ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.

You are not connected. Please login or register

New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model


Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.
Analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of humans generated 3 patterns of genetic trees that can represent the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the story of Genesis and the offspring of human beings from these three mothers.
Other studies of Nature and Science showed that the human species has undergone an explosion of variation of the human genome due to genetic entropy (deleterious mutations) between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago.


Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans
the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.
Its evident proponents of evolution and old earth would not remain silent.... :
"It turns out this graph contains the biggest problem in the whole paper. It compares two completely different sets of data. Dr Jeanson has calculated the number of mutations that should have happened since the flood. Which he's then comparing to the diversity in human mtDNA. Specifically, if you look at his original source, nucleotide diversity. The problem is that nucleotide diversity isn't a raw measurement of number of mutations.

Rather, nuclear diversity represents the number of differences between any two individuals. So if you were to compare the mtDNA of me and Bob, there would be 123 differences between us. And if you compared Bob and Sally, there would be 123 differences between them. The key issue is that they could be different differences. There might be a separate set of 123 differences between Bob and Sally than there are between Bob and me. This would produce up to 246 mutations separating all of us. So Dr Jeanson calculates 123 mutations and claims a victory because it matches the nucletide diversity. Yet the real number of mutations could be up to 256. And that's just comparing two people. When you compared the whole population this figure gets even bigger. In fact, the paper Dr Jeanson got is 123 figure from actually contains within it the number of mutations (of a certain type) they identified in the mtDNA they studied. It's over 7,000. Yet under the creationist model, only 123 mutations have happened since the flood.

A study that analyzed the mtDNA suggests that the story of Noah real

We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000-10,000 years.
Another study in Nature found that after the flood of the period there was a common ancestor to all mankind. The study argues that racial differences people have a recent origin: between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. 2

All humans are descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago, scientists claim
All modern humans descended from a solitary pair who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, scientists say. Scientists surveyed the genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals - including humans - from 100,000 different species and deduced that we sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race.

New Paper in Evolution Journal: Humans and Animals Are (Mostly) the Same Age?

Why should mitochondria define species?

A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region 1

New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model 8OzhoHY

1. http://sci-hub.ren/https://www.nature.com/articles/ng0497-363
2. https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/origin-human-mitochondrial-dna-differences-new-generation-time-data-both-suggest-unified-young-earth/

Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:25 pm; edited 9 times in total





Dr. Jeanson’s reply to this article:

i) The main claim is that my mutation rate is 35x faster than the published one. In fact, if you look at the article the author cites, the “published” rate (Soares et al) is one derived first assuming evolution and millions of years, and then fitting facts to these conclusions. For example, Soares et al first assume an ancient timescale (the very fact that my research contradicts), and then fit DNA differences to this timescale. Not only is this circular reasoning (i.e., assuming evolution to prove evolution), it’s also indirect science. It’s analogous to trying to measure the rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon…by measuring the depth of the Canyon, assigning millions-of-years dates to each layer, and then calculating the rate of erosion…rather than actually physically measuring it. So the main claim of the blog you cited is not a logically sound or scientifically compelling argument against my published work.
ii) “By adding null results from small studies like this he could effectively fine tune his mutation rate.” Here, the blog author accuses me of dishonesty. In fact, my goal in citing these additional studies were for the purpose of complete transparency and rigor. I cited all possible studies I could find. If the author of the blog really wanted to accuse me of cherry-picking, the author should have cited many studies I missed (which the author doesn’t do).
iii) The author tries to explain away my published mutation rate by invoking three possible scenarios under which my actual mutation rate would drop.
The first scenario envisions a movement from heteroplasmy to homoplasmy; the author thinks this is not a mutation. For the sake of argument, let’s grant the author this conclusion. But now let’s take it to it’s logical conclusion. Ask: Where did the heteroplasmic mutations come from? The only possible answer is mutation. Therefore, perhaps we should look at changes in heteroplasmic mutations, rather than changes in homoplasmic. If you look at the same table from the Ding study, you will find that the rate of heteroplasmic changes is 4x higher than the homoplasmic ones–which makes the problems for evolution even worse. So this argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. (In fact, sticking to homoplasmic mutations is the most scientifically conservative approach to this question, for reasons that get into significant technical depth.)
The second scenario and third scenarios invoke a similar principle–that I scored somatic mutations rather than germline ones. In theory, this could be a valid objection. But, again, let’s take it to it’s logical conclusion. For example, the author of the blog took for granted that number of mitochondrial DNA differences among the different people groups. But how many of these have been validated as germline changes and not somatic ones? For example, the author has no problem with my citation of 123 differences being the max difference between two humans–but how does the blog author know that these differences are germline ones? Furthermore, the evolutionary mitochondrial Eve and out-of-Africa model is founded on the assumption that mitochondrial differences among ethnic groups are germline. Should this be questioned now as well? If the author of the blog is not careful, he will soon undermine the entire mitochondrial DNA field!
But for sake of argument, let’s conservatively say that this germline-somatic dilemma is enough to prevent us from reliably inferring a mutation rate from the Ding study. What does the blog author suggest that we invoke instead? The logically circular rate derived from Soares et al?

