The Search for Adam

The Search for Adam

Ratings: 7.19/10 from 48 users.

The Search for AdamCould we all be descendants of an Adam? And if Adam existed, who was he, where did he live and what did he look like?

Join leading geneticist and National Geographic Explorer-In-Residence, Spencer Wells, as he embarks on a quest to trace every man's family tree back to an ultimate ancestor.

His extraordinary journey ultimately lands him in Africa where he pinpoints the birthplace of human kind. Using the latest technology in DNA research and forensic anthropology, Wells and others reconstruct the life and face of Adam.

His latest adventures have led him to discover that Thomas Jefferson’s ethnic background is not quite as one would expect. He has hunted down possible descendants of Solomon, the third king of Israel.

And, he has entered a world where science and religion converge—the search for what he calls the “scientific Adam,” the man who gave rise to all men today and the trunk of the human family tree. Wells has used DNA to trace this common ancestor back to Africa and perhaps to the very plains where he may have hunted.

He has even identified a living tribe with an ancient lineage that offers a window into the life of scientific Adam - and, the face of one of the tribe members served as a model to determine what he may have looked like.

Explore a world where science and religion converge as we shed new light on our ancient past in The Search for Adam.

More great documentaries

98 Comments / User Reviews

  1. steph

    What fundamental truth does that teach us about humanity and human destiny?

    1. David T

      This is about Noah, not Adam, smh

    2. Jim

      I was thinking the same thing it proves that were other men before that man but none of them survived so it makes sense that that would be Noah not Adam

  2. am

    That religous dude chris,is scared of truths

  3. a_no_n

    i like the way they just assume it's a man.

    I'm guessing the rest of the documentary goes on in that manner, chasing assumptions rather than searching for an answer?

    1. Fabien L

      Didn't they declare to have traced the genetic Eve back to Africa a few years ago based on mitochondrial DNA analysis?

    2. a_no_n

      I remember something about that yeah.

    3. Fabien L

      Then what is the problem with them now looking to find the Y chromosome mutation common to all males on the planet and attribute it to a "scientific Adam"? Women don't have the Y chromosome so it obviously can't be a woman.

    4. A.P.G

      That's because Adam is a mans name,and eve is a woman's name, DUH. you obviously are a product of the mixed up world in which men think their women,and women think their men,and with your intelligent observation your obviously a woman,but then again you might be a man.There is no assumption,but consider this,it was eve who ate the apple from the tree of knowledge in her gullibility,which put mankind on this path of pain and suffering in which we now live in today,not Adam.

  4. Caseviewer

    @Samuel Morrissey

    You sound like another man without faith, not a deep thinker either. I cannot and do not agree that Holy Books are "utterly useless" for fact-finding. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never referred to them as "historical documents" which you have in single quotations; I hope you do not suggest I did; in fact I never used that phrase.

    Do you not think the report of an occurrence, or the presence of an
    occurrence--any number of times--2,000 years ago, more or less -- perhaps something now a mystery -- is worthy of note and mention?

    Do you not think the location and time it is noted to have been experienced or witnessed, etc., in the scriptures might be of significance, especially if it is now still a mystery, since that could suggest, e.g., (2) sightings? From a scientific standpoint, with scientific method-type thinking in mind where you begin with a wide set and eliminate as you rule out -- I certainly do see value in such reports.

    Even those who are interested in extraterrestrial sightings -- many think there are references in the Bible to such experiences. While I am a believer, I do not discount that some descriptions taken to be one thing by the ancient witnesses, might have been actually another, especially if the experience were an out-of-this-world occurrence; further I do NOT suggest or believe that if there were to be a confused matter of old, as to determining the essence of anything -- that it means we are without a God or the scriptures mean any less.

    We are humans. God is God.

    We are not perfect and should not expect the ancients to have been; and I speaking from my faith and beliefs, prefer to defer to what the scriptures define something to be, unless and until I were to study an example that I for Godly reasons believe the definition to be different. I have NOT studied the scriptures about extraterrestrial sightings, but I have heard of what I stated above.

    I see your point in the scriptures perhaps not being a study in precision. That is and was not my point though. Neither do they have to be, to be worthy of inclusion in a fact-finding mission. Would have been nice if this didn't need explanation.

    As for your statement, " These fine principles on which your nation was founded have been steadily eroded or altered over the years to include [God] in various forms, and I'm certain they would be furious were they [our Founding Fathers] alive to see the vast corruption that has been done to them in various individual states."

    I do agree that the world is getting to be a worse place in general. As long as this is included in my point in reply to your statement(s), I would mention here that such is clearly stated as to how it will be in this world, in the Bible.

    However, I disagree with your talk of ". . . fine principles . . . been steadily eroded or altered over the years to 'include [God]' in various forms, . . . ." I SEE IT THE OPPOSITE ENTIRELY. We once had more law and order BEFORE atheists and whiners presented their arguments why their views should be honored just as much as our adherence to Godly values. I DO TOTALLY DISAGREE THAT OUR NATION IS BETTER OFF WITHOUT REVERENCE FOR GOD IN OUR GOVERNMENT, SCHOOLS, ETC.

    Should there be coordinated structure regarding spiritual consideration and weight, e.g., in government & schools? This would be wise, to ensure smooth operation without excessive differences in processing. I am not a politician, but am speaking my opinions as a believing citizen. It is my right to express my spiritual views and my opinion, and I do not expect to have to continue to defend them to you or anyone else. Please read this again if you are unclear on my points just made.

    You and I are polar opposites spiritually, I can see from your content. So we have little in common in that regard, and in my value system, that "regard" is of high importance. You state that our Founding Fathers are not alive; I believe our spirits live on. I believe I can state the following for those who revered God. I say this with far more certainty than I have relative to YOUR hypothetical assessment concerning them. I am certain that for any erosion of our society, any increase in lawlessness, any confusion as to what is right and wrong that has evolved to exist in our society today (& any related negativity) -- certainly our Founding Fathers would NOT blame these on THEIR reverence for and inclusion of God then. Neither would they blame these on OUR reverence for and inclusion of God since. God is not our enemy and your beliefs will never amount to making that be the case, as I expect you will come to know.

    I would have to study individual quotations from history to say that I agree with your statement regarding all of our Founding Fathers--I don't believe on its face that they all (as you imply) wanted secular government; I recognize there was reverence for God and mention of God in many a wise word spoken by them.

