Given how he and his companions behaved that's must be a relief.

@@ELee-zv5ud Absolutely! I certainly don't want to be related to a child rapist and mass murderer!

Someone in Canada linked to my tree who claimed they could trace back to Muhammed too. Quite entertaining, I couldnt quite see the join where they were linking modern tree to some old established tree without verification.

That's fascinating! Apparently, I'm not really Arab, either. 🤔

@@redf7209 There are a lot of people through the centuries who pretended to be descended from Muhammad or related to him. Usually it was for the sake of getting more power or economic advantages. Until a century ago in Morocco for example, if you were a "shrif" (noble, i.e. from the family of Muhammad), you didn't have to work or do anything. You could own land and a large house, and get money and food for free simply based on your lineage.

If your surname is King, Duke, Lord, Abbott, Prince. Mean possibly you lived and worked on the said king's land, in his service. Remember reading a novel about mediaeval Japan, servants didn't have names. Just e.g.. water woman no1 or no2 etc. carriers of water

I think your point is that be careful with assuming people in the past lived with better morals that we do today. Is that fair?

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics or the opposite. Stronger religious faith amongst the poor may have kept some more innocent of adultery than others.

My pleasure. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts.

One of my great-grandmas had the surname Callaghan, but we knew that was a step-surname. I found out recently that her father was actually German but his father died shortly after they immigrated to Australia and his mother married a man with the surname Callaghan. So where we thought there might be Irish, there was actually German.

@@nutsaboutnames3805 One of my ancestors was raped in the 1800s by the son of a well to do family who paid their way out of trouble. I've actually worked out who it was and been wondering about naming him in the tree as a parent to her child.

@@redf7209 YOU should family is family

@@redf7209 Most programs allow you to add a second father to your tree and label one primary. It brings up the whole issue of how much of our tree is a tree of caregivers vs genetic relatives. Before this century I doubt there was a woman alive who would freely admit her child was not sired by her spouse. And yet we know now it is quite common.

Yes! That's a great way to put it.

I did use the phrase "Cut the crap" over the pulpit at Stake Conference once. My guess is that a lot of people wouldn't feel comfortable with the reality that records showing genealogical relationships only go back about 500 years. Even the Bible with all of its genealogies would be considered a poor genealogical source. What we have was translated 1500 years or more after the fact from copies of documents that surely were transcriptions and translations of earlier documents, few if any of which could be verified. Without telling people its the Bible, if you described your genealogical source as such, most serious genealogists would laugh at the thought of referencing such a source.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics I have before me a "book series" called "Borgfirzkar æviskrár" published 1969-2007 There are ca. XI volumes in the series. What bothers me is that in this book series I have found sources like this: "see page 58" or "Bæ III page 21" even "Bæ. II, 416" I do not find those sources being trustworthy as what the authors are actually saying "I have written this before now, it is there in this book series" (that is just "because I said so!"

Thanks for sharing your challenges. You might have success reaching out to the church to discover the process for finding information from their archives or where their archives are housed. My wife has had success with her Catholic ancestors by reaching out with "I'm searching for, what's the process?" type questions.

I have similar experiences in my family tree, but in only one case I have corroborating evidence that the lines exist back to France. In the others I am going to assume that prior genealogists who compiled their slices of the tree were as eager as I am to find notables in their history and would at some point find a way to connect their trees without evidence into royal lines. I would say the chances are small unless you yourself can trace the sources of each connecting ancestor and confirm for yourself that each link is corroborated. If there's a gap, then there's likely the point where someone's eagerness overrode their rigor and they made a false connection to suit their ego. If there's no evidence now, there really was unlikely to have been evidence in the past to make the link. I always start with the assumption that it is false and trust my trees no further back than I have confirmed the records. Its always cool though and it doesn't stop me from saying that "FamilySearch shows my tree going back to so-and-so!" but that doesn't mean I believe it is true.

Following the line and researching are very different. As stated in the video, many of the lines are fabricated and not to be believed unless you personally validate the information using original source material.

The question is do you have two separate pieces of evidence for each link on the path?

Hello, cousin

Hello, cousin

Pre-Adamic races

Joseph, Hebrew, sort of Prime Minister of Egypt was given an Egyptian wife, daughter of priest of On. Therefore his sons Ephraim and Manassah were half Egyptian. Moses sons were half Midianite. Ruth, Moabite great grandmother of K. David. Rahab, became grandmother of Boaz who married Ruth. Thus serves for e.g.. we're mostly a motley crew!

and how do they know its the same adam?