Let me further address these second and third scenarios with some questions of my own for the blog author:

-If the rate I cited from Ding’s data is invalid, why does it agree with the 7+ studies that have been published previously? (See Table 4 of the following paper, as well as the discussion therein: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/recent-functionally-diverse-origin-for-mitochondrial-genes-from-~2700-metazoan-species/) Why is there such strong scientific consistency across multiple independent scientific studies? If the blog author wishes to question the conclusions of the one study he cites, he has a lot more evaluating and explaining to do than the single paper with which he interacts.

-Why do mitochondrial DNA clocks point towards a young-earth and reject a millions-of-years timescale for every other species in which the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate has been measured? (See the following: https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/spectacular-confirmation-of-darwins-argument-for-genesis/; https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/) Please note: In the fruit fly, roundworm, water flea, and yeast mitochondrial mutation rate studies, the rates were measured in mutation accumulation lines–in other words, over several generations of genealogically-related individuals. Almost by definition, these studies measure germline mutations–not somatic ones. Why do all of these studies agree so strongly?

-What testable predictions does the blog author’s model make? This is the gold standard of science–the one to which creationists have been held for years. If the blog author thinks that he has a better answer than what I have published, I challenge him to make scientifically testable predictions from it. For example, from my young-earth creation model, I can predict (i.e., I’m claiming that I can) the mitochondrial mutation rate in the millions of species in which it has yet to be measured. I’m willing to test my predictions in the lab. I challenge the blog author to do the same. Otherwise, by the evolutionists’ own standards, the blog author’s claims pseudoscience.

You might have noticed that these three questions that I ask refer to an extensive literature that has already been published on this topic–literature with which the blog author never interacts. You could almost say that the author seems to be cherry-picking which studies to address and which ones to ignore. I’m not saying this to accuse–my actual opinion on the subject is that I presume that he has no idea that this published literature exists. Rather, my point is saying this is to show that the “cherry-picking” stereotype can cut both ways.

Last edited by Otangelo on Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total




Far from special: Humanity's tiny DNA differences are 'average' in animal kingdom


The mass of evidence supports the hypothesis that most species, be it a bird or a moth or a fish, like modern humans, arose recently and have not had time to develop a lot of genetic diversity. The 0.1% average genetic diversity within humanity today corresponds to the divergence of modern humans as a distinct species about 100,000—200,000 years ago—not very long in evolutionary terms. The same is likely true of over 90% of species on Earth today.


4New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Empty Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:28 am



Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time
06 August 2013


Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time
06 August 2013
Now, two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered
August 01, 2013
Two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all.  All mitochondrial genomes today should be traceable to a single woman, a 'mitochondrial Eve'. Whereas the Y chromosome is passed from father to son, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed from mother to daughter and son. In 1987 population geneticists first demonstrated the existence of such a ‘mitochondrial Eve'3. After analyzing mtDNA from 147 people from around the world to chart their genetic relationships, they used a ‘molecular clock’, based on the number of DNA mutations that arise with each generation, to estimate Eve's age.

Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. The Y chromosome is passed down identically from father to son, so mutations, or point changes, in the male sex chromosome can trace the male line back to the father of all humans. By contrast, DNA from the mitochondria, the energy powerhouse of the cell, is carried inside the egg, so only women pass it on to their children. The DNA hidden inside mitochondria, therefore, can reveal the maternal lineage to an ancient Eve.

But over time, the male chromosome gets bloated with duplicated, jumbled-up stretches of DNA, said study co-author Carlos Bustamante, a geneticist at Stanford University in California. As a result, piecing together fragments of DNA from gene sequencing was like trying to assemble a puzzle without the image on the box top, making thorough analysis difficult.