    I disagree with your irreverent phrase that today our Founding Fathers are "rotating at high speed in graves as we speak," and cannot encourage such arrogant talk, even if meant rhetorically. From your comment, I don't also think you are qualified to speak for our Founding Fathers. You don't for one sound like a man of faith, and THAT is a primary reason you would not be likely to accurately even GUESS -- indeed I believe you have already "guessed" incorrectly -- the content of a mindset lined up with a spiritual state of faith -- let alone the opinions of anyone speaking from a deeply spiritual base of faith.

    Six days ago, in the midst of many racists and haters and to make a point, I posted 2 posts regarding the beginning of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which posts read:

    "Gettysburg, PA Nov 19, 1863"
    "[On] June 1, 1865, Sen Charles Sumner eulogized slain Pres Abraham Lincoln, calling Lincoln's Gettysburg Address a "monumental act," saying Lincoln was mistaken that 'the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,' remarking, 'The world noted at once what he said, and willnever cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.' These racists would be a source of shame to the thoughtful man who
    became the great President Lincoln."

    "President Lincoln:"
    "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
    continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war."
    [emphasis added.]

    "So racists & haters: remember that you lost that war, and against Godly principles you will never win."

    [Since I see that those verses did NOT include reference to God as I had thought one of them did, here is the rest of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address:

    "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    "But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- THAT THIS NATION, UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."]
    [Caps added for emphasis.]

    As for your attack on me and criticisms of my sharing love with the person I replied to; as for your negative categorization that amounts to a FALSE ACCUSATION that I was "proselytising nonsense," I STRONGLY DISAGREE -- both with your categorization, as well as your points.

    First of all, "proselytising" implies trying to or attempting to "convert" the person whose post I responded to from his religion or belief, to another. A conversion I say suggests far more than the little I stated. I am entitled to make points, to state my beliefs, to expound on them a bit, and I believe I did all of that respectfully.

    If all you could get out of what I typed is a negative categorization of my sharing, and demeaning and ugly accusations of my content as you have presented in response, then sadly for YOU that might be all it is; however be mindful there are many different people in this world and as I stated to the first gentleman (having researched it I think in 2010 or so) most peoples in the world believe in God. It goes without saying that your perceptions are not everyone's. IMO, I perceive you to be over-reactive without considering everything, and think you err by trying to speak for people you ought let speak for themselves.

    My encouraging to seek God, someone who sounds like they have a rather destitute spirit such as that person and also yourself -- I am fully aware that a person has the ability to choose this or decline and no, in a comment or post, I don't make it my business to go about trying to "convert" people but SHARING LOVE AND MY VIEWS I DO -- AND THAT IS MY RIGHT -- JUST AS IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO GRIPE AND WHINE ABOUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. Those types of responses are WHY I encourage people to seek God, because there is a world full of hate, criticism and ugliness without Him, and He can help by teaching us better ways to love.

    One of the beautiful things that we are encouraged to do thru the Bible that has helped change my life for the better, is to build one another up rather than tear one another down. What I pointed out is INFORMATIVE, not an attempt to "convert," per se. My guess is what little I said and say now, might or might not be thought about deeply; it totally depends upon God and a person individually. A "conversion" of sorts ordinarily would require any amount more to accomplish, were that my goal; and whether it would ever happen or not is not in my hands, but in the hands of God and the person. I don't feel a public page is the place to do that, and resent your categorization, as do I dislike and disagree with your further ugliness, that I "spouted mythology and ancient books of manipulation." However you are entitled to your ugly opinions.

    And frankly I rather hope I won't hear further from you since I dislike your ugly perceptions and feel I have adequately clarified my stand. I find your negativity a drag and not worthy of further discussion; it seems you've made yourself rather clear. (If for some reason you wish to write me further, you may; I might not respond right away however; this has been enough for awhile.)

    And of course you are entitled to remain the product of your spiritual state and views. Surely you don't deny me my spiritual state and views, do you? We have free speech and freedom of religion here; not sure where you are.

    I don't personally care if YOU think I "seem insane," I think you'll agree that what others say about us often says more about them than it does the person of whom they speak . . . and I'll spare you from describing how YOU seem to me. I've clearly stated my views and I stand by them. And if you will excuse me, I have a birthday to celebrate :). I pray your day is blessed.

    1. Achems_Razor

      Who are you and what gives you the right to say a person has "a rather destitute spirit" just because they do not believe in god, what god? your god of course.
      You called a commentor ugly many times in your post, proof again most all religee's resort to ad hominem when backed into a corner.
      And I agree with the previous poster, you seem a little? loony, get help!

      funny religee's.

    2. Papakura Toa

      'the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,' love that. Now it's 2021 and I wonder what America's current state would be if the philosophy of Lincoln were used today. Reality shows we will never have a time where individual freedom can be put aside even momentarily for the greater good of mankind.

  5. jaberwokky

    What complete and utter claptrap, shame on you National Geographic.

  6. Bob Robinson

    I just watched the first 10 minutes and they mentioned religion believes adam exists and always quoted as saying half the world believes in adam, which is ludicrous. Even in places considered Christian a lot of people are atheists. 90% of china's 1 billion people are atheist. I could go on but you get my point this documentary is making stuff up to fit its agenda. On top of that religion has no place in this type of science and shouldn't even be mentioned if they want any credibility.
    In actuality, its way more complicated then this documentary makes it out to be. They should stick to ancient alien shows and ghost specials and leave real science to the scientists. By the way I like those conspiracy shows, but it in no way gives credibility to these people.

    1. Yousef Ergonenc

      ... please watch the full show, and go back and edit your comment so you don't look like an absolute fool.

    2. Caseviewer

      @Bob Robinson
      Who are you to tell National Geographic what their shows should be on? You ought to do some research on the percentage of the world who believe in God. You will find that most all peoples in the world DO believe in God. Many "real science" scientists believe in God as well.

      And you didn't provide anything to challenge that their data--being that the 3 main religions of the world each believe we all descended from one common ancestor--is anything but true. That is significant as far as a fact in the history of man, don't you think?! Considering the Holy Books of the world have been around so very long, were written by people inspired of God, and hold a great deal of historical data in them. Yes, that is indeed a significant point in this story.

      So what's troubling you? I can tell you that Christians are making headway in China. You would know that, if you were Christian; for example, TCT has televised about their work in China. People there can be punished for outward practice at least in some areas, but that doesn't stop them from developing faith and coming to Christ.

