>First to answer Dick. If one believes that Adam must be the genetic head of
>the human race then here is the evidence. Alan Templeton writes:
>
>"If the coalescence time of mtDNA is truly about 200,000 years ago, then
>the expected coalescence time of almost all nuclear genes are going to be
>commonly greater than one or two million years. This places the expected
>coalescence times of much nuclear DNA into a period in which all humans
>probably lived in Africa. Hence, studies on nuclear DNA are expected to
>have an African root under all hypotheses of modern human evolution." ~
>Alan R. Templeton, "Testing the Out of Africa Replacement Hypothesis with
>Mitochondrial DNA Data," in G. A. Clark and C. M. Willermet, ed.,
>Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, (New York: Aldine de
>Gryuter, 1997), pp. 329-360, p. 353
>
>So, while most Christians rejoice over the mtDNA coalesence time, because
>it fits their preconceptions, the actual data of nuclear DNA appears to
>support a genetic origin of mankind at least a couple of million years ago.
>What gets me is that Christians always talk about mtDNA but NEVER talk
>about the nuclear DNA coalescence time. I think it is because we do a
>shallow job of research and that we accept the first answer that comes
>along which supports our theology.
>
>Dick, I think this qualifies as at least, a shred of evidence if not more.
As it pertains to biological man. No quarrel from me. It is Adam of
Genesis who was Eve's husband; father to Cain, Abel, and Seth; and
grandfather to Enosh and Enoch, who could have lived not earlier than
about 7,000 years ago. That is the Adam of which I speak. If you have
another man in mind who may or may not have been named "Adam" then we
need to make some distinction lest we confuse the two who would have been
separated in time by many thousands if not millions of years.
BTW, the En- prefix in the names of Adam's grandsons means "king" or
"ruler" in Sumerian. The first Sumerian kings who ruled at Badtabira
were named Enmenluanna and Enmengalanna. They likely were
contemporary with Enoch who would have ruled at the city of the same
name, identified as "E-Anna(k)" in the Sumerian king list and is still
called "Eanna" to this day.
Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution - http://www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."