Y chromosome

Bustamante and his colleagues assembled a much bigger piece of the puzzle by sequencing the entire genome of the Y chromosome for 69 men from seven global populations, from African San Bushmen to the Yakut of Siberia.

By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.

In addition, mitochondrial DNA from the men, as well as similar samples from 24 women, revealed that all women on the planet trace back to a mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago — almost the same time period during which the Y-chromosome Adam lived.

1. https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
2. https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
3. https://www.nature.com/news/genetic-adam-and-eve-did-not-live-too-far-apart-in-time-1.13478

Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Nov 01, 2020 5:47 pm; edited 4 times in total




Were Adam and Eve just legendary characters? Has science disproven their existence?


New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Adam-and-Eve-300x176New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Apeman-126x300Were Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis just legendary characters?  Maybe you’ve heard that there is good archaeological evidence for the existence of people in the Bible such as King David or King Hezekiah, but Adam and Eve?  How could there have been just two people that started the whole human race just 6,000-8,000 years ago?  Hasn’t it been proven that we evolved from ape-like creatures millions of years ago?
Let’s step back and look at the actual evidence.  Scientists have been searching for so-called “missing links” for decades.  You will read in the average textbook that people evolved from some chimp-like creature such as Ardipithicus ramidus (“Ardi”) or  Australopithecus (an example of which is the famous “Lucy”), up through Homo Habilis, then Homo Erectus, finally to Homo Sapiens, modern man. We’ve all seen the evolutionary parade in textbooks.  What kinds of fossil evidence are used to support these claims?
New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Lucy-museum-reconstructionNew Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Lucy-actual-fossil1-124x300
“Lucy”-museum reconstruction              “Lucy”-actual fossil
For example, lets look at the famous fossil “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis).   The fossil of Lucy, discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia,  was about 40% complete,  and was the best preserved specimen of Australopithecus afarensis found.  Eventually other fossils that appeared to be of the same species were also found.  It is claimed that the fossil evidence shows that Lucy walked upright like a man, and she is pictured walking just like a human in many pictures drawn by artists in textbooks, with a hairy but human looking body from the neck down.   But we have to remember what is artwork, and what is actual fossil evidence.   The Australopithecus afarensis species, of which Lucy is a specimen,  was chimp-like in its skull and jaw,  had shoulder blades that resemble a juvenile chimp or gorilla, and long arms and long, curved fingers very suitable for climbing and traveling through trees.  The structure of its wrist had a locking mechanism indicating that it walked on knuckles similar to a chimp.  [1} But what about the pelvis and knee joint that supposedly indicate it used bipedal locomotion?
The original Lucy fossil found was missing hands and feet, and the legs and spine were also largely missing or in fragments.  There was one fragmented pelvis bone preserved, which when first fit together looked just like a chimp’s pelvis.  However, the paleontologists who first attempted to fit together the pelvis made the claim that even though the bones fit together perfectly and looked like a chimp pelvis,  the perfect fit of this bone was an illusion, so they made a plaster cast of the fossil and used power tools to cut and shape the pieces of bone so that they fit into a more human form than an ape form! {2}  So they remade an originally well-fitting pelvis so that it looked less like a chimp and more human, influenced heavily by their pre-conceived idea that Lucy must have walked upright like a human.
How about her knee joint?  Interestingly enough, the knee joint was not even found with the original Lucy fossil, but, amazingly, was found over two miles away in a strata 200 feet lower!  But even if it does belong to the same species, the carrying angle of the knee joint is not diagnostic of upright walking humans, but is actually more similar to that of a spider monkey or orangutan.  So even if Lucy did walk upright on occasion, it wouldn’t have been like a human.[1}  For that matter, she may have been very similar to a Pygmy chimpanzee, which have been observed in zoos to habitually walk upright.
There is one more piece of evidence put forth to claim that Lucy walked upright, and these are the Laetoli footprints, human-looking footprints discovered by Mary Leakey, found in volcanic ash in Laetoli, Tanzania. dated by conventional dating methods to 3.6 million years old, around the same date that was given to the Lucy fossil.  So it was assumed that Lucy’s species made these footprints.  The problem is that these footprints look exactly like the footprints of habitually unshod modern humans, without the characteristic hallux, or “foot thumb” possessed by chimpanzees and other apes for grasping while climbing. {3}
Compounding this problem is that actual foot fossils have since been found in Hadar of Lucy’s species, (The Lucy fossil herself was found without any feet ) and they have the”foot thumbs” seen in modern apes.  Other fossils of Lucy’s kind have additional  chimpanzee-like features such as curved fingers ideal for tree climbing and evidence for a locking wrist joint  suited for knuckle-walking.
Paleontologist Russell Tuttle does not believe these footprints could have been made by Lucy: “In any case, we should shelve the assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis.  The Laetoli footprints hint that at least one other hominid roamed Africa at about the same time.” {4}  In fact, he acknowledges that it would be reasonable to call these footprints human, except for the time element: “If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo.” {4}
The Laetoli footprints could not have been made by Lucy’s kind, yet when artists draw a picture of the scene, they depict an ape-like creature walking upright just like a human, with human-like feet!  Here again, artistic license trumps actual fossil evidence.  But these kind of drawings are taken by many, perhaps most people, as proven science!   They claim that modern humans couldn’t have made these footprints because they weren’t around yet.  But this is circular reasoning, assuming Lucy is our ancestor while trying to prove she is our ancestor.   Also, the K-Ar radiometric dating method used to date the footprints can be called into question, as it often yields dates much older than the true age of the dated material, when applied to rocks of known historical age. {5}
Paleoanthropologists Stern and Susman studied the anatomy of Lucy and other members of her species and came to several conclusions: “When all the elements of afarensis hands are considered together, one is struck by the morphologic similarity to apes.” {6}  They describe the locking mechanism in the wrist as “classic for knuckle walkers”. {6} They also concluding that afarensis was mainly a tree dweller: “There is no evidence that any extant primate has long, curved, heavily muscled hands and feet for any purpose other than to meet the demands of full or part-time arboreal life.” {6}
Anatomist Charles Oxnard : “…the australopithicines known over the last few decades… are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism…” [7}
For an excellent comprehensive article on all the evidence about Lucy and her kind, see: The Full Story about “Lucy”

