National Geographic v. Charles Darwin? “Adam” and “Eve” of NatGeo DNA Project.?

Question by Alt: National Geographic v. Charles Darwin? “Adam” and “Eve” of NatGeo DNA Project.?
How could Dr. Spencer Wells ever hope to identify ONE pair of humans to give start to all of us? (see more details on the NatGeo DNA project at www.nationalgeographic/genographic )

This sounds very much like a attempt to “prove” the holly or extraterrestrial start of human civilization, contrary to the Darwin’s theory… If they did not mean to diminish Darwin’s theory, how can they be able to trace the Pair of Humans.

They may only trace at least a tribe or two, AND THEN they may trace it back to supermonkeys and even dolphins or something in the ocean! Not just ONE pair of humans, especially and if only Dr. Spencer Wells admit that the DNA is THE biological HISTORY code, not a book of revelation.

Altynbek
A good point Lanscimaster, it resolves the “pair” might not be the “pair’. And, indeed, I suppose the DNA research did not mean to call those people “non-humans” who were left over from the tree due to single lineage or born next village to “Adam” or “Eve”. Let’s say it was just another misformulation of the goal.

Yet, your answer still leaves the question open as to “How can they tell that a human being BEFORE “Adam” or “Eve” may be called NON-humans?”

I suppose that Dr. Well is actually looking for HISTORICALY earliest (a couple of hundred of) humans WHO left their traces in all our DNAs, but NOT the EARLIEST HUMANS per se!

Best answer:

Answer by labscimaster
Aren’t they trying to find the origins of human DNA as far back as they can go? Richard Dawkins in his book “The Ancestor’s Tale” describes quite well that the common male ancestor and the common female ancestor, that we are all descended from, were not a couple, but probably lived about 100 thousand years apart.
Perhaps this is their goal. To find out where and when they lived.
Any scientific evidence they find will, I imagine, strengthen the theory of evolution, as has all scientific evidence before it.

What do you think? Answer below!