who existed before Adam?

[miss tenderness]

Who existed before Adam? This question was one of great interest to me. I was glad to see what the National Geographic stated in its website. According to it a group of anthropologists came to the conclusion that the essence of all human descent returns to (one man) lived in Africa before many many years.
This conclusion harmonize with the idea that the heavenly religions brings (about all human races having one essence (one man), Adam, the first man, according to the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions. It also does not oppose the modern theory of the variety of human races. How? Those who study paleontology believe that there were various human races existed before our race and then they perished. Our race were given the name of the Homo sapiens also the human races that existed before ours were given names, I can't recall them now. From the holy Quran we get the idea that the earth was already set and full of life before the coming down of Adam from heaven. The story of how Allah, swt, tells his angels about the earth is going to be the land for our human race and then their reply confirms that they (the angels) already experienced the existence of other races before ours.
Does science oppose or confirm religions has been a subject of dispute for so long. It's not my intention in this thread to discuss it.NO, I was just interested in the idea of the existence of other races before ours and I wanted you to share it with me, well, if you ever wondered about such subjects.

[Virgil]

I read that same National Geographic article, Miss T, and also found it interesting.

[Jay]

Miss tenderness or Virgil, could you please provide a link to the article? (or could you tell me in which issue of NG I can find the article?) I'd like to read that but I can't seem to be able to find it, must have missed it.

[mono]

I, too, feel very curious to read this article. I have no idea of what kind of proof anthropologists would have to prove this theory, or even prove the very controversial topic of 'Adam and Eve.'
This almost reminds me a riddle I once heard (only a riddle, of course, not a true story!):
Question: a group of anthropologists claim to have found and dug up both Adam and Eve preserved in ice - how did they know them as Adam and Eve?
Answer: they had no bellybuttons.

[Virgil]

Miss tenderness or Virgil, could you please provide a link to the article? (or could you tell me in which issue of NG I can find the article?) I'd like to read that but I can't seem to be able to find it, must have missed it.

When I get home this evening I'll look through my NG back issues. I think it was within this past year.

I, too, feel very curious to read this article. I have no idea of what kind of proof anthropologists would have to prove this theory, or even prove the very controversial topic of 'Adam and Eve.'
This almost reminds me a riddle I once heard (only a riddle, of course, not a true story!):
Question: a group of anthropologists claim to have found and dug up both Adam and Eve preserved in ice - how did they know them as Adam and Eve?
Answer: they had no bellybuttons.

I think it was through DNA history track that identified the sorce of homo sapiens to be in Africa. I think they sensationalized it a little by claiming a single couple as the roots, but perhaps it had to be a single couple. Of course they had evolved from other primates, so it did not claim a negation of evolution.

[Virgil]

Here try this NG web site on it. I believe its roots were that article that Miss T mentioned.

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

[grace86]

I believe the article is from March or May...I know this because that article is the reason I picked up National Geographic again. On the website, there is a link for The Genographic Project. What they are doing is tracing the DNA of indigenous peoples (and anyone else who wants to participate) and they are attempting to determine where your ancestors traveled. They believe that the common ancestor of all people alive today reach back to one man and one woman in Africa (Adam and Eve if you will). Please don't quote me on all of this, I have not read the article or the website in a while.

But I do not think it impossible for science and religion to agree for once.

[Jay]

Found something in Novermber 2005 issue, any chance that it might be it? There's a note to go to the genographic project at the end of the article.

[subterranean]

Who existed before Adam? This question was one of great interest to me. I was glad to see what the National Geographic stated in its website. According to it a group of anthropologists came to the conclusion that the essence of all human descent returns to (one man) lived in Africa before many many years.
This conclusion harmonize with the idea that the heavenly religions brings (about all human races having one essence (one man), Adam, the first man, according to the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions. It also does not oppose the modern theory of the variety of human races. How? Those who study paleontology believe that there were various human races existed before our race and then they perished. Our race were given the name of the Homo sapiens also the human races that existed before ours were given names, I can't recall them now. From the holy Quran we get the idea that the earth was already set and full of life before the coming down of Adam from heaven. The story of how Allah, swt, tells his angels about the earth is going to be the land for our human race and then their reply confirms that they (the angels) already experienced the existence of other races before ours.
Does science oppose or confirm religions has been a subject of dispute for so long. It's not my intention in this thread to discuss it.NO, I was just interested in the idea of the existence of other races before ours and I wanted you to share it with me, well, if you ever wondered about such subjects.

Well, I personally think that the description of Adam in, say the Bible, doesn't fit with what science said about ancient man

Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

There's a possibility that the naming proccess took like some period of time, but according to the Bible Adam lived for hundred and thirty years, and I don't think hundred and thirty years are enough to name all cattle and everything in the air and to every beast of the field. Bit silly thought, I know

[Thorwench]

The German NG had this article in March. I read it when I saw the first post and have to say that it leaves too many questions. An article always will, it cannot be exhaustive by nature, but the Adam and Eve stuff is only a small mention without further explanation. They essentially wrote that the mitochondrial DNA of all people can be traced back to one single mother, i.e. Eve-DNA. The same would be true for the y-chromosome, leading back to only one male father of all. Although this may be true, I don't know, I have always thought you need a minimum seized gene pool in order to sustain the species. That's what all those biologists and zoologists worry about in respect to endangered species, I thought. They always argue that when the groups, i.e. the gene pools, become too small, healthy species cannot be continued due to too much inbreeding and it will die out inevitably then. But who said we are healthy species?

[miss tenderness]

sorry I was not around for a while...thanks Virg for covering up and providing the link.

[Boris239]

From the archaeology course I took, the first species are Australopithecus followed by Homo habilis, who were the first to produce some kind of tools. Both of the species lived only in Africa- as far as I remember somewhere near modern Kenia or Chad. The next species was, if I'm not mistaken, Homo Erectus, who were the first species who moved out of Africa. Then there were Neanderthals, whose main habitat was Europe. As far as I remember most archaeologists don't consider them direct ancestors of homo sapiens. There are two theories: 1) Out of africa(or something like that) stating that modern homo sapiens appeared in Africa nad then migrated all over the world 2) That Homo Erectus gradually changed to Homo Sapiens

It's btw interesting to mention that there are 3 main features used to compare species- 1) if they are bypedal 2) if they use tools 3) the size of their brains
The size of brains gradually increased, and our brains are much bigger than brains of Homo Habilis( at least that's true for most of us ). The only exception are Neanderthals whose heads were enourmous, but who unfortunately didn'y use their brains too much

[miss tenderness]

that's great Boris and definetly goes with what is in that study. most interesting is the archaeology course that you take,are you interested in archaeology?I'd love to take it one day. did you take it as a part of your major or it was an additionadl course?