Clearly the belief  that Lucy must have walked upright and was evolving into humankind overrules the actual scientific evidence that Lucy was simply an ape.

New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Ardi-artists-rendition-145x300                              New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Ardi-actual-fossil
“Ardi” artist representation                        “Ardi” actual fossil
How about “Ardi” (Ardipithecus ramidus)?  Similar things can be said about this fossil as Lucy.  “Ardi” was discovered in the early 90’s, but there was a delay in publishing to sort out the bones and fragments of multiple individuals.  Time magazine of July 2001 introduced Ardipithecus ramidus kaddaba, a subspecies, with the words: “meet your newfound ancestor”. {8}  The most important evidence they present is an inch long toe bone.  In large type under a picture of the toe bone, they proclaim “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.” {8}  What they don’t put in large print is that this bone was not even found with the rest of the fossil remains, but was found 10 miles away, in a strata dated hundreds of thousands of years younger by conventional dating methods, as pointed out by Donald Johanson in this same article.
Paleontologists have come up with all kinds of theories as to why they think this animal ended up walking upright, but paleontologist Meave Leakey admits in the article that “there are all sorts of hypotheses, and they are all fairy tales really because you can’t prove anything.” {8}  But even if the toe bone did belong with the other remains, some were still not convinced.  David Begun of the University of Toronto commented on the toe bone: “To me, it looks for all the world like a chimpanzee foot phalanx {toe bone}.” {9}  At this point they still had not found a complete foot for this species.
That all changed later on when the anatomy of Ardi’s feet was analyzed more closely.  It turns out Ardi had a “foot thumb” just as Lucy, and modern day apes have.  Evolutionary morphologist William Jungers comments in a National Geographic article: “That ain’t the foot of a biped!  Ardi has one of the most divergent big toes you can imagine.” {10}  Others comment how the other ape-like features of Ardi make it likely it was just another variety of ape.  Terry Harrison of New York University points out that there was great diversity of ape species through ancient Africa: “Perhaps it was just one of those apes running around, rather than one that gave rise to the hominids.” {10}
Many of Ardi’s body parts, such as the skull and the hip, were found crushed and in pieces, widely spread out over the area where they were found.  What this meant was there was great leeway on how they should be put together, with many possible ways of reconstructing them, all the way from very apelike to more humanlike, depending on the bias of the researchers.  Some researchers admitted this: “…the pelvic remains were so severely crushed that as many as 14 reconstructions via computer tomographic imaging were considered before deciding which morphology was most in line with other data.  As Harrison (2010) and Wood and Harrison (2011) have pointed out,  ‘a substantial degree of speculation went into the final morphology of the pelvis reconstruction.  Subtle changes in the reconstructive process may have yielded a far more ape-like postcranial anatomy. {10 A)
For an excellent comprehensive article on the evidence for Ardi, see:
Who was Ardi?  Oldest human ancestor or just another extinct ape?
Other articles on Ardi:
Did Ardi head up human evolution before Lucy?, Ardipithecus again,
Time’s alleged “ape-man” trips up (again)!-response to Time Magazine’s article “One Giant Step for Mankind.”
For more on other proposed earliest ancestors of humans and the problems with those claims, see :
Fossil Evidence for alleged apemen-Part 2: non-Homo hominids, Australopithecus sediba revisited,
Evolutionary “Game Changer” Doesn’t Change Anything
Is Homo naledi a New Species of Human Ancestor? ,   Homo naledi-Geology of a claimed missing link
Homo naledi: Dating the Strange Ape, Homo naledi: Claims of a Transitional Ape
How about Homo habilis?  (Also including Homo rudolfensis)  Many see this as a “wastebasket taxon”, combining fossils of Homo Erectus and Australopithicines into an artificial category.    Fossils found in the Olduvai Gorge in Kenya were classified as Homo habilis. supposedly a step up from Australopithecus on the evolutionary scale.  However, these fossils found in Africa turn out to be just as ape-like as Lucy in their structure, in fact, probably just another variety of Australopithicines.   For example, habilis fossil OH 62 had long, apelike arms like Australopithicus, an ape-like skull, and was chimp-sized.   Other fossils classified as habilis such as Skull KNM 1470, look more like Homo erectus  In fact, it could even be a modern man skull.   And this particular fossil was in fragments, so the way it was put together made a huge difference in whether it look ape-like or human in the face structure.  Finally, if we chart Homo habilis fossils by date, it is found that they are co-existing with Homo erectus throughout Homo erectus’ entire history, so the idea that they evolved into Homo erectus is hard to defend.  Most likely then,  the Homo habilis fossils do not all  belong to the same species, but are made up of two species lumped together.
For elaboration on the above information on Homo habilis, see :  Fossil evidence for alleged apemen-Part1: the genus Homo, also see Bones of Contention, Marvin Lubenow, 2nd. ed., Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, pp. 299-301, 328-329.