Majority opinion is still opinion. Competent genealogical research may use majority opinion as a clue but would not make a conclusion based on the majority opinion alone.

It certainly is. When you have no other evidence, it might be viable. So is a coin toss.

Oh, I'll agree with that, Jason. Sometimes 20 years in the past. I agree with all your scenarios, and add a few that I've encountered. In my view, you have to remove your feelings/emotions (good or bad) from the decision and go with the evidence. As far as DNA evidence goes, it is right in there with the rest. In the article about the Owen/Briggs findings the author, while celebrating what the DNA has brought to light, also cautions that DNA alone is thin ice; it has to be supported with traditional evidence, especially to be convincing to experienced genealogists. I would be skeptical that you scenario of a total match is possible. If it is true the probabilities are astronomically small. With all the necessary intermixing going on in the last 2000 years, I think I could possibly make a case for its impossibility. If I were a statiscian, I might essay it, but I'm not. (Owens/Griggs story: Owens Family News, Dec 2006, v.21, issue 4, page 4 owenfamilyassociation.org/ofanewsletters/Vol.21.4%20email%20&%20print%20(corrected)Replaced112110.pdf)

As the man here says, that's absolutely true. If absolute truth is the aim of your genealogical work, then you're going to be suffering pains by the time you get ten generations back. The statistics are against you. I'm 70 years old. I run a farm, having retired from computer engineering. I have nothing that requires my attention once the chores are done, so I fool around on the Internet and do genealogy (and research about genealogy - how do you stand on providing the historically correct places, rather than where they'd be today, for instance?). I've always sought out truth in the genealogy I've done (as I do with everything I do - call it a quirk), but I know it's slippery. Nevertheless, I do it because I'm good at it (on the Internet, anyway) and I love problem solving. It's all a huge crossword puzzle for me, one of the kinds that can have multiple answers. I was astounded to learn a year ago that I was Cynthia Ann Parker's 3rd cousin 5 time removed. She was a white who was kidnapped by Indians in Texas and lived with them for 25 years before being "rescued" by Texas Rangers. Her son, Quanah, was indeed the last great chief of the Comanches. All but one link in that chain was from paper trail. One vital link was DNA. Now, if tomorrow I were to find that there was an error in that paper trail or the DNA, unmistakably an error, I'd have my tree on my computer void of her family by tomorrow night. But I wouldn't forget, and I might even work on a separate tree just for her and her relatives. You know why? It's learning about the people out there that is the kick of doing this. It's not just because I have a ancestral link to Edward Cameron Doty, who signed the Mayflower Compact, but the adventure that started the minute I found out about it, that I had a personal stake in the history, and what I've learnd about Plymouth Colony, England, and spreading out from there. My wife is descended from two unrelated people in Salem, MA in the 1690s, who had anomosities about some land. A year later one conveniently labeled the other a witch. They hung her, a 72 year old woman whose life had been morally spotless. Three generations later the families, the Putnams and the Nurses, buried the hatchet in a wedding ceremony, which is why she's related to both. And the kicker is that I (me, not my wife) had two ancestors in the jury which at first exonerated her, then under public pressure, sent her to the gallows. The head of the jury wrote a long letter ten years later expressing his horror and remorse; I really feel for that guy. THAT is what I do genealogy for, without that, for me it would be right up there with whittlin' as a pasttime. Let me tell you about the hoss thief ... uh, OK, enough.

Did I not agree? While we're at it though, let us not forget the unfaithful husbands; no need to be sexist. (Call me PC. See if it bothers me.) So, what "test" are you referring to? I thought you were talking about genealogy in general.

There are multiple conflicting genealogies in the Bible. I wouldn't necessarily rely on those documents to prove lineage.

The last Apostle was John. Old man held on Patmos, Roman penal colony. The Apostles, Disciples acted as a 'restraint' again the apostasy that could be already detected at end of 1st century and anyone who was within their living memory. The weeds of Christendom choked the Truth of the Bible.

While that is true, the problem is 1. Records documenting the genealogy of everyone reduces dramatically the further we go back in time. 2. The genetic code is not sufficient to link everyone into a common family tree and establish how everyone interconnects in that tree.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics For Genetics, you can't rely upon the Autosomal DNA. You need to use Y-DNA and mtDNA which traces direct Ancestors. My Paternal Haplogroup H traces me back to Indus River Valley and back to Noah's Son Ham. Get the new book by Dr Nathaniel Jeanson called "Traced".