      Yet you point out atheism in China. That isn't necessarily by choice; and China is just one country in this world--so that figure you gave for atheists (which I would need to research before accepting as fact), considering the above and for the sake of this discussion, doesn't mean much.

      Maybe atheism is your trouble. You don't sound like you have the love of God in you or much faith. I beg to differ with your atheist-sounding assessment that religion has no place in science-type news like this. As a matter of fact, I respect and appreciate those astronauts and other scientists that believe there is intelligent design in the universe. They believe in God. We are searching for truths, and aspects of it; we are not searching for elements of truth devoid of other truths.

      In fact I would say that National Geographic gets my vote for NOT ruling out ancient spiritual-related writings as to our beginnings. The case in point I mentioned above is "spiritual" insofar as, e.g., Christians recognize the Bible to be the Word of God; Moslems see the Koran as their Islamic Holy Book; and those of the Jewish faith consider the Written Torah to be their Holy Book.

      Ancient writings however, are also a form of hard evidence, recorded evidence, especially when corroborated by so many. So leaving this out would have made their reporting and fact-gathering far less thorough. You mentioned ancient aliens; that's what we call them today. There may well be reference(s) to them in the scriptures, by other descriptions. This again is a form of recorded evidence.

      BTW we all have a "spirit." You do also. It is the part of us that God speaks to, and it is not a "tangible" thing like the parts of us that evolved. Ever given that thought?

      So I would explain our "spirit" as being part of God's design for us; He wants to be able to communicate with us, and gave us free will to accept or reject Him, but tells us through scripture and in what we see around us, to choose Him--to seek God's Kingdom first, rather than ignoring God and seeking everything else.

      Indeed the Adam and Eve the scriptures describes seems to have had more going on than flesh and blood, otherwise they could not experience some of the emotions they did.

      And quite an accusation to say National Geographic is "making stuff up," wow. You know what you sound like to me? To me, your curt comments without sources, attitude and running down others that don't seem to fit YOUR agenda, sound a lot like racists and haters I spot too often posting on YouTube--whom I've reported quite often lately for hate speech--altho you don't have that.

      They obviously have no reverence for God. They wouldn't have liked the generated "Scientific Adam" represented in this National Geographic wonderful special. Not sure if you checked that out. If you didn't like the Scientific Adam depicted and based on evidence that Frank Bender generated, that might explain some attitude in your post and why you sound similar to me, to racists.

      My best suggestion to you is let your spirit open up to God, and don't shut Him out. You're not too big of a job for Him. God enlightens and changes people for His purposes to being the best that they can possibly be, from the inside out, but we have free will to accept or reject Him. It looks like you've been rejecting and it shows.

      My encouragement to you is not to reject God but to embrace Him and knowledge about Him from sound and reliable sources, like the Scriptures--our Bible or "The Word," from a good non-denominational Bible based church and from loving Christians who genuinely believe in God and Jesus Christ and who practice living according to their faith in their lives.

      No man is an island. Our Founding Fathers had the faith, belief in, and spiritual sense to honor God. They did so even in their political writings. We've only to look around and see how the world deteriorates without God.

      Then also, no one's forcing you to watch, if you're spirit isn't ready to accept even references to God. We who believe He is very real and changes lives, and who are in awe of his mighty creations, love to hear references to Him, knowing He is the Almighty, certainly WE are not the Creator.

      WE didn't design and create ourselves. WE are not the more wise, more powerful, more emcompassing. WE are not who acts and brings about all sorts of wonders that science predicted against -- but GOD BLESSES US WITH THESE WONDERS THAT ARE WITHIN HIS POWERS. God is who is above each of us, and is whom we can look to for all things. God loves all people, including you. God bless you.

    3. Samuel Morrissey

      As 'historical documents' the 'holy' books are utterly useless, having been copied, translated, mistranslated and altered time and time again as suited the theocratic rulers in their times.

      Your founding fathers are rotating at high speed in graves as we speak, as their carefully worded documents clearly show the desire for and absolute necessity of a secular government. These fine principles on which your nation was founded have been steadily eroded or altered over the years to include god in various forms, and I'm certain they would be furious were they alive to see the vast corruption that has been done to them in various individual states.

      But your federal constitution is still largely secular, and you should be very grateful for that. It is secularism that gives you your freedom of faith, as it does equally for atheists, and indeed all other faiths.

      As for the rest of your post, it is proselytising nonsense and against the comments policy. When you talk with someone who doesn't believe as you do, spouting mythology and ancient books of manipulation as some kind of self evident truth makes you seem insane.

      Do you ever question your beliefs?

    4. Kyle Colley

      no.....people like you dont belong near any form of science. science is the exploration of the unknown, they are saying that the majority of large religions believe the same thing which may have a small part to play in the truth of all matters...if you had no knowledge of anything and i told u the sun was called a pop would believe it for as long as that remained the only option....maybe religion was just the uneducated way of people passing down the story of our earliest ancestor through the only means they knew. conspiracy??? lol you dont seem to grasp the basic concept of this film, maybe you should stick to the $20 microscope set from wal-mart lol

    5. Jared Simmering

      Good morning, afternoon, evening or whatever it is when you get this Mr. Robinson. I just wanted to inform you from one atheist to another that I support your view in this film.

      As far as your new friend Caseviewer, that wrote to you two months ago, I'd like to point something out. I copy/pasted this from his own text: "Yet you point out atheism in China. That isn't necessarily by choice; and China is just one country in this world--so that figure you gave for atheists (which I would need to research before accepting as fact), considering the above and for the sake of this discussion, doesn't mean much."

      My point about this comment of his has everything to do with what he put in brackets: "(which I would need to research before accepting as fact)" I find it sad that as a Christian theist he obviously has NOT used this mindset towards his faith. Additionally, @Caseviewer:disqus , we don't have souls. I have a brain, heart, lungs, liver, etc AND I know where all of them are located. Quick test...point to your soul. Strange how when you damage the rear of the brain eye sight is loss. Damage another part and the use of your legs, arms, hearing, etc are damaged or weakened. BUT destroy all of the brain and it somehow comes back together so that you can remember grandma and grandpa from childhood.

      Give me a break. Wake up! Take a step back from your delusion and take a look at what it is that you belief in. Oh and personal experience with the almighty one is bogus too. Youtube "The God Helmet" which destroys that s*upid and insane argument.