So how about Homo erectus? Surely this is the “missing link” we are looking for?  If Homo erectus is not the link, there is nothing else to bridge the gap between the Australopithicine apes and modern humans.
It turns out that except for skull morphology, Homo erectus has the body of modern man, albeit a bit more robust and rugged.  In fact it looks much like the Neanderthal in cranial structure, but with a smaller average cranial capacity.  Indeed, Homo erectus fossils have a smaller average cranial capacity (about 973 cc) than modern man, but their average falls within modern man’s range.  Modern man has cranial capacity ranging from 700 cc to 2200 cc with no difference in intelligence.   Apparently neural organization is more important for intelligence than brain size.  See: Fossil evidence for alleged apemen-Part1: the genus Homo
(Incidentally, Neanderthal man has a large average cranial capacity than modern man, so this is not by any means a foolproof  criterion to use for so called “primitive” versus “advanced” features.  There is now much evidence that Neanderthal man interbred with modern humans and was fully human.  (see:Neanderthal Man: The changing picture,   Neanderthals-far from a sub-human species! )
There are many paleontologists who think that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are just varieties of the same species. William Laughlin of the University of Connecticut studied the Eskimos and the Aleuts, and noticed many similarities between these people and the Asian Homo erectus: “When we find that significant differences have developed, over a short time span, between closely related and contiguous peoples, as in Alaska and Greenland, and when we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seem justifiable to conclude  that Sinanthropus (Peking Man) belongs within this same diverse species.” {11}
Milford Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi,  and Alan Thorne: “In our view, there are two alternatives.  We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological  (i.e., temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk {into Homo sapiens}.” {12}
New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Homo-erectus-apelike
Homo Erectus-Ape-like artist representation
New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model Homo-erectus-peking-man-artist
Homo erectus-human-like artist representation
As we can see above, artists are all over the place depicting the appearance of homo erectus, depending on their bias.  Remember, artists renditions are NOT empirical scientific evidence, but rather, interpretations of that same evidence.
Interestingly, Wolpoff and Thorne advocated the Multiregional model of the evolution of Homo sapiens, where modern man arose in many regions, judging this by the fossil evidence,  as opposed to the “Out of Africa” scenario, where mankind originated in Africa and spread out from there,  proponents of this second theory advocating the use of the “molecular clock” of the mitochondrial DNA.  Articles defending both these positions appear in the Scientific American Special Edition, August 23, 2003, and they actually refute each other’s evidence.
For example, the article supporting the multi-regional theory claims the fossil evidence is sound, and disparages the use of genetic evidence: “Mitochondrial DNA is useful for guiding the development of theories, but only fossils provide the basis for refuting one idea or the other…Unlike the genetic data, fossils can be matched to the predictions of theories about the past without  relying on a long list of assumptions.” {12A} (emphasis mine)  As we shall see, they are right in saying that the molecular clock is not calibrated correctly in the “Out of Africa” method, because the “molecular clock” calibration used by them doesn’t  look at the actual mutation rate, but instead calculates that mutation rate based on the assumption than man split off from chimps 6 million years ago and then notes the amount of differences between chimp and man to calculate the mutation rate.  However, the current consensus from genetic evidence does point to one place of origin.
But look at what the advocates of using the “Out of Africa” theory say in the same magazine, about the fossil evidence so confidently  trusted as objective and conclusive by the Multi-regional theorists: “Genomes are objective because they present evidence that has not been defined, at the outset, by any particular evolutionary model. Gene sequences are empirically verifiable and not shaped by theoretical prejudices…Fossils cannot, in principle, be interpreted objectively…If one classifies, say a pelvis as human because it supported an upright posture, then one is presupposing that bipedalism distinguished early hominids from apes.  Such reasoning tends to circularity.  The paleontologist’s perspective therefore contains a built-in bias…” (Emphasis mine) {12B).