Can you read the languages of the 1500s?

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics In England a lot of the old surviving local documentation was translated as part of the county history series years ago so is available in readable form. A lot extra has surfaced since then so its a bit spotty

If you are really lucky you would only have to look at 30 people. If you got back 10 generations and all of the sudden you no longer had records or oral traditions, then you are out of luck and need to start with another line. Best case scenario, you would need to research thousands of different people to get back 30 generations. If you have gaps, then you haven't made a connection to the previous generation, that is the whole point of genealogical research. As to the veracity of oral traditions, I have seen a lot of research that shows they aren't that good beyond 100 years. They may be impressive to hear lots of ancestors, but for those that have been attempted to be corroborated with other records, they break down quickly after 100 years, which makes sense because that is about 4-5 generations. The genealogies of the Bible are not corroborated by any other independent sources. The closest corroborations are genealogies of other middle eastern cultures, many of which are either known to be mythologies or highly suspected to be mythologies. Genealogy is best done in the last 10 generations. Beyond that and you start to get into fiction and mythology. 10 generations already has a thousand direct ancestors which would take a lifetime or more to exhaustively research. Show less

I appreciate your response, and I do hear what your saying. I think, though, that you and I are approaching these topics from somewhat opposite perspectives. So, I may simply need to respectfully 'agree to disagree' on a few things. :) And, yes, you are absolutely correct, it does take a lifetime to research antiquity! I'm 41, and I've been doing this research since I was 15. Delving into ancient history is a very different discipline from traditional genealogy, so it IS difficult to even try to mash the 2 together. And, no, I would not expect to find birth/death records, etc., for every single generation from myself to Adam. Obviously, not even close to possible. But, it IS possible to research family groups, and the migration of people groups, even in antiquity. Beyond the reach of the vital records, I will make do with whatever's left, including legal records (court cases, trials, estate, executions, etc.,) history books, military accounts, archaeological evidence, ancient texts, anecdotal evidence, local legends & myth. I examen all the sources, looking for commonalities. I also, assess the perspective, purpose, culture, and language/phrasing of the writers of the source material. I take everything I read with cup of salt, being a natural skeptic. But, I'm pleasantly surprised each time I find a point of convergence, where several unrelated sources cross paths with each other. It makes the hunt well worth the time and effort! As for ancient sources... It sounds like what you're saying, (and, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you don't seem to give much weight to the veracity of the Bible, so anything that agrees with it, would automatically seem a little suspicious to you. I, on the other hand, am more than willing to consider & contemplate the content of the Bible, the Book of Enoch, the books of Jubilee & Jasher, apocryphal books, The Complete Works of Josephus, the mythologies of Greece, Rome, and the Norsemen, Asia, the Americas, etc., all of which grace my bookshelves. I've yet to come across anything that convinces me the Bible is not a credible source of information. As I said before, I think we're approaching these topics with very different mindsets & perspectives.

My point with the Bible is that from a historical or genealogical perspective, it is hardly contemporary to the ancient genealogies. With the earliest manuscripts being from 600 BC (which are fragments of the Book of Job) and the most complete manuscripts dating to no earlier than 200 BC, using it as a source for events that happened 3000 years before would be akin to using my writings of Tibetan nobility from the 5th century BC to the 15th century AD. Without any corroborating evidence, who is to say that I didn't just invent it whole cloth. Beyond the middle ages most of the "genealogies" that have been found and researched have been shown to have fabrications and missing generations. And those are the best ones with corroborating evidence. Using the Bible as a religious book is fine, believing the stories and genealogies contained therein through faith is each person's perrogative. Trying to say that it is a source comparable to other genealogical or historical records does not stand up to scrutiny. I am approaching this from the standpoint that if you don't have corroborating evidence for each generation, you can't make the jump back. The most experienced scholars concede that there is no reliable documented tree back to antiquity (except maybe Confucius). Since I don't read any ancient languages, I take their word for it.

