancestors (in which case, also, they need not be unique).

So, in the official solution:

quote:

---

Let's say our Grand Eve-- let's call her Evelyn-- lived in Germany five hundred years ago. Evelyn must have had at least two daughters (if she had only one, that daughter would be our Grand Eve). One daugther's lineage eventually produced me, the other eventually produced you. Did our Grand Adam know Evelyn? It's possible, but by no means necessary. In this example I make the assumption you have German blood on your Mother's side stemming from the 16th century. So you could be 100% German. But my father is Chinese. If you don't have Chinese blood, we could still share a Grand Eve as recent as Evelyn, but our Grand Adam might date back tens of thousands years to a tribe living it what is now the Middle East.

---

Evelyn's father would be a more recent common male ancestor though, and, by the given definition, would preclude any earlier grand-Adam. And if there were a much more recent grand-Adam, his mother would preclude Evelyn from being a grand-Eve.

Of course, with the given definitions of grand-Adam and grand-Eve, there can be multiple persons fitting the definition of either, and there may be two that did not know each other, but we are gauranteed that for any two people there is some grand-Adam and some grand-Eve that knew each other, either as mother-son, father-daughter, or as mates.

[edit]
Well, almost. We could have a grand-Adam and grand-Eve who did not know each other that are exactly equally distant in the past (by whatever measure of distance we are using), in which case the parents of neither preclude the other from being grand-whatever.
I think it's clear from the official solution that the intended, but never stated, definition of grand-Eve and grand-Adam was the one we all used.
[/edit]


[This message has been edited by Vanyo (edited 11-08-2000).]

[Ghost Post]

Let me see if I got this right. The only way our grand-adam and grand-eve could NOT have known one another, is if either our two grand ancestors were born in the same generation, or our grand-adam left the mother of our grand-eve before she was born, and he sired a boy with someone else. Those are the only two way's I can think of.


Now that I think about it, here's a new twist. If we were talking about a purely male/female liniage than the idea of a grand anything is darn near impossible. what are the odds that one mans entire family tree would consist of a male child all the way to me and you. The same goes for the woman. if anyone in that entire family branch only had the opposite sex children, or ie., if our grand-adam(eve)'s daughter(son) is part of my family tree, then the direct chain is broken and there is NO grand anything..... How do you like me now Minotaur? (ha ha)

[This message has been edited by Fink (edited 11-08-2000).]

[Vanyo]