Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are we all related going back far enough in history? If so to what extent?
Evolution and creationism both agree we are all related to some extent. Creationists like to be separate from its own nature but we are not, not completely.
Fun fact: every US president except Martin van Buren is descended from King John Lackland of England.
No, Mitochondrial Eve is not supose to be the "original" woman. Click on the article you posted and read the first sentence. This is a search for the "most recent" common ancestor. Not the most ancient, not the oldest, not the original. The "most recent".There's an active branch of research to find the original man and women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve goes over some of that research.
VERY distantly: so distant that it's not really important.
It's not? In what way is it not important?
As in, it's distant enough that it shouldn't ignite any "icky incest" reactions.
I would say that we are even related to anything that exists outside of this planet.
Oh. Well, I have no problem at all with incest, so that could be why I was kind of like "eh?" when I read that. XD Part of why I have no problem with it is precisely because we're all the same ruddy species anyway.
It's not? In what way is it not important?
Not "most" times, but far too frequently than you (or anyone) would like. :run:I have no problem with it from a legal standpoint, but I do understand that most times, offspring is deformed or handicapped in some way, with the risk greater the closer the relationship.
Are we all related going back far enough in history? If so to what extent?
Evolution and creationism both agree we are all related to some extent. Creationists like to be separate from its own nature but we are not, not completely.