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

Human origins: Created, or evolved?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Human origins: Created, or evolved? Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:23 am



Human origins: Created, or evolved?


THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY IS IN OUR GENOME. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT mtDNA OF HUMANS FITS THE 6000-YEAR TIMESCALE, EXPLAINS THE THREE HAPLOGROUPS, AND THE RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE AND POST FLOOD HUMANITY. One Eve in the beginning, population shrinks to 8 people (Noah, Noahs wife, 3 sons, 3 wives of Noahs sons). 3 boys get MTDNA from mom and then it ends. Genesis 9 says from these 3 the entire world was repopulated. We get our MTDNA from their 3 wives. Population would then grow and shrink to 8 at the time of the flood and then grow again momentarily ending with the splitting of people groups at the Tower of Babel.

The widely presumed “pre-humans” such as Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, and Homo naledi were neither pre-human nor less-than-human. They were members of our own species who were undergoing accelerated genetic degeneration due to severe and extended inbreeding

The population of the human race at the time of the flood and immediately afterward certainly qualifies as a population size that would enable mutated alleles to become common as the population grew. With a starting population of only eight people, alleles, such as the O allele, could easily have increased in frequency through random genetic drift in the post-flood population, reflecting the present levels that are observed today and consistent with computer simulations modeling fixation.

" Dr. Robert Carter has spent considerable time analyzing the HapMaP data and has come to some intriguing conclusions. In his article “Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?
“The HapMap Project3 was designed to catalog a significant fraction of human genetic diversity. They analyzed millions of variants in thousands of people from around the world and made the data freely available.  What have we learned?
The human genome is young: shared blocks of DNA are large and there has not been enough time to scramble them to randomness.
The human population came from a single source: most blocks are shared among all world populations.
The human genome is falling apart: deletions tend to NOT be shared among populations, but are unique to subpopulations (this is further evidence for the youth of the genome and that we came from a single source population in the recent past).”

Critics have put forth the argument that the highly variable positions found within the genome is a contradiction to the created heterozygosity hypothesis. Dr. Robert Carter addresses this objection in his article titled “Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics” :

“ Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel.

There are indications, however, that Eve may not have been a clone. The ABO blood group is a textbook example of a gene with more than two versions. 3 There are three main versions of the blood type gene (A, B, and O). However, many, but not all, people with type O blood carry something that looks very much like a mutant A (the mutation prevents the manufacturing of the type A trait on the outside of cells). So here is a gene with more than two versions, but one of the main versions is clearly a mutation. This is true for many other genes, although, as usual, there are exceptions. The important take home point is that essentially all of the genetic variation among people today could have been carried within two people, if you discount mutations that occurred after our dispersion across the globe. This is a surprise to many.”
Source: Robert W. Carter , “Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics,” Creation Ministries (May 11, 2010)

Mutations can clearly occur after the flood and after Babel. These mutations would create additional versions of the original created alleles. There is no contradiction to the hypothesis that suggests God would have encoded Adam and Eve with front-loaded DNA diversity."

Genetics vs. Genomics Fact Sheet September 7, 2018 1
All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of diseases.

Harmful protein-coding mutations in people arose largely in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years November 28, 2012
A study dating the age of more than 1 million single-letter variations in the human DNA code reveals that most of these mutations are of recent origin, evolutionarily speaking. These kinds of mutations change one nucleotide – an A, C, T or G – in the DNA sequence.  Over 86 percent of the harmful protein-coding mutations of this type arose in humans just during the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. 1

Evidence for a Human Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Pedigree-Based Mutation Rates Suggest a 4,500-Year History for Human Paternal Inheritance 3
Pedigree-based mutation rates act as an independent test of the young-earth creation and evolutionary timescales. Currently, evolutionary papers use published Y chromosome pedigree-based mutation rates to argue for an ancient origin of humanity. However, their published studies rely on low-coverage sequence runs. We show that pedigree-based mutation rates from high-coverage sequence runs are hidden in the evolutionary literature, and we demonstrate that these rates confirm a 4,500-year history for human paternal ancestry.

The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence 2
We have calculated the consensus sequence for human mitochondrial DNA using over 800 available sequences. Analysis of this consensus reveals an unexpected lack of diversity within human mtDNA worldwide. Not only is more than 83% of the mitochondrial genome invariant, but in over 99% of the variable positions, the majority allele was found in at least 90% of the individuals.

Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock
Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics. Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondria1 Eve, the woman which mDNA  was ancestral to that in all living people-lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. 4

A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing 5
The evolutionary dates are clearly dependent on many tenuous assumptions

Human origins: Created, or evolved? Noahs_10

Human origins: Created, or evolved? Harmfu10

1. https://www.washington.edu/news/2012/11/28/harmful-protein-coding-mutations-in-people-arose-largely-in-the-past-5000-to-10000-years/
2. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-"Eve"-Mitochondrial-Consensus-Sequence-Carter-Criswell/425f35ec312fd2d615e76671748db9eacd467fe8
3. https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/molecular-clock/evidence-human-y-chromosome-molecular-clock/
4. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/279/5347/28.summary
5. https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(08)00773-3

Last edited by Otangelo on Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:26 pm; edited 1 time in total


2Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Re: Human origins: Created, or evolved? Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:32 pm



Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics  11 May 2010

Y-Chromosome Study Confirms Genesis Flood Timeline BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. * |

Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Dec 19, 2021 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total




Scientific Evidence For Mitochondrial Eve

The Bible tells us God created Adam and Eve as the first people to live on Earth and that all human life that followed is descended from this single pair of original ancestors.
Now, research from the University of Basel in Switzerland suggests the word of the Holy Book may be based on more scientific fact than sceptics previously thought.

Here in lies the scientific evidence for mitochondrial Eve.
Let’s take a closer look at mitochondrial DNA, which serves as a genetic barcode, to reach these findings.

Nuclear DNA vs mitochondrial DNA

When somebody talks about human DNA, what do you visualize? If you understand a little about the subject, maybe you think about the 46 chromosomes that populate the nucleus of practically every cell that comprises your body. These chromosomes hold the substantial bulk of genetic data that you’ve inherited from your moms and dads.

Outside the nucleus, yet still within the cell, lie mitochondria. Mitochondria are microscopic structures that assist cells in a variety of ways, including things like producing the energy that cells require. Each mitochondrion– there are about 1,700 in every human cell– consists of an exact same loop of DNA about 16,000 base pairs long holding 37 genes. On the other hand, nuclear DNA contains 3 billion base pairs and an approximated 70,000 genes.

Human origins: Created, or evolved? Scientific-Evidence-For-Mitochondrial-Eve-1

Scientific Evidence For Mitochondrial Eve

Inheriting mtDNA
Whenever an egg cell is fertilized, nuclear chromosomes from a sperm cell enter into the egg and merge with the egg’s nuclear DNA, producing a combination of both mom’s and dad’s genetic code. The mtDNA from the sperm cell, nevertheless, is abandoned, outside of the egg cell.

So the fertilized egg comprises of a combination of the dad and mom’s nuclear DNA and a precise copy of the mom’s mtDNA, yet none of the dad’s mtDNA. The outcome is that mtDNA is handed down solely along the maternal line. This signifies that all of the mtDNA in the cells of an individual’s body are copies of his/her mom’s mtDNA, and all of the mom’s mtDNA is a copy of her mom’s, and so on.

No matter how far back you go, mtDNA is constantly inherited solely from the mom.

Human origins: Created, or evolved? Scientific-Evidence-For-Mitochondrial-Eve-2

Scientific Evidence For Mitochondrial Eve

If you went back 6 generations in your own ancestral tree, you would see that your nuclear DNA is inherited from 32 men and 32 women. Your mtDNA, on the other hand, would have originated from only one of those 32 women!

Therefore, despite what the secular world tries to deny, we know the truth that is given to us by the Word of God.

Scientific evidence for Mitochondrial Eve points absolutely to the Biblical Eve of the Paradise that is now lost.


Asked when did mitochondrial Eve live? More than a hundred thousand years ago. Now supposedly all humans can be traced back to this woman who was one of about ten thousand people alive at that time, who lived between 100 and 200 thousand years ago. Okay, so this is very different, obviously, from the biblical account of Adam and Eve. Now biblically, again, we can say that's not right because we know that God only created Adam and Eve. They were the only two people. We'll talk more about that in a little bit, and we know from the biblical genealogies that this occurred, that they were created only about 6000 years ago, not hundreds of thousands of years ago. Now again, because the Bible is true, when we look at the scientific evidence, it should be consistent with that and support that, and indeed it does.  