I understand that we have later copies of MUCH older, ancient manuscript, some of which are fragments. Just because we don't have original manuscripts doesn't imply that they never existed at all. I'd never expect to find originals that old, no one would. I know that nothing I say will convince you that the copied manuscripts that we do have are not fabrications, still, you have no proof that they ARE, so we are at an impasse on that. Also, since you mentioned the religious vs/ historical value of the Bible, I'd like to respond to that. I believe that the history and the "religious" aspect of the Bible, are intricately connected. You can't have one without the other. If the Bible is historically inaccurate, especially the genealogy, then the Bible would be useless as a religious text. Jesus was the Messiah, by right of his genealogy, and all of the historical prophesies that he fulfilled. If the histories & genealogies were false or fabricated, then Jesus would be a liar, because he affirmed them to be true. And, from the Jewish cultural perspective, if someone's genealogy was amiss, they couldn't verify which tribe they were from, (or even their status as Jewish,) secure an inheritance, get married, etc. So, they were absolutely meticulous about there records. And, communities, being small, if anyone was not who they said, every would know. I could debate this with you for years (its one of my favorite topics!) But, I know how steamed up I can get about subjects that I'm passionate about, so I'm choosing to let this rest. I don't want to be one of those argumentative, angry youtube commenters that people hate. And, I know that this tangential topic was not really the point of your video, so, this is probably not what you envisioned talking about in the comment section. Anyway, thank you very much for the well reasoned reply. Lastly, I have to say, you guys are so awesome when it comes to replying to comments! Of course, this applies to both you, and your lovely wife! You have the fastest, and most consistent response time of any channel that I have frequented. The responses that you both leave, make me feel listened to, and make feel that you value the time that I put into commenting. Even with this back and forth disagreement, you were not rude, unkind, or talking down to me. I can't express how much I appreciate that! I hope that you and you're family have a most pleasant Thanksgiving tomorrow. Thank you so much for your time!

Polite discussion should be what everyone strives for. The brilliance of KZfaq (and the internet in general) is that we can engage with vastly more people than the small circle of our in-person acquaintances. If you go back and read some of my comments on other videos you will see that I get really snarky with trolls. So I won't pretend that I always am nice, but as long as people are on topic and don't post offensive materials, we are more than happy to let them disagree with us.

If you don't feel confidence about the accuracy, listen to that gut instinct.

Third great grandparents should be in one of the censuses between 1900 and 1850.

Chris Joy try family search or resources at your local library.

Ha, ha! That's a challenge to be sure.

Since there weren't that many people alive at in one location in the past, the answer is that the further back in time we go, the more people share common ancestors in each generation. Thus, decreasing the 'new' ancestors in each generation.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics This is absolutely correct. We're all more related than we think.

I do not know the origin of British Israelism. SOrry.

Wow.

There are a lot of people out there who are desperate to make themselves important, and bogus ancestry is one way to do it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If you're using family trees to see how folks relate, you can get far. The question becomes how reliable are those trees.

It is open for anyone to put anything in. So Santa Claus and Darth Vader are probably in someone's tree.

no, they have various record collections in their database and it's up to you to determine whether or not the people in those records are related to you. I've never seen record collections that go back more than about the 1500s. You can see other people's family trees and many people just copy information from those trees without actually verifying it, so false information just keeps getting repeated, but a lie is still a lie no matter how many people believe it.

My grandparents married after she fell pregnant with my father, and they subsequently had the marriage backdated. My father's paternity wasn't in dispute - he resembles my grandmother's husband - but she thought it might be embarrassing if word got around that they'd fallen pregnant out of wedlock.

@@j-mshistorycorner6932 just don't fall over girls, then you'll be ok! Annoying expression

@@irenejohnston6802 True. Never gave it much thought.

Mark Garon Hello my cousin. Charlemagne is my grandfather.

You might be surprised how many people would argue that point with you.

anne Pelton there were historical people by those names though but they were not gods.

Same lol

So why don't any Norse God appear on my family's Geni Family tree? No Vikings are found but my father's second cousin have taken DNA test and found 84% Scandinavian so i might be around 70-90 % Scandinavian so it is probably many Viking Ancestors in my Ancestors line!

Bah, prove to me it ISN'T a fact.

Nobody descended from Jesus so I don't understand why that's a dead-end to you. God promised to King David that the Messiah would be born in his (David's) lineage. GOD KEPT HIS PROMISE and the Messiah was born in the house of David (because Joseph belonged to the lineage of David). Mary carried the baby FOR JOSEPH, the baby didn't actually belong to the carrier/the mother BUT TO JOSEPH (David's seed) just like God promised King David. And for that reason and that reason alone, Jesus was called SON OF DAVID. God Himself CALLED His son Jesus SON OF DAVID, it wasn't men who came up with it. That's how faithful He is when He makes a promise.