I have found some of the best evidence refuting or at least calling into question the conventional evolutionary model, in books and articles promoting human evolution!  For example, in years past in a book supposedly refuting creationism, was a reference recommending the reading of the book The Fossil Evidence for Evolution by Wilfred Le Gros Clark and Bernard Campbell (1978).  I found several statements in this book that actually support the creation model or call into question the conventional evolutionary model: On page 87 : “It is clear that during the middle and upper Pleistocene, Homo sapiens was a very variable species. ”  He goes on to talk about the variation between today’s Aboriginal and the Pygmy, and states that racial variations during “Neanderthal times” was probably even greater than today.  (See what I described above about Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and Homo sapiens all possibly being sunk into the classification Homo sapiens) Clark notes throughout his book that there are fossil finds with both “modern” and “erectus ” features.  Although very pro-evolution, in reading his book it sounded like he was not sure that homo erectus should be called a separate species.
The problem is that the features that supposedly distinguish Homo erectus from Homo sapiens, namely things such as large browridges, small chin, forward projecting jaws, relatively large teeth, and a thick braincase, all can be found in some modern humans, such as the Australian Aborigines, which of course are fully modern humans.  So we have to be careful, especially in today’s society, of who we say has “primitive” features!  (See: Fossil evidence for alleged apemen-Part1: the genus Homo)
And even the time element, which we talked about above, can’t prove Homo erectus a ‘missing link”, since on a chronological chart Homo erectus fossils by conventional dating methods range from about 2 million years ago to 27,000 years ago, in other words, basically the same range as modern man, since fossils with structure indistinguishable from modern man can be also dated all the way back before 2 million years ago by conventional methods.  So they have been contemporaries, not evolutionary successors.  And Homo erectus hasn’t changed or evolved in all that supposed time.  And those fossils that show up with an erectus cranial structure but are too young, are explained away with non-evolutionary reasons, such as: lack of vitamins, poor nutrition, use of the teeth as clamps,  or cranial deformation.  But then why can’t these explanations be used for all Homo erectus specimens?
So Homo erectus simply appears, along with Neanderthal, to be fully human, and not the “missing link”  So men have always been men, and apes always apes.
The Genetic Evidence for the reality of Adam and Eve:
Perhaps the most powerful evidence favoring the reality of Adam and Eve’s existence comes from the field of genetics.   For example, we have all heard the claim that the chimp genome, from which our genome supposedly split off from 6 million years ago, is 98% identical to the human genome.   This claim has now been called into question, and the similarity level is more like 81-87%, and quite possibly as low as 70%.  The 98% claim came years before the human genome and chimp genome were known.  Only small parts of both human and chimp DNA that had similar sequences were compared, and large amounts of DNA that did not match up well were excluded {13}.  Much DNA was also left out because it was assumed to be non-functional “junk” DNA, evolutionary leftovers.  This assumption of “junk” DNA has now been totally refuted, as this “junk” DNA has now been found to have many functions previously unknown {14}.
More recent studies have confirmed, even with selective use of data, that the DNA similarity between man and chimps is only about 80-87% at the most {13}. A comparison of the Y-chromosome data found even less of a similarity.  What this means is that there is a vast amount of information that needs to be added or changed to get from chimp to man.  Even if we grant the 98% similarity, this means a 2% difference.  2% of the approximately 3 billion-letter human genome equals about 60 million genetic “letters” that need to be added, all from random mistakes.  This corresponds to volumes and volumes of standard sized books when written out.  Given the comparatively slow time it would take to fix even a few beneficial mutations (which are rare in comparison to harmful mutations)  in the chimp population, there is just not enough time, even if we allow 6 million years, to get from chimps to man.