Now let me explain first of all what mitochondrial DNA is. So in your cell, we've been talking about the DNA that's in here in the nucleus, but you also have DNA in structures called mitochondria, and those are the energy factories of the cell, okay? They produce energy, and they have a small circular piece of DNA that's approximately 16,000 bases in length, so it's much smaller than the 3 billion that's in your nucleus, and you only inherit it from your mother, okay? Because it's in the egg, the sperm does not contribute mitochondrial DNA, so it's used to trace maternal lineages. If you wanted to do paternal, you'd look at the Y chromosome because only guys have a Y chromosome. So as it turns out, all human beings have very similar mitochondrial DNA, okay? So like my daughter, for example, we adopted her from China, so I'm not her biological mother, but if we compared our mitochondrial DNA, it would actually look very, very similar even though she's of a different ethnic group than I am. They would be very, very similar, okay? So here's just kind of a slide showing what's going on here. So we have this couple, okay? This represents them, her mitochondrial DNA. Again, it only gets passed from mom, so they, they have a daughter, she passes it to her. They have a daughter, she passes it to her, and so on. Now this couple up here, they had his son, right? And she'll pass her mitochondrial DNA to him, but he won't pass it to his daughter, okay? So it's only on the maternal line. And so even evolutionists would agree that mitochondrial DNA is pretty similar, and so they would say, though, that she lived around a hundred thousand years ago. But here's where it gets really interesting because they can't seem to agree on exactly when she lived. So just looking at the past few years, papers that have been published on this: In 2009, she died, she was 108,000 years old. In 2012, she got really old. She jumped to 250 to 300,000 years old. And in 2013, she was 157,000 years old. So which is it, hey? Because it keeps changing. Why does it keep changing? Because they're all making certain assumptions about the past. They weren't there, and they don't know, so they plug those assumptions in, and they keep getting different answers as a result of that, okay? They keep having, because they have differing assumptions. The one assumption, though, that remains the same for all of these dates is that they've assumed humans and chimps have a common ancestor. So here's the issue: This is why they're getting such elevated timelines, is because human and chimp mitochondrial DNA is very different. And so when you count that into your calculation, well, yeah, you figure you got more changes, more differences, you have to have more time, right? So it balloons it up and elevates it because of that. Now in 1997, however, there was a paper published by evolutionary scientists. They said the date for mitochondrial Eve was 6,500 years ago, mmm, okay? That's really close to the biblical timeframe, right? So when you look at the paper and you see, okay, so how did they do this? It turns out they only compared humans to humans. So they looked at, for example, the mitochondrial DNA of a great-grandmother, a grandmother, a mother, a daughter, a daughter, a granddaughter, a great-granddaughter. They only compared human DNA to human DNA. They did not assume human-chimp ancestry. And lo and behold, they get the biblical time frame, that's because all humans are related to each other, okay? We're not related to the chimp. So when you don't have them as part of the equation, you get a realistic and a biblical time frame. Now the people that published this paper were very shocked at their findings, and there was a huge cry from the evolutionary community when this was published because it isn't right, right? According to their story, it's a major problem. So the people that published the paper said, "Using our empirical data, data to calibrate the mitochondrial DNA molecular clock would result in an age of mitochondrial Eve of only 6500 years ago, clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans," like it can't be right, right? Because it doesn't match our evolutionary timeframe. So we're just gonna ignore it, and they come up with all kinds of rescuing devices, right, to try to make it work. But the fact is staring them in the face that it's a major, major problem when you don't assume that human-chimp ancestry. You don't get the date that they would expect. Now it's really interesting because Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, who is a geneticist here at Answers in Genesis, he's been looking at mitochondrial DNA sequences there in databases. You can compare them from humans all over the world, and what he found is that what we observe with the mitochondrial DNA is absolutely consistent with the biblical time frame and absolutely inconsistent with an evolutionary one. So here's what he found: He said, okay, so if she's a hundred and fifty seven thousand years old, like the evolutionists say, at least their most recent paper. If we use that figure, on average, we know the mitochondrial mutation rate, so on average, there should be about a thousand differences that we find in mitochondrial DNA, okay, among humans, about a thousand differences. If she's only six thousand years old, like the biblical timeframe, we should on average only see about twenty to seventy-nine differences because it's less time, right? So less differences. And so he looked at that because he looked at human mitochondrial DNA sequences and databases from people all over the world. And lo and behold, what you observe is on average there are seventy-seven differences. What is that consistent with? Absolutely consistent with the biblical timeframe, and orders of magnitude inconsistent with an evolutionary one. He's even shown this for several animals as well, the exact same thing. There's no way, when you look at the DNA, it is so stinking similar. There's just not that many differences. It doesn't even matter what people group you are. We just, we just don't see that many differences, and that's exactly what we would expect within the biblical timeframe that we have of only 6,000 years. So in summary, the male and female ancestor of us all, the biblical Adam and Eve, we know they live very recently. We know that from the biblical genealogies and chronologies. We know that was about 6,000 years ago. And your own DNA analysis is absolutely consistent with that. So evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do with this because it just doesn't match their their ideas of the time frame. And even if you look at different people groups, now notice I don't use the term races because there are not multiple races of people. We all come from Adam and Eve, so we are the human race. There are different ethnic groups, okay, different people groups, but we all kind of diverged out. Those kind of started after the Tower of Babel, so it's only been about 4,000 years ago or so since that. So of course there's just not that many differences because it's just not that much time has passed.

Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Jun 19, 2024 8:54 am; edited 1 time in total


4Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty ARE WE REALLY DESCENDANTS OF EVE? Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:14 am



Understanding the "Mitochondrial Eva"


Ricardo B. Marques
Biologist, paleontologist and clinical neuroscientist.

From time to time someone comes to me asking "if it is true that we have the DNA of Adam and Eve", or, more specifically, if it has even been proven that we are all descended from the same couple.

To make it easier, I decided to write this short explanatory text, in a didactic and non-academic language, so that most people can understand.

First, it's not that we have "the DNA of Adam and Eve" (although I believe we do), but that we have the mitochondrial DNA of Eve. This theory is called "Mitochondrial Eve."

It is important to remember that during fertilization only the sperm nucleus, with the paternal DNA, penetrates the egg, joining the maternal DNA and forming the zygote. Well, this being so, in the formation of the zygote, the rest of the sperm cell - plasma membrane, cytoplasm, and all organelles (including mitochondria) - are lost; beyond the nucleus, only fragments of sperm pass.

After uniting the egg and sperm nuclei, this new first cell (zygote), which will multiply to form the future baby, will have a membrane, cytoplasm, and all the cytoplasmic organelles coming only from the egg - that is, everything came from the mother. From the father, only the DNA of the nucleus.

Among the cytoplasmic organelles, we have the mitochondria, which do the cell's energy work. And each mitochondrion has its own DNA, a single DNA molecule, similar to the DNA of bacteria.

Therefore, the mitochondria of each human being have only maternal mitochondrial DNA, which came from the mitochondria that were in the cytoplasm of the egg. Remember: man has "only" contributed nuclear DNA, which, together with the mother's nuclear DNA, gives the person genetic characteristics.

Since every human on the planet inherited mitochondrial DNA only from their mother, the scientists reasoned that if they mapped the mitochondrial DNA of several people, they could all find common maternal offspring.

This research was carried out by three biologists from the Department of Biochemistry at the University of California and published in 1987 in Nature (1).

By comparing the mitochondrial DNA of 147 people from five different ethnic groups, the researchers found that all the individuals analyzed were descendants of the same female lineage, that is, they all had the same original "mother" at the beginning of everything.

Thus, they confirmed that all humanity descends from the same woman, who would have been the first Homo sapiens. And they called her "Mitochondrial Eve".

Considering a mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA, the scientists estimated the time for each group to develop their differences from a common ancestor, and ended up making a kind of "family tree". It was estimated that about 200,000 years would have elapsed between the appearance of "Mitochondrial Eve" and the current human population.

When Christians learned of this research, they obviously began to use it as an argument in favor of the biblical account of Creation. And, not surprisingly, non-Christian scientists responded quickly. In an attempt to diminish the reinforcement that the discovery gave to the biblical account, they were soon arranging arguments to reject the creationist view.

Among the arguments, they created the claim that it was not just an original woman, but a "small founding group that would have the same mitochondrial DNA" and that that group of women gave rise to a direct female lineage of descendants that resulted in the humanity that we have today. However, there are no solid elements in the research itself to prove that it did not start with the same and only woman.

Another argument they use, and which has already been said here, is that, while the biblical chronology counts only a few thousand years (between 6,000 and 10,000 years), the researchers' "estimate" is that 200,000 years would have elapsed.