      Goodbye (which comes from "god be with you")

  7. Jean Alexander Steffen

    so , he was the most badass of his people

  8. Paul Nelligan

    How Scientific!

  9. anu60

    I don't get it. Why wouldn't Adams father be the common male link or his paternal grandfather?

  10. James Tod

    Man just discovered Aliens in 2012 . But it maybe years before they tell any one .

  11. James Tod

    Two parts of the movie was left out . But it is in the Biology books . About commit and the Ice age , the earth broken In so many different parts .

  12. James Tod

    I learn this in high school and college . Before the D N A movie . But We have so many arrogant people in the world . I could not tell any one the truth out side of my Biology class . You just have to put arrogates a side an Be educated and listen . To the law of Biology . It brakes down the hair and skin color . of different tribes . And life styles of all men .

  13. robcassman

    It's amazing how arrogant so many people are on this site. I have been coming to this site for quite a while now because of so many good videos. But the comments are EXTREMELY doubt about it. The vitriol that comes from so many here toward what they see as "religion" and "faith" is very telling.

    1. Guest

      Come on back, don't let this stop you. It's just words.
      One recommandation:
      When you write, write your view and do not associate it with any groups. No one can say your view is not your view.
      I figure if there are 11 dimensions like science is telling us, there can be many perceptions of reality.

  14. Kurt OConnor

    Ancient creation stories can come true in the minds of man, easily, it's repeated in religion generation after generation. Haven't renown researchers found the creation story in Sumerian text? 2460BC) I'm no expert but maybe there was a manipulation like the Sumerian text says, not a rib but an added strand of DNA. Simple mistakes like this leads humanity away from truth. Clearly done to get Sumerian workers to mine for gold using their newly obtained enhanced logic, even if it took 20 years to enlighten their workers, alien dictators ruled and left the planet with it's minerals and what they needed. How many different copies of the creation story is there before someone sees around it's cast of directors?

  15. john ford

    if there was a god there would be no arguments about religion

  16. urban deadite

    Religion tells us All these super Aliens (Gods are not Human) created the Universe etc yet ALL Religion is focused on Humans, odd that and if He/She created us in their image how come there was so many different types of Homnids? and 30K years ago at least 5 types living together on Earth??, whose image were they created in????

  17. lauras33

    It seems that insinuations about everyone’s ancestry to be out of Africa persist and brainwashing campaign is taking more speed. I would like to ask the DNA scientists to present the data about how many mutations they found in Y chromosome and why they picked this particular mutation? Moreover, Where is the hidden clock in DNA, which shows exactly timing of exact mutation to occur? How about the genetic material and lineages lost during endless wars, natural disasters, pandemics, est.?
    Attempts to push forward with “politically correct” agenda do not represent real science.

  18. conscioussness

    It's amazing a documentary that may very well explain where all human life originated from. Instead people are blinded by religion to see that the truth is right in front of them. We need to reconstruct OUR history from the beginning using science and preach truth rather than faith.

  19. Mike

    Wow. So I read the comment I posted much earlier, when there were few. How did it spiral into members leaving?
    @vlatko- I do agree with your comments. Calculus, Algebra...these mathematical formula and concepts actually translate into real-world applications(e=mc^2-used to make bombs), such as geometry. Math is meant to be representative of truth. Honestly, I'm not sure where your two arguments were going, but I did enjoy them. Hopefully Chris will be back, because I hate when the intellectually driven battle eachother, and not the fools who could careless and USE the intellectuals for their own perverse purposes.

  20. Dimebag Cody

    Man I love your website, great docs. I've never posted before but I've been coming here for over a year now. I normally don't read many of the comments but I got sucked in with you and Chris's conversation.
    I'll be the first to say I don't really know when it comes to Religion vs Science and which one is right. My 'belief' is that science makes alot more sense due to facts you guys have stated already. I definately 'think' the three great monotheistic are false for a multitude of reasons.
    Before I ramble on for too long I just want to thank you for showing me there are alot of open minded people like me out there. I live in the southern US and free thinkers are few and far between... and I'm totally using your Cinderella story as an example of different interpreting of the same text. Keep up the good work!

  21. Troy

    G'day peeps

    Long time watcher & reader of comments (@Achems Razor, one of my faves :P)

    I decided ill join in on this one as i feel its a very important subject

    Chris scares the shit out of me & ill tell you why

    If people like him are teaching the next generation about the "options" of what you can belive, its doing nothing but holding back the evolution of mankind for generations to come

    Some people seem to think its ok to be open minded about being either "spritual" (i still would like to know what defines this term) or reason & science based.

    Well, its NOT

    The longer we entertain belief in works of FICTION written by MAN (no christians im not just targeting you so dont get on your spiritual horse) a very short time ago does absoultly nothing for us as an intellectual species

    I agree religion has served its purpose to help us reach a point were technology has now surpassed the basic human desire for answers but if we dont put the books like the bible, koran & the bhagavad gita next to a Jules Verne or Arthur C. Clarke book in the library human society will be forever held back by such strongly held delusions

    @Vlatko i really think all your comments on this page were totally spot on & hopefully it will be less than a 1000yrs before we reach a truly utopian point where your morality is not judged on anything but your own worth as a contributing & caring member of society

    Cheers dudes \m/

  22. Robyn

    I have been reading these posts and I am surprised how heated this debate got. Why are people so attached to either science or religion, is it really an either/or kind of thing? I try not to automatically discount any opinion no matter how "wrong" it may seem at first, as many unlikely things turn out to be true and many "proven" facts turn out to be false with time. I don't see these two camps as opposed to each other. I think they are both important pieces to the puzzle we are all trying to figure out. I truly appreciate other peoples points of view if expressed without contempt because I am at a point where I seem to be rethinking many things I took for granted to be true. To me all these comments are ideas to think over and learn from, (like a brain storming session), ideas I probably would never have thought of. Please don't take other people's ideas or beliefs as invalid or take them too personaly as this causes people to "shut down" and I really want to hear them all. Thank you to all my teachers.

  23. midoo

    Wow thins is amazing i was 100% sure that Adam is black. :)

    In Arabic Adam mean dark skin person .

  24. adam

    how come a lot of the things written in all bibles were written on walls in Egypt long before any bibles like the ten commandments and so forth...i need to know.

  25. The ImPoster

    If they ever found Adam in DNA form or the missing link; I think religion would feck science and make a baby relience. :-)

    Peace and Harmony to all

  26. Randy

    @Vlatko who wrote:

    "Yes, TDF is biased… towards science. I guess it is obvious judging by the content and the visitors.