Further, the human genome is deteriorating because harmful mutations vastly outnumber the supposed beneficial mutations, and most of these harmful mutations are below the natural selection threshhold and so are not eliminated from the population, but accumulate in the human genome.  This is a well know problem among population geneticists, as former Cornell University geneticist Dr. John Sanford notes in his book on this subject, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. In this book he shows how mutations, the so-called “engine of evolution”, actually lead to the deterioration of the human genome. {15} In fact this shows that the human species could not be very old, or this genetic deterioration would have caused extinction long ago {16}
Mankind exhibits a lack of genetic diversity compared to other species.  If we came from just two people, this is easy to explain.  But in the evolutionary view this requires a near-extinction event just before modern man emerged and spread out over the world.   This near-extinction event in their scenario was said to have occurred about 70,000 years ago, recent by evolutionary standards.  This required the global population to shrink to about 10,000 individuals, resulting in much less genetic diversity, and many bad mutations because of inbreeding depression.  Geneticists John Sanford and Robert Carter ask the question: “How could such a tiny, nearly extinct, genetically compromised population suddenly explode into all parts of the planet, seizing dominion over the world?” {17}
It is much more feasible to follow the Biblical scenario:  a “bottleneck” of two people, then 10 generations later another “bottleneck” of 8 individuals.  This would be brief, with no previous accumulated mutations, with fast growth and no inbreeding effects {18}.  Some have said that the level of variation we do see in humans still couldn’t have come from just two people.  This claim seems to be contradictory to the one that there is not much diversity in the human genome!  However, the fact is that all known single letter variants in the current population could have been programmed into just two people.  Together they would have 4 sets of chromosomes, with only 4 genetic letters, A, T,C,and G.  They could have had any possible combination of variants and so could easily have been heterozygous (had differing letters) at each of 100 million nucleotide sites.  But even this is not needed to explain the genetic diversity that we do see-even now a single person on average is heterozygous at about 4 million sites and carries a large part of all human variation.  There are less  than 15 million common single letter variants in all of humanity, and God could easily have built these in when He created Adam and Eve ({19}
God created Adam and Eve.  Actually this is a very scientific statement.   Creationists and evolutionists alike now agree that genetics show that we came from one woman, and one man.  Mitochondrial DNA sequences are passed down through the mother only.  We can now actually reconstruct a close approximation to the original mitochondrial DNA sequence and determine that we all came from one mother.  The evolutionary scientists call her “Mitochondrial Eve”, interestingly enough, and say that she lived about 100,000 years ago.  But what do the actual, measured rates of mutation indicate?  The average person has about 22 differences from this original sequence, with a maximum of about 100 differences.  The average measured rate of mutation in human mitochondria is about .5 mutations per per generation.  At this rate, it would only take about 200 generations, or  about 4,000-5,000 years to accumulate even the maximum of 100 mutations.  So the actual facts fit the Biblical time scale much better than the evolutionary one. {20}
Similarly, the evidence now also points to one common father, called “Y-chromosome Adam.”   The Y chromosome, of course, is only passed down through the male.    A near approximation of the original sequence of Y Chromosome Adam can also be reconstructed with the known data.  The Y chromosomes of modern men are on average about 300 mutations different from the original.  The measured rate of mutation is about 1 mutation per generation.   So we would need about 300 generations or about 6,000 years, to get from Y Chromosome Adam to modern man.  In 100,000 years, we would get about 100,000 mutations, way off the mark  for what we actually observe.  So the actual evidence favors the biblical timeline again.  {21}