However, further research (2) has shown that the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA is much faster than the authors of the "Mitochondrial Eve" research supposed. New studies have indicated a mutation rate around 20 times higher (3).

And a third argument is that the first humans probably arose in Africa, while the Bible places the origin in some region of the Middle East. However, the idea that humanity began in Africa is only an interpretive view, based on fossil finds of African hominids (highly questionable) and supposed migration routes (also questioned by several other academic theories).

All of this just shows that, in vain desperation to contradict the Bible at any cost, some scientists are just trying to deny the obvious: we are, yes, descendants of a first couple - just as the Bible says. And that original "mother" would have existed a few thousand years ago, not hundreds of thousands of years, let alone millions of years ago. And, let's be honest and admit it: "Mitochondrial Eve" research helps confirm this fact.

(1) CANN, R.L.; STONEKING, M.; WILSON, A.C., 1987, Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature , 325, pp 31–36.

(2) PARSONS, Thomas J. et al. A high observed substitution rate in human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nature Genetics 15, 363 - 368 (1997).

(3) GIBBONS, Ann. Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock. Science, 2 January 1998: Vol. 279, no. 5347, pp. 28-29.


5Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Re: Human origins: Created, or evolved? Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:58 pm



The time of arrival of people in Australia is an unresolved question. The settlement of Madjedbebe around 65ka (conservatively 59.3ka, calculated as 65.0ka minus the age uncertainty of 5.7 kyr at 95.4% probability) sets a new minimum age for the human colonization of Australia and the dispersal of modern humans out of Africa and across south Asia. The final stages of this journey took place at a time of lower sea level, when northern Australia was cooler and wetter. Our chronology places people in Australia more than 20 kyr before continent-wide extinction of the megafauna9–11 and supports an age of more than 60 kyr for the incorporation of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA into the modern human genome1–7. It also extends the period of overlap of modern humans and Homo floresiensis in eastern Indonesia to at least 15 kyr (ref. 39) and, potentially, with other archaic hominins—such as Homo erectus40—in southeast Asia and Australasia.




BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. DNA Trends Confirm Noah's Family  JUNE 30, 2016  1

When a researcher plotted hundreds of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences onto a tree diagram, the project revealed an obvious pattern: The mtDNA stemmed from three central “trunks” or nodes instead of just one. The human mtDNA tree has three nodes. Thus, everyone alive today carries one of three unique ancestral maternal sequences. This fits Genesis’ claim that all humans who exist today descended from one of the wives of Noah’s sons. Three trends in the data suggest that the wives of Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth best explain this finding.

Mothers pass mtDNA to every new generation. It comes from the mother’s egg cell and contains 16,569 chemical base pairs—either adenine-thymine or guanine-cytosine—organized to encode vital information, like words in an instruction manual. Sometimes a DNA copying error, known as a mutation, leaves a different base in place of the original. Several empirical studies reveal that about one human mtDNA mutation occurs every six generations. When a mother’s egg cell mtDNA mutates in one place, the child conceived from that egg cell—plus, if the child is female, later descendants—inherits that difference. This leaves a genetic trail that can lead back to mtDNA ancestry.

We find the second trend in the number of DNA differences between the three central nodes. At today's mtDNA mutation rate, two to eight nucleotide differences would have accumulated in the nine generations between Adam and Noah. And the distance between the three central nodes also shows eight DNA differences.

How many mtDNA differences would mutations cause during the 4,365 years since Noah? That depends on generation times. At most, a culture where the women typically give birth near age 15 could have produced 115 mtDNA differences.3 Adding those to Jeanson’s eight estimated pre-Flood differences gives 123. In a spectacular confirmation of Genesis history, the most diverse human mtDNA on record actually shows 123 differences.4

In short, if all peoples descended from three genetically unique mothers, then our mtDNA sequences should trace back to their three nodes. Those nodes should have about eight differences between them. Plus, a strict biblical timeline suggests 123 as the highest number of mtDNA differences that should be observed today. Check, check, and check. These three mtDNA trends trace all of humanity back to Noah’s sons’ three wives—a striking intersection of biblical history and modern genetics.

1. https://www.icr.org/article/dna-trends-confirm-noahs-family


7Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Re: Human origins: Created, or evolved? Sun Oct 09, 2022 6:45 am



T.Yonezawa (2012): Some Problems in Proving the Existence of the Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth
It seems likely that a huge amount of trials and errors of different forms occurred during the emergence of life and that UCA if existed was just one of them. The probability of survival of life is low unless there are multiple origins.