    And yes you have all the Internet in your hands. You have many other places where you’ll be left alone to preach your gospels."


    Yes. I try very hard to stay away from the docs that you post, (very democratically, and admirably...), that are religious/superstitious in nature. I assume the lunatic-fringe can have their party there.

    I only get angry and "peevish" at the christians/superstitious/hippies that invade the scientific docs that you post.

    I mean, it goes along with my constant assertion, "Join us or don't, but either way, leave us alone, we have lives to save...".

    Don't get me wrong, I love the occasional UFO/Conspiracy thoery/magical-thinking doc as much as the next guy...

    But, only as a way to understand what mistakes the dazed and confused are making, so that I can make a solid argument...

    Also, to try and save those that seem way too far gone for their own good...

    But, that's just my whole-- wanting to be a doctor/lawyer stuff surfacing, until I realize, nothing I say, or do, can save anyone... best to just focus on my own responsibilities...

    Anyways, where was I? Yes, thank you.... I guess... is what I am saying...

  27. Olu

    A wonderful documentary!

  28. Colin

    Vlatko, keep up the good work.
    Knowledge is indeed power and power is having that knowledge.
    Just to through a spanner in the works, a quote from the bible: The meek (the teachable) shall inherit the Earth!

  29. Colin

    Everyone, lets take a step back and a deep breath. There's too much hyper-ventilating happening here. ha-ha.
    Now that things have settled down a bit, has anyone even considered that Mankind is to blame for this kind of reaction to this simple investigatory documentary to determine the origin of the 1st man? I mean Religion specifically!
    Religion is a man made concept to praise what ever deity that you believe in! FACT. I can't recount reading about a God asking for us to build churches, synagogues etc to praise him/her.
    Through these religions (not wholly comprising of the Christian religions) all your Scientific measuring sticks were based. From Astronomy to your usual sciences, i.e. Biology etc.
    So without Religion we would not have the scientific knowledge that we now have. Is it not in Man's nature to learn from our mistakes?
    Today we are heading ever closer to 2011 and People are we really that more advanced than our ancestors from a millenia ago? Our ancient ancestors knew a lot more about our world and the cosmos above us than we think is possible and through our science of today are only beginning to realise this.
    Another point is, Science was never brought about to disprove the lack of a God(s). It was a tool to explain the unexplainable. Granted it has never proved that God didn't exist, but on the same hand it didn't disprove that God exists.

  30. Jeff


    The only gullible organism to ever live on planet earth.

    Regardless of intellectual capacity.

  31. Achems Razor

    I always find it incongruous why religious people always try to push there gods on other people.
    Almost as if they are trying to cement there own beliefs in there own minds.

    The more they try to convince people of there gods the more they are themselves convinced??

    Atheist or non-believers could not care less on pushing any beliefs about god's, until the religee's bring it up.


    1. Caseviewer

      @Bob Robinson
      I think rather than "push" onto others they are trying to honor God themselves, and explain to nonbelievers various things. Surely there are many out there who are believing Christians now but who, at one time, felt distant from God, perhaps that God was of no interest to them--but who now wouldn't ever go back to unenlightened times, knowing their lives are much more blessed than they every imagined they could be.

      And there's I believe something to be said for non-believers putting believers "on the defensive" so to speak, since nonbelievers do not have the consideration before they say certain things of "Will this honor God?" So they might well say things that are "push-your-buttons" kinds of comments generating a lot of emotion and response which a Christian -- in effort to honor God -- will take the long way around to reply to and or explain whatever -- so as not to cause strife or misunderstanding. Christians are people too; God is God. We are hopefully all learning as we go, and we all have feelings. Christians are not your enemies.

  32. Epicurean_Logic


    Before you leave i just want to add that it is your arrogance and can't fit your head through the door ego that makes you a target for many non-believers, and it is also what will have you coming back here to justify yourself again...

    You are smart but you have just backed the wrong horse on this one. Don't hate the players hate the game.

    see you tomorrow.

  33. Chris

    I think I'm done here. Great site, Vlatko. A bit biased, a bit too angry for me, but all in all, it's a decent collection. There are a couple of other sites I think I'll use. Good bye.

    1. Vlatko

      I also think you're done here @Chris.

      Yes, TDF is biased... towards science. I guess it is obvious judging by the content and the visitors.

      And yes you have all the Internet in your hands. You have many other places where you'll be left alone to preach your gospels.

      I can't really say I was glad to discuss with you.

      Take Care.

  34. Chris

    Good grief, calm down! After all, I teach science, specifically, "Introduction to Astronomy" among other subjects. If it wasn't for science, I would not have this job. I hardly sit on the sidelines of the discussion and I'm hardly a Luddite.

    Don't you think my vantage point from within academia just MIGHT give me a perspective most people lack? Most researchers have some bent to a favorite direction or another, to which they are beholden, usually because of their own philosophy or because that is where the money is coming from, and not because of some great love of the truth (after the first year, it's just work). I've witnessed worthwhile research shut down because the funding source didn't like it. It's only peer review that provides some semblance of balance, even if any.

    I do not laugh at science, but neither is science the alter at which I worship. Science is only a tool. But many would have science become a cultural force for a Godless interpretation of science. I have many doubts as to what some people do with the science and what they teach as gospel truth when it is only their opinion. They have just as much a gospel to teach as any priest.

    This and many threads on this site eventually boil down to this:

    If you don't believe in God, then you are a reasonable person seeking the truth. If you do believe in God, then it doesn't matter what you believe, you are a fool.

    The defining factor is not reasonableness, logic, understanding of the available facts, or consideration, education, etc. It is whether you believe in God or not.

    If you believe in God, then any and all views of science, history, logic or opinion are tainted with error. You could not possibly be correct. If you do not believe in God, then any fringe beliefs you may hold must have some legitimacy.

    Many times, I have agreed that RELIGION was an evil upon the earth. But I have witnessed just as much "science religion" here, in my students, in colleagues, and elsewhere.

    It is your conviction that there cannot be a God, not your open mind, that acts as your gatekeeper as to what is true and what is false.

    So, I ask you; who is being reasonable?

    And I hardly know what to do with your Cinderella story.

  35. Epicurus


    A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

    After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.

    I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.


    i dont know how your random Nietzsche quote had anything to do with what was being said. but i find the irony in you quoting him entertaining at least

  36. Chris


    "On the other hand Science is not interpreting anything."