I don't think the bible line will get the Gilamesh reference.lol

@@rv292 You seemed to have missed the part about a virgin birth. Or, are you saying The Virgin Mary was not really a virgin? I would bet many Christians would not be OK with that. According to the New Testament, Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. It would amuse me to watch those who have differing interpretations torture the semantics to defend their position. Personally, I think there is room enough on the planet to accommodate the myriad of sects that each have their own, sometimes mutually exclusive, perceptions. So, peace should prevail.

Me too

King Arthur is a legendary figure... not exactly known to be factual.

Funny you say you have Royalty. There Royal Family Trees that trace all the way past Noah back to Adam and Eve. Science Magazine in 1997 published a study "Calculating the mtDNA Clock". In the article they say that new research shows that mtDNA mutates much faster than the Evolutionist's Timescale. Based on these new findings "Mitochondrial Eve" was only 6,000 years ago. Indeed, both Genetics and Genealogists recognize only 3 Very Ancient lines of Human mtDNA Haplogroups: L, M and N. These are Noah's Daughters In Law which the Book of Jubilees call: Wife of Shem - Sedeqetelebab Wife of Ham - Ne'elatama'uk or Ne'eltama'uk Wife of Japheth - 'Adataneses All 3 were descendants of Biblical Eve.

What (same-time) records do you have of being related to these people, many of whom can easily be fictional persons? If there is no factual records you can find... it is not a "trusted" fact that the person was related to any of your direct ancestors.

Then enjoy your pastime.

You are not alone i wanting to do this.

It would be cool to trace back that far. However, those who claim heritage to royalty, Mohammad, or biblical figures might not be pelase to see what lies in that genetic evidence. For more kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdyEobR8uMezd3U.html

The Luke genealogy is of Mary, the true lineage. The Matthew genealogy is of Joseph. He isn't a blood relative of Jesus, so you go by Luke's account.

I touched on whether anyone is genealogically or genetically related to Adam and Eve in this video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdyEobR8uMezd3U.html

Thanks.

The Bible says otherwise and so does science. All races were created in Genesis 1: 26, while the adamic race was formed in Genesis 2:7.

We descended from Adam, but not 100 thousand years ago. That's not biblical. It's more like 6000 years

No, not technically or scientifically. However, you can claim, metaphorically, within your religious belief system whatever you want.

not according to the DNA haplo groups, and Israel will not release the DNA of the Patriarchs

You points are something to consider. The point is, no one can trace their genealogy back that far reliably.

Did you validate all the original research or rely on someone else? Just curious.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics yep, I used findagrave.com

@@trevorharbolt6293 problem with findagrave is that anyone can enter information and it's not always correct, i've found many incorrect entries on that site

@@12234nic11234 I have found incorrect information on there Iits just hard to decided what's false and what's fact when going farther than the 1700s

@@trevorharbolt6293 yes that is true, it gets harder to verify when you go back that far

If records existed and DNA could actually tie people together for all lines, we could extend far back into antiquity. Unfortunately, records don't exist and the DNA can only link people so far.

Wyatt Cerri Well that’s what you think.

That’s exactly what I believe..Since I have to believe..something I might as well believe what the Bible says..in heaven there is eternal peace ..That way if I’m wrong ..I don’t have nothing to lose ...Where as if I don’t believe the Bible..And I get there and I’m wrong ...I can’t make it right...

Amen 🙏

You ask Jesus because they aren't there? because they are are all in the dark place? And you are willing to go to heaven and start name dropping these people and asking questions about these blacksheep? and campaign for their release?

@@aquilaclark814 In other words hedging your bets because the stakes are so high?

1000 years is quite impressive to have a documented lineage backed up by contemporary records. Most people are lucky to go back 300 years.

I think the same about tracing back to santa

My wife wants to be related to Poldark.

You are right. It's *never* going to happen because it's fiction.

While there are some family lines that can be documented back that far, the vast majority cannot. Having done no research into Jewish ancestry, I couldn't tell you about the veractiy of the lineage you describe. I'm skeptical at best.

i believe Israel have DNA of the Patriarchs but are unwilling to release them

Except that probably every link from 1500 CE back to Adam is only substantiated by one record and the vast majority records are not even contemporary accounts. While this may be fine for your family lore, it would never be accepted by the vast majority of genealogists.