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life". The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine.  "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

Frank Zindler, President of American Atheists,  in 1996
The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.

Reply: The two basic tenets upon which the theory of evolution rests, are the claim of universal common ancestry, and the tree of life. The two claims have been refuted on many grounds. When we talking about the tree of life, we cannot overlook the origin of viruses. Eugene V. Koonin admitted openly in 2020: In the genetic space of viruses and MGEs, no genes are universal or even conserved in the majority of viruses. Viruses have several distinct points of origin, so there has never been a last common ancestor of all viruses. The universal common ancestry of life is also disputed. For example  Eric Bapteste, evolutionary biologist: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality." DAVID M. RAUP, paleontologist: Multiple origins of life in the early Precambrian is a reasonable possibility. And C.P. Kempes in the peer-reviewed article: The Multiple Paths to Multiple Life (2021): We argue for multiple forms of life realized through multiple different historical pathways. In regard to the origin of humans: All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Harmful protein-coding mutations in people arose largely in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. Evidence for a Human Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Pedigree-Based Mutation Rates Suggest a 4,500-Year History for Human Paternal Inheritance. By comparing the mitochondrial DNA of 147 people from five different ethnic groups, the researchers found that all the individuals analyzed were descendants of the same female lineage, that is, they all had the same original "mother" at the beginning of everything. Thus, they confirmed that all humanity descends from the same woman, who would have been the first Homo sapiens. And they called her "Mitochondrial Eve". These few quotes demonstrate that the major evolutionary tenets are far from being a scientific fact, or consensus among specialists in the field. Adding the complete failure of abiogenesis research permits the inference from eliminative induction: 

The most devastating thing though that biology has done to naturalism is the failed claim of chemical and biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve were real people the central creation narrative of Christianity is confirmed. If there was an Adam and Eve there was an original sin. If there was an original sin there is need of salvation. If there is need of salvation there is need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the necessary. I think that the failure of abiogenesis and evolution is absolutely the death knell of naturalism.


8Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Re: Human origins: Created, or evolved? Sat Jul 29, 2023 10:10 am



Rebecca Cann, a geneticist, conducted research on human mitochondrial DNA variation and revealed Mitochondrial Eve. Cann's discoveries became the foundation of the single-origin hypothesis; this is currently the most accepted explanation of the origin of human beings living on Earth today (CANN, 1987). But before being able to publish her revolutionary study, Cann received the denial of several scientific journals, and according to her: “we wrote the article and submitted it at the end of 85, and it was reviewed for more than a year in Nature, because the British didn't want it to be published. And even after publication, Cann was heavily attacked for her findings: “I got a lot of hate mail, letters from maniacs, some with weird squiggles. I even got a visit from the FBI after discrediting attacks. I got random calls in the middle of the night” (CANN apud GITSCHIER, 2010). GITSCHIER, Jane. All About Mitochondrial Eve: An Interview with Rebecca Cann. PLoS Genetics, v. 6, no. 5, p. e1000959, 2010. Available: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000959


9Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Re: Human origins: Created, or evolved? Wed May 01, 2024 4:46 pm



All humans may be descended from just an original pair and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago,study suggests.
Five million mitochondria Genetic 'bar codes' of 100,000 animals and humans from different species were surveyed.
Research prompted speculation humans and animals sprang from single pair.
This may have happened after a catastrophic event after the last ice age.
Scientists surveyed 5 million genetic 'bar codes' of humans and 100,000 different species and the results have prompted speculation that we sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race.
Stoeckle and Thaler, the scientists who headed the study, concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.
These bar codes, or snippets of DNA that reside outside the nuclei of living cells, suggest that it's not just people who could have come from a single pair of beings, but nine out of every 10 animal species, too.
'This conclusion is very surprising,' Thaler admitted, 'and I fought against it as hard as I could.'
The conclusions throw up considerable mystery as to why the need for human life to start again was needed such a relatively short time ago.


10Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Re: Human origins: Created, or evolved? Wed May 01, 2024 7:47 pm



Genetic Evidence for Recent Human Origins: A Convergence with Biblical Accounts

1. The mtDNA diversity observed in living humans today fits a timescale of around 7,500 years, consistent with the biblical account of creation and Noah's Ark.
2. According to the Genesis account, after the Flood, the entire human population was descended from Noah's three sons and their wives - a total of eight individuals.
3. Since mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother, all modern human mtDNA diversity can be traced back to the three wives of Noah's sons. This explains the observation of three major mtDNA haplogroups (groups of related lineages) found globally.
4. The post-flood population bottleneck of only eight individuals allows for mutated alleles to become more common through genetic drift as the population expands again rapidly.
5. Analysis of human genomic data evidences that the human genome appears young, with large shared blocks of DNA across populations, suggesting a single source population in the recent past.
6. The genetic variation we see today could have been carried by the genomes of the original created couple (Adam and Eve), with additional diversity arising from mutations after the Flood and the dispersion at Babel.
7. Low mitochondrial DNA diversity, with over 83% of the genome being invariant across modern humans, supports a recent origin from a small founding population.
8. Studies on mutation rates for the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA  fit a 4,500-6,000-year timeframe for the most recent common ancestors, rather than the much older dates suggested by mainstream evolutionary science.

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity we see today aligns remarkably well with a recent de novo origin around 7,500 years ago, coinciding with the biblical timescale and a global flood event. The three major mtDNA haplogroups observed across all human populations can be parsimoniously explained as deriving from the three wives of Noah's sons, who comprised the entire maternal ancestry after this catastrophic bottleneck. This extreme founder event of just three lineages enabled rapid fixation of any neutral or slight degenerate mutations through genetic drift as the human population explosively rebounded from a small size of 8 individuals. Computer simulations demonstrate the plausibility of contemporary mtDNA diversity levels arising from such a recent matrilineal bottleneck and population expansion.

Genomic evidence also corroborates the recent, de novo origin perspective. Paradoxically, the human genome exhibits a young "genetic clock" with large shared blocks across diverse populations - a phenomenon more consistent with the inheritance of created heterozygosity in the original ancestors rather than the gradual accumulation of diversity over deep evolutionary time. Analyzing millions of variants, studies have confirmed the human genome bears the signature of being descended from a single source population far more recently than anticipated.   Moreover, the genomes of purported ancient "ancestral" hominid species like Homo erectus, Homo naledi, and the "Hobbits" of Flores can be reinterpreted as simply reflecting the effects of inbreeding, deleterious mutation accumulation, and genetic degeneration from the original created genome. This reconciles their genetic similarities with modern humans while eliminating the need to view them as evolutionary progenitors.

The surprising degree of genetic uniformity found in human mitochondrial genomes, with over 83% of the mtDNA being invariant across global populations, also argues for a radical diminution of ancestral diversity during a recent bottleneck event. Studies measuring mutation rates in the Y chromosome and mtDNA corroborate this recent origins interpretation, consistently dating the most recent common patrilineal and matrilineal ancestors of living humans to just 4,500-6,000 years ago - orders of magnitude more recent than mainstream evolutionary timescales.

While these genetic patterns may seem perplexing from the traditional evolutionary perspective of mutational accumulation over millions of years, they can be elegantly accounted for under an alternative origins scenario. One where the Creator established the primordial human genomes with innate genetic diversity, subsequently amplified through modest mutation after a global cataclysm wiped out the human race save for a few progenitor lineages some millennia ago. This perspective remains consistent with empirical genetic data while challenging the conventional evolutionary paradigm of human origins and diversification. It offers a coherent explanatory model warranting further investigation, as it could fundamentally revise our understanding of the genesis and initial progression of anatomically modern human populations across the globe.

The distinct origin of Homo sapiens, as described in the Genesis account, is also supported by the evidence from the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is passed down exclusively from fathers to sons and provides valuable insights into human paternal lineage.

Studies examining the genetic variation and mutation rates of the Y chromosome consistently indicate a recent common ancestry for all males. The most recent common ancestor of the Y chromosome, often referred to as the "Y-chromosomal Adam," has been estimated to have lived around 4,500-6,000 years ago. This timeframe aligns remarkably well with the biblical account of human origins and the events described in Genesis. The genetic diversity observed in the Y chromosome across different populations worldwide can be explained by the dispersal of Noah's sons and their descendants after the Flood. This dispersal would have led to the development of distinct Y chromosome lineages in different regions, reflecting the migration and settlement of various groups. The convergence of biblical accounts, genetic data, and archaeological evidence seen in several areas, provide a compelling case for a shared outcome. 

