Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Young and old earth Creationism » Human origins: Created, or evolved?

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

Otangelo


Admin
Human origins: Created, or evolved?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2683-is-the-genesis-account-of-literal-6-days-just-a-myth#8168

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.

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

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

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

Otangelo


Admin
Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics 11 May 2010

https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bf-M4osucw

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

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

Otangelo


Admin
ARE WE REALLY DESCENDANTS OF EVE?
Understanding the "Mitochondrial Eva"

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t3071-human-origins-created-or-evolved#8670

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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

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

Otangelo


Admin
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.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

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