    (gasp! gurgle..) What you now hear is the sound of milk squirting out of scientific researchers noses everywhere. Science does little else but interpret data, desperate to fit known and popular paradigms.

    I think the best example is to see how the "interpretation" of data that gave us dark energy and dark matter is upsetting the Standard Model applecart. The only way to "interpret" the data while preserving the Standard Model is by pushing all known and understood matter/energy to 4% of the total.

    My boss, a dept associate professor, talked about how the interpretations of data and observations in order to fit current understanding was getting us into trouble while answering a audience question during a Q&A during an alumni presentation almost a year ago (lifted directly from transcript unedited):

    "Clearly, this is a theory in serious trouble. Uh.. There may be another way to interpret ... observations while preserving the model, or we're back to square one which nobody wants with everything we know is wrong. ... And... uh... I don't..., I don't think that is where we are going. I hope not. ... We've been on a bit of a roller coaster ride for the last few years. ... I don't...uh... Funny how its predictions can be so right with observations until you get down to brass tacks with measurements. ... Those darn measurements! ... It's like, you know, ... getting married when you're so happy with each other, ... then find out all the little stuff you can't live with. (laughter) Perhaps its time for a divorce... Right? Right? ... We've been to marriage counseling trying to work this out. ... But 4%! That's all I mean to you? After all we've been through? .. Com'on now! (laughter)... So, no, I don't know... to me, 4% signals a possible breakdown of the model,.. the Standard Model,... the theory. ... That's just me. What observations say makes little sense... like dark matter. ... We don't know what it is but there must be a lot of it. ... We may need a new way to see the data. ... a revolution in how we see it. But that's on our side. I think the observations are correct, but our interpretations must be off. ... I don't know if that helps you. I guess we have to wait to see what CERN turns up."


    One final FN quote for you, my friend: "Anyone who has declared someone else to be an idiot, a bad apple, is annoyed when it turns out in the end that he isn’t."

  37. Achems Razor


    You gave, clearly an example of a classic rebuttal to end all rebuttals.
    An "Excellentia" "Eximus" rebuttal. To Chris CA. Et al:

    You are the victor in my books.

  38. Epicurean_Logic


    o.k. That was a tough question, it's not surprising that you cannot / will not answer it. Here is an easier one for you!

    If god is some otherworldy spiritual being and the O.T. is the word of god, why is it that the nature of the blessings / curses section of the O.T. is completely materialistic in nature?

    Lets not even touch on the fact that it is racist, elitist, vicious and destructive.

  39. Epicurus

    The evidence that resulted in the Big Bang's victory over the steady state model, at least in the minds of most cosmologists, included the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s, the distribution of "young galaxies" and quasars throughout the Universe in the 1980s, a more consistent age estimate of the universe and most recently the observations of the COBE satellite in the 1990s and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe launched in 2001, which showed unevenness in the microwave background in the early universe, which corresponds to currently observed distributions of galaxies.

    anyways judging by your post chris you are open to the idea that the bible is myth in the same way any other religious book is. there may be certain historical accuracies in there but the supernatural claims are all just superstition put forth by iron age men with very little understanding of the universe they lived in.

    and chris what you said to epicurean_logic is often how i feel about you while reading your texts. you constantly appeal to authority figures who are relatively old and outdated. and like vlatko said you disregard logic and reason for rhetoric and sophistry. its disingenuous at best.

  40. Chris


    "Interpretation is not the point. Hard core solid proven facts are the real point… and the Calculus."

    Really? Sir Fred Hoyle took the same hard core solid facts used as proofs of the Big Bang to "prove" Steady State. And he was no fool -- he developed important foundations of our modern theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. The things you consider to be the most solid and unquestionable are disproved everyday by someone with better math skills, better powers of observation, and more smarts.

    Just as science continues to develop new and better means of understanding the physical nature of the universe; historians, linguists, biblical historians and scholars continue to unlock knowledge shrouded in thousands of years of history and tradition.

    Yet, while you allow science the opportunity to advance out of its dark ages, you insist that belief in God remain in the dark ages of religious tradition. As what, some sort of punishment?

    Again, I yield to the stage to Friedrich Nietzsche:

    "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."

    1. Vlatko

      Hmmm... a very doggy comment @Chris.

      You evaded my arguments about Bible interpretation and my Cinderella story. I was just trying to suggest you that whatever you do with the Bible, however you study the Bible, it will just stay as the same old Bible. Only interpretations will differ. They will differ according to individuals who will desperately try to fit the scientific facts inside.

      On the other hand Science is not interpreting anything. It deals with scientific method. And Science never claims their laws will stay forever as valid. They may be invalidated tomorrow as long as something new pops up to invalidate them. And guess what? Science itself will invalidate those laws if they're proven false.

      Religion will never do that. There are no means for that in the Bible since everything is vague inside and is not supported by evidence. As with religion you're stuck with one single book and the only thing left is just different interpretations of it.

  41. Epicurean_Logic


    You make me laugh. But the question remains! which version of the creation myth are you talking about? The one written by the followers of El or the one written by the followers of the devil god Jahweh?

  42. Chris


    You must not know the history and languages of the Scriptures or you would not say that the bible says that God created the earth in 6 days. That is a relatively recent, shallow, and uninformed interpretation.

    Even the early church fathers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, did not interpret Genesis in such a way. They knew and understood a time gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

    Other scriptures point to a time gap, as well. For example, Job 38:4-7 clearly indicates that the angels were created before the earth, indicating a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.

    Regarding the matter of "my interpretation of the Bible", I would refer you to two quotes by Friedrich Nietzsche, someone who did not believe in a theistic God.

    "All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."


    "We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the way in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us."

    1. Vlatko


      OK than, large portion of religious people are interpreting the creation wrong and they are shallow and uninformed since they think the Earth was created in 6 days. Almost any local priest who belongs to any of the Abrahamic religions would say the Earth was created in 6 days indeed and every one of his followers will confirm that.

      It turns out only few as you are interpreting the Bible right. Or better said every one is interpreting the Bible differently. Why? Because it lays such a good foundation for so many different, contrary and sometimes paradoxical interpretations. It was good tool maybe 1000 years ago for controlling and seducing the masses but these days it looks like bugged and outdated Judeo political brochure.

      So now let me interpret the story of Cinderella as I understand it. I say Cinderella was a transvestite disguised as a girl. This transvestite was on a secret mission to destroy the royal family by marring the Prince and killing him on the first wedding night. That is the true interpretation behind the story. Believe me. The original story is just a recent, shallow, uninformed interpretation. I don't care if many will not agree with me because "All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth". I believe one day the true story about Cinderella will prevail.

      The metaphor is little bit lame but I'm sure you get it.

      Interpretation is not the point. Hard core solid proven facts are the real point... and the Calculus.

  43. Chris


    You have an axe to grind. You have an agenda. You have an ulterior motive. You have made the decision that nothing spiritual exists and this colors everything you see and speak.

    Because of this mindset, nothing spiritual passes through the Epicurean gates, and you have become your own proof. You have become trapped within your own circular logic.

    If you had any historical research experience, you would know that all cultural knowledge, myths and legends are not created equal. Since you have no actual experience, you repeatedly parrot the things you have read in books from authors that agree with your mindset. By this you justify your opinion and feel that your positions are well-founded.

    But you don't have an original thought in your head. In fact, original thoughts scare you. I suggest you avoid graduation at all costs and remain within your cloistered university environment.

    Epicurean Logic Argument

    1. I have read books that say God does not exist.
    2. It is easier to read and believe the opinions of others rather than doing the hard work of my own research.
    3. Therefore, God does not exist.

  44. Epicurean_Logic

    @ Chris

    Which version of the creation myth are you talking about? The one written by the followers of El or the one written by the followers of the devil god Jahweh?

  45. Achems Razor


    You can read into basically anything, on most anything, even what it says on the backs of cereal boxes. Snap, Crackle, "Pop" here comes the universe!

  46. Chris

    @ Vlatko

    No. You make a common mistake because you do not know the history or language of the Scriptures.

    The bible does not say that God created everything in 6 days. There is a time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. It is correctly read, "And the earth became waste and void..." Also, it also says, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." The bible does not supply the Time when the beginning happened. However, science supplies an answer that would seem to fit with the biblical narrative.

    If we were simply to use Logic to make a firm determination on anything, we would not even be able to say, "I think, therefore I am."

    You confuse Logic with Rhetoric and Debate. If we were having a debate, you might have a point. However, the purpose of Logic is clarify understanding. If understanding is obfuscated by process, it is the process that needs to be revised.

    Therefore, a reasonable inference and meaning can be derived and understood to mean the beginning of all time by the opening statement of Genesis.

    1. Vlatko


      I know well the history or language of the Scriptures.

      You admit that the Bible does not supply the time when the beginning happened and you only make an ASSUMPTION that the scientific answer would seem to fit the biblical narrative. The fact is you can't prove that. You only assume God was speaking about event that happened 14 billion years ago.

      Simply it is YOUR interpretation of the Bible so you can fit the scientific facts there.

      And I was wondering... are you expressing your thoughts rhetorically here or debating with others? Either way logic doesn't seem to fit well in your arguments.

  47. Achems Razor

    Am going to watch doc.

  48. Chris


    I don't teach my students religion. I do teach them logical thinking which includes learning not to take everything at face value when it comes from a supposedly scientific source, but then to view a religious or other sources narrowly simply because of their concepts.

    You would be hard pressed to find mainstream, conservative biblical colleges or historical scholarly authorities that held that Gen. 1:1 did not refer to the beginning of creation. And since science has discovered that beginning to have occurred almost 14 billion years ago, I don't see any conflict.

    What's your point?

    1. Vlatko

      Well my point is: How you derived that Gen. 1:1 speaks about something that happened 14 billion years ago?

      Without any evidence whatsoever you match Gen.1:1 with the Big bang. Is that logical?

      That is a fallacy my friend:

      1. Gen. 1:1 speaks that God created everything in 6 days (but doesn't say when that happened in the past).
      2. Science proved that Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago.
      3. Therefore God must have created the universe 14 billion years ago.

      Where is the reason and where are the evidence for your conclusion.

      Again, are you sure that you teach logic to your students?

  49. hawkpork

    i'd like to reccomend a doc series i just started watching.
    The Fall of America and the Western World.
    it's 6 hrs long i think. david icke amongst others.

    1. Vlatko

      Send the links through the contact page @hawkpork.

  50. Vlatko

    And @Chris do you have any reasonable explanation backed up by evidence about this:

    The "beginning" refers to the original beginning of all things, supposedly almost 14 billion years ago. God moving upon the face of the waters occurred an unknown time after that, but most likely after many billions of years.

    Are you teaching this to your students for Gods sake?

  51. Vlatko

    All right guys. Let do not insult each other.

    @Epicurus I think we have to keep in mind the fact that 80% of the Globe is religious in one way or another.

    Many generations were being indoctrinated through thousands of years and that fact will not change in the near future. It is a process which will last maybe another 1000 years as humans understand more and more.

    For religion it is easy. People have to just say: "I believe" and that's it. Woalla.

    But for Science it is hard. People need to study, understand, question everything and so on. It is the hard way and many people will simply don't do that.

    People always go downstream, the easy way. If they don't understand something they will not accept it. And if science doesn't have answer for something they will say: This is BS. Let's turn to God.

    But this pattern is changing. It is a slow process. Until that process ends (if it ends) we can't just discard 80% of the population as being stupid.

  52. Chris

    @ James

    In answer to your questions:

    "...But one question about your statement. If “In the beginning” God “walked walked upon the face of the waters” how was this the first flood to destroy and previous Nephilim, when this *was* the beginning?"

    I think I misspoke. The Nephilim were a race of hybrid angelic/humans that existed both before Noah's flood (2nd flood), and apparently made a comeback after it, as well, establishing themselves in Bashon, modern day Palestine. Before the first flood mentioned in Gen 1:2, there was a race of "something" that was destroyed. Apparently, there may have been millions of years of history before the first flood in Gen. 1:2. As I had mentioned, this is not my theory. This research can be found in the writings of Scofield, Pember, and others.

    The "beginning" refers to the original beginning of all things, supposedly almost 14 billion years ago. God moving upon the face of the waters occurred an unknown time after that, but most likely after many billions of years.

  53. Epicurus

    im just going to come out and say it.

    chris you are either insanely gullible or just stupid.

  54. Mike

    Origins origins origins...I think we all could agree that PHYSICAL life originated from conscience, much like our observing mind, like the way we see the world, always out from within you could say. The Nephilim? I mean Ive read some Urantia and got a little taken but it still doesnt answer where the heck they came from. Honestly, I think we'll never know because we live in an everchanging, dynamic, creative universe.The stuff anyone/anything does constantly changes the course of universe. Everything affects everything...

  55. James J

    @ Chris

    a simple edit:

    to destroy and previous Nephilim, when this *was* the beginning?

    to destroy ANY previous Nephilim, when this *was* the beginning?

  56. James J

    @ Chris

    Not going to write any hate mail. If you choose to believe in Nephilim that is fine, your choice. But one question about your statement. If "In the beginning" God "walked walked upon the face of the waters" how was this the first flood to destroy and previous Nephilim, when this *was* the beginning?

    Everything else would fit the Nephilim story, if that's what you choose to believe, but I'm confused on that part.

  57. Chris

    @Heath Barkley

    Good questions. (atheists, please stop rolling your eyes, and go find something else to do for a few minutes...)

    If the genealogies in the bible are used as chronologies, we end up with a date for Adam of about 6 or 7 k years ago, which makes little sense. This one observation has been a stumbling block for many who would look for the truths in the Bible.

    However, the genealogies in the bible are not chronologies, and were never meant to be. Some generations have been left out. In fact, quite a few have been left out. These were left out because they lost their honor to be included in the royal genealogy or bloodline. Also, there is some sacred significance to the number of generations included in each genealogy (won't go into that right now). The point is that there is lots of room for many ages of men between Adam and Noah, and for between Noah and Abraham.

    Further complicating things is the matter of the Nephilium. The bible and other histories hint at a race of intelligent beings who lived on the earth for possibly eons, long before the introduction of Adam. You can look up the research yourself but try to avoid the fringe (ancient astronaut) element. These Pre-Adamic creatures were destroyed by God in the first flood. Recall how Genesis 1:2 describes the earth as under water with the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the deep. This was the first flood. Some of the fossils and other discoveries uncovered must be from this forgotten era.

    After Adam enters the scene, and long before Noah's flood, the Nephilium appear and begin to dilute Adam's bloodline. These human/angelic hybrids are destroyed in the second flood, with Noah's bloodline continuing without the Nephilium contamination. This could be dated at 60,000 years ago without causing a problem with the biblical account as long as the genealogies are not used as chronologies. So, it's possible that scientific Adam may be Noah as you suggest. I doubt it, but I'm not a geneticist, either. I think this was indeed Adam because Noah would have carried Adam's markers.

    Incidentally, the Nephilim attempt a third appearance in the region of Cannan, again corrupting human civilization and existence (they practiced all types of evil like child sacrifice). This was the reason God instructed Moses and Joshua to destroy the cities of Cannan in order to wipe out the evil angelic influence. The Nephilim/human hybrids there were united with the Nephilim in purpose and were contaminated with their bloodline. In God's eyes, they were no longer human. A connection between Neanderthals and Nephilim has been suggested, especially upon the recent discovery of possible Neanderthal genetic markers in some European populations.

    This little tale, and the interpretations, can be found by searching the works of G. H. Pember, Dr. Scofield, the Book of Enoch, etc.

    Trying to piece ancient world history together from only spotty biblical records will only yield partial answers. Many valuable and unique records have been lost. I can't imagine the insights we would have had the Library at Alexandria survived to the present day. But historically relatively recent discoveries of hidden records like the Dead Sea Scrolls give hope that there are more records to be found and preserved. Perhaps the missing sections of the Book of Enoch will be found, someday.

    Thanks for reading. For everyone else, I hope you enjoyed the story. Please no hate mail and continue safe in the knowledge of your Darwinian beliefs.

  58. rick

    I love how this is categorized, not under "Religion", but under "Science!" LOL

  59. Mike

    Hey Vlatko, sorry about that, the guy put an unnecessarily derogative statement and I personally believe most people who choose to watch videos such as this are enlightened and honest about whats really true in life.Didn't mean to curse in the thread.But thanks for removing the comment though.PEACE\/

    1. Vlatko

      Not a problem @Mike. Cheers.

  60. Heath Barkley

    The other intriguing question is whether they have gone back far enough. The Biblical parallel they are using has 2 different events where men are descended from a single progenitor. Adam is listed as the first but Noah is listed as the second. If the great time of crisis mentioned 60,000 years ago made the other populations die out, could this have been Noah and not Adam?

    I'm no geneticist here and I'm not going to pretend I would know all the conclusions they have drawn from the data, but the question does remain. Did the y chromosome present in the "adam" here survive because of a flood or some like catastrophe?

  61. Simpeter

    This is the best website that i know.

  62. A Hister

    Madam I'm Adam

  63. Markio

    "more accurate"

    Lol, bless :)

  64. junaid

    Why no search is been made thru the prophit of Islam decendents which is more accurate than Ethiopian prince?

  65. carlos1234

    I want to find out if im related to che guevara like those guys were related to Chinggis Khaan that would be awsome!!!!!

    1 question: if there is 1 man (adam) that we are all descendants of then shouldnt there be women (eve) as well????

    1. North

      There is, and she was found much easier than the purported Adam, because women are XX and men are XY.

  66. Krissto

    Actually, it was a perfect title...

  67. Krissto

    @ Ocelot...You right. It was a very good one! Misunderstood the title.

  68. Ocelot

    Krissto, you are kidding, right? You can`t seriously be thinking that this documentary is about finding a real person named Adam :)
    In that case, please, just watch it!

  69. Krissto

    ...If someone find any trace of Adam, please inform me. TopDocumentary has my e-mail....

  70. Krissto

    I can't believe we still wasting our energy for searching for Adam....!

  71. Ocelot

    I agree, Pauleto, knowledge really is power!! And really, since I discovered this site, I am anxiously waiting for new posted documentaries every day :) This is just another one of great documentaries here that I am looking forward to see! I already have a book and I must say that I find this theme really interesting!!

    BDW, Vlatko, I am wondering if you are open to any suggestions about some other really interesting documentaries that I found on the Internet. If you are, let me know :)

    1. Vlatko

      Not a problem @Ocelot. You can suggest documentaries. Just send the links through the contact page.

  72. Jim

    interesting.... but something puzzled me. The author is clearly trying to find a mutation that is present in every human male on the planet today (the fact that such a mutation exists is evidence for something like "Adam", it seems).

    If every male on the planet has it... how do they come to call it a mutation? What if it's just "normal"?