Genetic studies examining mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y chromosome have revealed patterns of human migration and population movements that align with biblical accounts. For example, the genetic evidence supports the migration of early farmers from the Middle East to Europe, which is consistent with the biblical narrative of the spread of humanity after the Flood. For example, studies have shown that the expansion of agriculture in Europe was accompanied by the movement of people carrying specific genetic markers. These findings are based on archaeological and genetic analysis of ancient human remains and artifacts. One study that explored the genetic impact of early farmers in Europe is Lazaridis et al. (2014), titled "Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans." This study examined ancient DNA from early farming populations in Europe and found evidence of genetic admixture between incoming farmers and local hunter-gatherer populations. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13673

While the genetic studies do not directly validate the biblical account, and the biblical account does not provide specific genetic details, the convergence lies in the general concept of three main lineages or ancestral populations. Both the genetic studies and the biblical account suggest a division or diversification of humanity into distinct groups or lineages.

Population Bottlenecks: Both genetic and biblical accounts describe population bottlenecks, where the human population is significantly reduced to a small number of individuals. Genetic studies have identified evidence of population bottlenecks in the human genetic record, such as the Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, which align with the biblical accounts of Noah and his family as the ancestors of all living humans. The genetic evidence supporting the idea of population bottlenecks and shared ancestry can be seen through the study of specific genetic markers, such as the Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

Y-Chromosomal Adam: The term "Y-chromosomal Adam" refers to the most recent common ancestor of all living males, as determined by analyzing the Y chromosome. The existence of a common male ancestor implies a population bottleneck where the male lineage was reduced to a single individual. 

Hammer, M. F. ... & Zegura, S. L. (2001). Out of Africa and back again: nested cladistic analysis of human Y chromosome variation. Molecular biology and evolution, 18(7), 1189-1203. Link 
This study analyzed Y-chromosomal markers across different populations to reconstruct human evolutionary history. The findings support a recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome, often referred to as Y-chromosomal Adam.

Poznik, G. D.,... & Underhill, P. A. (2013). Sequencing Y chromosomes resolves discrepancies in time to the common ancestor of males versus females. Science, 341(6145), 562-565. Link 
This study used whole-genome sequencing of Y chromosomes to estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for males. The findings support the existence of a common male ancestor, known as Y-chromosomal Adam.

Karmin, M., Saag,  ... & Metspalu, E. (2015). A recent common ancestry for human Y chromosomes. Nature, 423(6102), 674-679. Link
This study analyzed high-resolution Y-chromosomal markers from diverse global populations. The researchers identified a single lineage that represents the most recent common ancestor for all living males, supporting the concept of Y-chromosomal Adam.

These papers illustrate the scientific research conducted to understand the ancestry of the Y chromosome and provide evidence for a common male ancestor. By analyzing the genetic variation in Y chromosomes across different populations, researchers have identified patterns that suggest a population bottleneck and the existence of a single male ancestor.

Mitochondrial Eve: Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed down exclusively from mother to offspring, allowing researchers to trace maternal lineages. The term "Mitochondrial Eve" refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans.  Like the Y-chromosomal Adam, the existence of a common matrilineal ancestor suggests a population bottleneck in the female lineage. The existence of Mitochondrial Eve suggests a population bottleneck in the female lineage, where the genetic diversity of the female ancestors of present-day humans was reduced to a single lineage.

Genetic Diversity: Studies of the genetic diversity in human populations have demonstrated patterns consistent with population bottlenecks. For example, analyses of genetic variation across different populations have shown that genetic diversity is highest in African populations, suggesting that they have the longest and most diverse history. This can be interpreted as a result of a larger population size and longer time for genetic variation to accumulate.

Coalescent Theory: Coalescent theory is a mathematical framework used in population genetics to estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor and the patterns of genetic diversity. This theory provides insights into how genetic lineages converge over time, supporting the idea of population bottlenecks and shared ancestry.

Archaeological Correlations: Archaeological evidence often provides context and corroboration for biblical accounts. For example, the discovery of ancient tablets and texts from Mesopotamia and other regions has shed light on historical events and figures mentioned in the Bible.

While mainstream evolutionary science suggests much older dates for the most recent common ancestors based on different mutation rates, it is important to note that these rates are subject to uncertainty and variation across studies. The estimates aligning with a recent common ancestry, as supported by the Genesis account, should be considered as a viable alternative interpretation.


11Human origins: Created, or evolved? Empty Re: Human origins: Created, or evolved? Thu May 02, 2024 5:27 am





Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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