Thank you for the input, I'll definitely show this video to my grandma and aunt. Hopefully this will flush out a few kinks and help us review everything again. Thank you for your suggestions I'll definitely use them in the future.

Watch this video next: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdyEobR8uMezd3U.html

That is correct. Yet, I do not remember the Chinese people saying they were connected to Adam and Eve.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics No, but written Chinese Records go back 4500 years and tie back to Noah. The Ancient Chinese practiced Judaism including Monotheism and animal sacrifices. This is because the Chinese are a "Semitic" People. The term Semitic comes from Noah's son Shem. Shem is buried on Mt Ararat in Western Iran. Mt Alvand is a few hundred miles SE of Mt Ararat where Noah and his wife are buried in the town of Arzap, Turkey. There is a line of multi ton drogue stones or "Sea Anchors" on a line from Arzap to the Ark which was declared a National Park by the Turkish Government on 20 Jun 1987.

Adam's son married his (the son's) sister (Adam's daughter).

Well if you believe the Bible that Adam and Eve were the first man and the first woman then the next generation would have to be brothers and sisters. There are no other humans (according to the story) around to have produced other children to be a wife or husband to Adam & Eve's children. It's logically impossible if you believe the story to be literally true. The story is a myth, that is, a story about a mythical time that tries to explain how things came to be before we had science. The Bible is not a good source for astrophysics. It can be a good source to understand morals and human behaviour.

@@ELee-zv5ud scientists have said that we can all be traced back to one woman. The creation is a most valid explanation as our race had a beginning. Creation is evidence of an Infinite Creator Intelligence. Mankind is estranged from Our Creator bc of rebellion(sin.) This is why Jesus Christ came to rescue us. When you trust him, you receive assurance your sins are forgiven & power to live an overcoming life. You begin to have a relationship with the living God the Creator. He begins to use you supernaturally. Your whole life changes the more you obey the guidance of God’s Spirit that indwells believers in Jesus.

Be sure to get your money back then.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics So what makes you think you're right. Do you have any proof of anything?

Allen Pambrun - well, for one they didn’t spell their field of expertise correctly. There is no such thing as a ‘geneologist’. Also, he gave plenty of astute and well researched reasons in the video as to why any person’s genealogy cannot be traced back via a verifiable set of records according to the genealogical proof standard.

''I had geneologists trace mine all the way back to Adam and Eve '' THE ENTIRE EARTH WAS FLOODED. They should have started from Noah's ark because every other human drowned (apart from them).

But Noah and whatever humans were on board would still have been descendants of Adam somewhere along the line if they existed so you could in theory still go back to Adam thru Noah and his folks on the Ark.

4,000 million has always been 4 billion in the American lexicon. It may be different in British numbering schemes.

From a framing of identity perspective, sure. That's cool. However, for true genealogical purposes, not so much.

Sure you did 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Much nobility would actually believe that they were descended from mythical beings because that alone would explain why they ruled. It wasn't deceitfulness that caused them to create false genealogies but their own certainty that those links could be demonstrated somehow, because they must be true or else they would not be nobility. If that's what you mean by "framing their identity". They weren't desiring to prove their lineage, their nobility already proved it, they were merely documenting what to them was their reality.

you are literally delusional🤣🤣🤣

More likely the serpent is in your tree

@@Will324 Comedy king award goes to.... WIlliam Hill

Don't get me in trouble with Christians please. When I released this video and discussed the historian viewpoint of biblical characters and our potential to be descended from them, I got in a lot of trouble. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdyEobR8uMezd3U.html

Yes, Iceland is an unique case.

While tracing Ancestry to antiquity samples is easier, the trail between the generations has not improved and likely will not improve. DNA can only test autosomal to the 5th great-grandparents (but not all of the 5th GGPs). y-DNA and mtDNA could link you further into the past. But you still can't necessarily link yourself to Biblical Adam because know one knows where his remains are buried. Additionally, you can't know WHO the persons are between yourself and the ancient ancestor is, which makes things even more difficult.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics But we know where Noah, his wife and Shem are buried. Noah's Ark National Park 39°26'30"N 44°12'52"E Noah's Homestead 39°37'56.27"N 43°59'3.96"E

Creation is evidence there is an Infinite Creator Intelligence. It is evident the human race & the whole planet has been engineered by some great Intelligence. Our predisposition to rebellion against the Creator has estranged us from knowing him. We have inherited spiritual & physical death thru the progenitors of our race, the first man & woman. YHWH(God the Infinite Creator) is JUST. Rebellion (sin) exacts a penalty. Why God the Logos ( the wisdom of YHWH) incarnated as the man Jesus; to show us who God is, how Gods requires us to live, to give believers who trust in Jesus Christ, the plan of redemption, power over sinful lifestyles & to qualify to offer himself as a payment for our sins by resisting every possible temptation. Now we can be free from Satan’s legal ownership.

No, birth certificates are a very modern invention.

Adams birth certificate is carved into a stone somewhere in Iraq. Near the Euphrates river where the garden of eden was. Nobody has found it yet. It's lost.

@@Will324 I hope you're joking. The whole concept of birth certificates etc. is modern.

he was created

Even if he did, you still couldn't. There are no records linking back that far.

And you can prove Adam didn't exist of course?

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics there are... The question is whether you believe them or not! If we're going to have such a cynical mindset, when do we draw the line between fact or belief? Does anything other than my subjective experience even exist? Do I exist? Such views are retarded.

There are numerous problems with the genealogies in the Bible. Many scholars have discussed them. But the main problem is having a validated genealogical trail back that far in history is highly unlikely - as explained in this video.

@@FamilyHistoryFanatics Its very difficult to falsify a genealogy that has been passed down and recorded throughout history by people in the Bible .DNA confirms that all people living today are related to the sons of Noah according to haplogroups Dr Nathaniel Jeanson Genetics In Genesis have published scientific papers on this subject .Peoples opinions on such matters cannot falsify the testimony given in the scriptures.Jesus himself confirms the scriptures and calls himself the son of Adam .I do not think you are a biblical scholar I'd rather take Jesus's word to be true than the words of men and I myself can trace it from the old testament scripture to confirm what is written in the new.the words of men are just that ,,,the words of men .

Since this isn't a religion class, I just focused on the genealogy aspect. There are hundreds of KZfaq videos already out there about the creation myth.

And you can prove Adam and eve are a myth of course?

@@andrewwian4921 What cannot be proven cannot be claimed as truth. Except by faith. Proof is the responsibility of the claimant not those who deny it as fact.

Thanks. We purchased it when we visiting Taiwan.

Adam and Eve, in historian terms, is mythological because there are no documents establishing the fact. Just because the documents don't establish the fact doesn't mean they are myth. I strive to be careful in my terms. Given you watched this video, did you see this where I talked about different individuals you likely have the most descendants? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdyEobR8uMezd3U.html

I love Adam and Eve

The Genesis narrative (Adam & Eve to Noah & whoever his wife was) does not account for the amount of genetic variability that we see throughout the world.

Can you be more specific?

Mutation rates to create just the variety of skin, hair, and eye colors that we currently have would have to be hundreds or thousands of times what is currently happening in humans to have all come from a small group of people a few thousand years ago. Also, population growth rates would have to be many times what they were in ancient history to go from 8 people to 7 billion in just the last few thousand years.

That is only relevant to those who subscribe to a religion that uses the Bible as a science book even though science doesn't support any of those "facts", such as the earth being 6,000 yrs old, requiring some creative stories that try to reconcile this difference. Many others use the bible as a basis for their philosophical beliefs and not scientific study.

Really. You should have a doctor check that out.

The lack of Middle Eastern DNA isn't surprising. Watch out videos about ethnicity in DNA results.

There is no documented line back to Adam. Even the most knowledgeable genealogists who specialize in pre-modern records will tell you.

Irrelevant what you believe, that's not the facts of the matter @@FamilyHistoryFanatics I know a vast majority of my lines and most go back to Adam

Cabanas751Dunhill My lineage is cooler. Mine goes back to Jesus, Platon and Romulus! Beat that!

Tanner Tolman it is pretty safe to say that those of us who do not subscribe to a Judeo-Christian religion find the issue irrelevent.

Not necessarily. That just means they have evidence of the first human. Not that there is a God.

Even non myths like the Romans, you can't trace your lineage back to.

I think it's because most people can not get their heads around large numbers. And most people really don't understand how many generations there are in a 1,000 years much less more. Math is the problem.

Good question. I know not the answer.

Those of religious faith disagree.