Conclusion: So, far from being a myth, when we look at the evidence, believing in the Biblical account of Adam and Eve is a very scientifically sound thing to do!
[1] Australopithecus and Homo habilis-pre-human ancestors?
{2} This is from an actual NOVA TV documentary: In Search of Human Origins, part 1, NOVA Transcript, PBS airdate June 3, 1997, posted on pbs.org.
[3}The Full Story about “Lucy”  by Christopher Rupe and Dr. John Sanford, FMS Foundation, 2014.
also see: Lucy: Walking Tall or Wandering in Circles?
{4} Russel Tuttle, The Pitted Patterns of Laetoli Feet. Natural History, March 1990, p. 64.
[5]New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Research Lab:
Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the “true” age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the “true” age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement. –New Mexico Geochronology Research Laboratory
{6}J. T. Stern & R. L. Susman, The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1989.
{7} Charles Oxnard, The Order of Man, 1984, p. 332.
{8} M. Lemonick & A. Dorfman, One Giant Step for Mankind, Time, July 23, 2001, pages 54-61.
{9} Wong, K., An Ancestor to Call our Own, Scientific American, Special Edition, August 23, 2003, page 9.  This article was pushing another species as our ancestor, Sahalanthropus tchadensis, which turned out to have all ape-like characteristics as well.  For more information on the various ancestors that have been proposed, see Fossil Evidence for alleged apemen-Part 2: non-Homo hominids.
{10} J. Shreeve, The Evolutionary Road, National Geographic, July 2010, p.66.
{10 A} Stanford, C.B. “Chimpanzees and the behavior of Ardipithecus ramidus, Annu Rev. Anthropol 41: 139-149, 2012, as quoted in Sanford and Rupe, :Who was Ardi?  Oldest human ancestor or just another extinct ape?
{11} William S. Laughlin, “Eskimos and Aleuts:Their Origins and Evolution, ” Science, 142 (8 November 1963) p. 644.
{12} Milford H. Wolpoff, Wu Xin Zhi, and Alan G. Thorne, Modern Homo sapiens Origins: A General Theory of Hominid Evolution Involving  the Fossil Evidence from East Asia. ” The Origin of Modern Humans, ed. Fred H. Smith and Frank Spencer (New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1984) 465-66.
{12A} A. Thorne and M. Wolpoff, The Multiregional Evolution of Humans”, Scientific American, Special Edition, August 23, 2003, pp. 46-53.
{12B} R. Cann and A. Wilson, “The Recent African Genesis of Humans”, Scientific American, Special Edition, August 23, 2003, pp. 54-61.
{13} Genomic monkey business: Estimates of nearly identical human-chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data
{14} The slow, painful death of junk DNA
{15} Sanford, John, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, Waterloo, NY, third edition, 2008.
{16} Time-no friend of evolution
{17, 18, 19, 20, 21} In Light of Genetics-Adam, Eve, and the Creation/Fall by Dr. John C. Sanford and Dr. Robert Carter  -This article is an excellent comprehensive survey by two top genetics specialists on the genetic evidence for the reality of Adam and Eve.
Also see all these articles by Dr. Robert Carter: Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics,




Dating methods like radiometric dating and molecular clocks, used to estimate the age of human mitochondrial DNA, are based on assumptions about constant decay rates and steady mutation rates. Radiometric dating relies on the principle that certain isotopes decay at a constant rate over time. The assumption of constant decay rates is questionable because it is based on extrapolation from relatively short observation periods. External factors, such as changes in environmental conditions, could have influenced decay rates in the past, leading to inaccurate dating results. Contamination can significantly affect the accuracy of the results. The presence of even small amounts of foreign material can distort the dating measurements, leading to incorrect age estimates. Molecular clocks, which estimate the divergence of species or the age of genetic lineages based on mutation rates, can also be subject to criticism. Calibrating these clocks relies on assumptions about the timing of key events in evolutionary history, such as the fossil record or known divergence points. Any uncertainties or errors in these calibrations can propagate and introduce inaccuracies into the dating estimates. Another challenge for molecular clocks is the potential variation in mutation rates. Mutation rates can vary significantly across different populations or under different environmental conditions. Assuming a steady mutation rate for dating purposes may not accurately represent the complex reality of genetic change.


Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum