Literal Creation Story

[neal4christ]

Additionally, any interpretation of Genesis that affirms evolution is false is disproven by the findings of modern science.

Far from it, my friend, far from it. There is nothing that "proves" evolution (macro) is true. You may believe it, but you would have just as difficult of time proving it true as you would proving God exists. The evidence may be compelling to you that one certain interpretation of the facts is true, but that is far from being "proved."

In Christ,
Neal

 

[BobRyan]

The issues and details must be "getting hard" -- the RC posts are dwindling. Must be something about "details" that troubles them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

I also read somewhere that it has been scientifically proven (by means of DNA) that all of humanity descends from at the very least - one of seven sets of parents, which is evidence pointing towards the fact that all of humanity has one set of original parents: Adam & Eve.

 

[NeilUnreal]

There is a theory that at one point humans went through a bottleneck of several thousand or tens of thousands of individuals. I'm sure some geneticist could propose that the bottleneck was much smaller, but it would seem to be straining what we can currently read in DNA (i.e. the conclusion would be highly conjectural).

Are you sure it wasn't talking about most recent common genetic ancestors? It's possible for genes to go through a kind of "virtual bottleneck" while population size remains large. In other words if population A gives rise over time to population B, it's probable given a long enough series of matings for only a few individuals in population A to be common ancestors of everyone in population B. This can happen even if the population never falls below millions of individuals.

I assume that geneticists can disentangle the two types of bottleneck to one extent or another.

In any event if the proposal is about a bottleneck of seven individuals, I'd be interested in finding out more about it -- I want to know what the math was. My previous field of study was biogeography and that kind of bottleneck is important in island biogeography. Unfortunately, I don't have time to keep up with most of the current literature.

-Neil

 

[BobRyan]

Mitochondrial DNA is not altered when it is passed down from mother to child.

While each of us necessarily has two parents, we get our mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA from the ovum (and hence from our mothers).

Even our mothers got their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers and so on. Thus, while our nuclear DNA is a mish-mash of the DNA of our four grandparents, our mitochondrial DNA is an almost exact copy of the DNA of our maternal grandmother (the match may not be exact due to mutations. In fact, the mutations in the mitochondrial DNA provide a kind of molecular clock presuming you know the present rate of mutation and can "assume" it has not changed over time).

ME (Mitochondrial Eve) ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth.

A blind but faithful devotee of the mythologies of evolutionism would still cling to the hope that "That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor" - the science notwithstanding.

One source of hope for them is our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us.

However since we "can" access our Father's mother and it turns out that when we see her mitochondrial DNA we observe "she too" has mitochondrial DNA coming from her mother and in fact coming from the SAME mother as we do, the door is slammed shut on their "hopeful monster".

In fact - the only "real door" it leaves open is the fact that it allows us to have a "First" man - an Adam whose mitochondrial DNA would not match Mitochondrial "Eve's" DNA - but would not show up in all the descendants of that ONE pair.

That is another "detail" that matches perfectly with the "details" of Gen 1-2:3 showing ONE man and ONE woman as the ancestors of all humans on earth today.


Here again - we can applaud our RC bretheren showing at least "some" inclination to the "details".

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 02, 2003, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[NeilUnreal]

A blind but faithful devotee of the mythologies of evolutionism would still cling to the hope that "That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor" - the science notwithstanding.

???

Of course, even in an evolutionary context, it does mean that mitochondrial Eve is our lone woman ancestor. It just doesn't mean that she had to be the only woman alive at that time nor at any subsequent time. The result comes from the mathematics of the situation. It has a probability of becoming true in any sexual population over a period of time regardless of whether evolution is occuring or not.


The base result is purely statistical, not biological. It occurs for all genes -- or anything else propagating though a statistical system of the same type. Biology comes in when geneticists use the mitochondrial DNA as a kind of molecular clock. This permits an estimate of how long ago mitochondrial eve lived. Mitochondrial DNA just gives us a convenient package of genes for which we understand the inheritance and mutation behavior.

With even very basic computer programming skills, and an hour or two of work, of it's possible to write a computer program which shows the effect actually occuring right before your eyes. The genes eventually point back to a single common ancestor somewhere in the pool, even when the population size is kept constant and large.

-Neil

 

[BobRyan]

Actually - we have no computer models that point to a single ancestor for all of any species PURELY based on competition for food or the random impact of disease on a species.

We have the problem today of "genetics" telling us of the very UNLIKELY fact that ALL humans alive today have one and ONLY one female parent AS WELL AS one and ONLY one male parent. This is a horrific restriction on the "requirements" imposed by natural selection and descent with modification. This genetic fact presents evolutionists with the "extremely" UNLIKELY single-parent "population". All the survival of the fittest models - require GROUPS to survive -- not simply ONE SINGLE albeit very lucky pair.

The evolutionist "needs" archtype human females and males produced by a POPULATION that is at the correct boundary to produce human offspring. It needs the populations of descendants of those archtype humans to compete, to succeed while others die out - but NOT to "reduce to ONE WOMAN" that becomes the SOLE ancestor for all living humans. Such oblique easter-bunny - one-in-a-zillion lightning-strikes-here scenarios are exactly what natural selection and descent with modification over entire populations - seeks to avoid. The evolutionist's argument is trying to say "this is inevitable" and NOT "this a sequence of HIGHLY unlikley scenarios that can not reasonably be expected to have occurred".

And yet - that is what they are stuck with "scientifically" when the speculations of the mythologies of evolutionism are set aside and the genetic fact is evaluated.

Of course the evolutionist argues "never mind that this is exactly what the Genesis account, AND Acts 17 would predict".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[NeilUnreal]

We have the problem today of "genetics" telling us of the very UNLIKELY fact that ALL humans alive today have one and ONLY one female parent AS WELL AS one and ONLY one male parent.

This is not what the models show. The models show that we have a common female genetic ancestor in our mitochondrial DNA and a common male genetic ancestor (associated with the Y-chromosome, if I remember correctly). The models also give a time frame for these events, based on mutation rates in that genetic material which have nothing directly to do with evolution. This effect can occur for any gene. It's just that mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome material are special packages of genes which behave in a way that makes it easy to analyze this. The models say nothing about how many other humans may have been alive at the times those common ancestors were alive.

This effect occurs in any statistical system which behaves the way genetic inheritance works. For example, lets say several new students arrive at a school, each knowing a slightly different version of a joke that has never been told at the school. Eventually, as the variant jokes spread, it's probable that one version of the joke will "win" and become the only version being propagated. In this example, the student who originally brought that version will be the most recent common ancestor for the joke. This is true in spite of the fact that several students originally introduced the joke into the school.

This is the meaning of mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common ancestor; not the only person alive at some point. (This model is silent on that point.) And I reiterate: the effect is purely statistical; it has nothing to do with evolution vs. non-evolution. It would have occurred, and will occur again -- there will someday be a new mitochondrial Eve -- regardless of whether evolution happens or does not happen.

Like I said before, if you doubt the math, write -- or have a friend write

-- a simple Java or BASIC program that illustrates the effect. For small enough systems, it can occur with surprisingly few iterations. You'll then see that the "mitochondrial Eve" effect is purely statistical, not biological or ideological. As my example showed, it even works with pure information like jokes.

There is other genetic evidence that human beings have gone through a true population bottleneck, but it seems to have involved several thousand or a few tens of thousands of individuals and to have happened a long time ago.

-Neil

 

[UTEOTW]

Neil

If you do not mind me jumping in, let me see if I can show this without a computer program. Credit for the idea should go to Daniel Dennett.

Take the set of all people alive today, set S. Now form a new set, S1, which is the set of the mothers of all the people alive today. This new set would be all female and smaller than the original set. Now form set S2 which is the set of all of the mothers of set S1. Assuming that at least occasionally a woman has more than one daughter who goes on to reproduce, then set S2 is smaller than set S1. Continue this process and it becomes inevitable that eventually you get a set Sn which has only one member. Like you say, it is a mathematical certainty. This would be the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive today with respect to matrilineal descent. All of those qualifications are important. It does not show that she is the mother of all humans to ever live nor does it show that she was the last common ancestor of all humans alive today. And it gives no evidence that there were not other humans alive at the time.

Now the fun part is where YEC's like to take the existance of a Mitochondrial Eve as evidence of the Biblical Eve while being perfectly willing to throw away the rest of the findings related to Mitochondrial Eve. Such as the rate of mitochondrial mutations showing she lived about 200,000 years ago. If you take the one then you take the other unless you can show why it is not so without invalidating the first part. And if you want to propose a higher rate of mutations in the past, please document it with evidence because a higher rate of mutations would be certain to show up in some type of genetic study. For instance, if you could show that two groups of people who migrated apart from a common source at a certain historically known date have a much, much higher amount of mutations from each other than would be predicted based on current mutation rates.

 

[NeilUnreal]

UTEOTW: If you do not mind me jumping in, let me see if I can show this without a computer program.

I don't mind at all --quite the opposite -- thank you for the good example and additional information. In a way, it's unfortunate that the name "mitochondrial Eve" stuck. It can give people the wrong idea about what the research actually shows.

As you also pointed out, timelines and geographical clues are embedded in the biological side of the mitochondrial Eve research. These are important in and of themselves, but also because they form part of the confluence of evidence, genetic, fossil, and otherwise, of mankind's history.

-Neil

p.s. My first reaction to any problem is: "I could write a program to solve that!"

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Take the set of all people alive today, set S. Now form a new set, S1, which is the set of the mothers of all the people alive today. This new set would be all female and smaller than the original set. ....

That trivial kindergarten primer for how it is that climbing up the ancestoral tree of ONE mitochonrial DNA example "could" get you to "the number ONE" - ignores the huge "problem" that evolutionism has for its mythologies. It simply "restates" the problem for evolutionism's doctrines - in terms of set notation.

In fact - evolutionism is forced to posit MULTIPLE archtype-females and multiple archtype-males NOT "one lucky pair". It needs "A point in time" where human children are the "offspring" of whatever you want to say their parents are - and that these children are in fact the FIRST of their kind.

In other words - the scenario above experiences classic crashlanding into the mountain of contradiction known as evolutionism. Evolutionary theory requires that there be multiple archtype mother, multiple mitochondrial lines today.

This means that "IF" evolutionism were true "instead of God's Word" then we would see that the mothers of set S(y) differentiate along mitochondrial lines such that S(y-1) for any given mitochondral set of daughters is actually smaller than the total population of mothers of all members of S(y).

A simple example:

So lets say there are 3 daughters born to 3 different sets of primate - hominid tribes in 3 different areas. Assuming they could each find compatible archtype males to mate with - the 3 of them would start 3 DIFFERENT mitochondrial chains of mother-daughter sets EVEN if the offspring breed across tribal lines. The classic S(y) to S(y-1) traversal up the mitochondrial lineage tree would differentiate eventually to "the source" - showing 3 different sources. Just like traversal up the family trees in America - will get you to differentiate paths leading to many DIFFERENT points of origin on the planet - different countries - different tribes - NOT to One lucky family in England.

This is so obvious as to hardly be deniable by the most devout evolutionist.

The scenario you have given ONLY works if ALL the mothers are of the SAME lineage to START with and does not SOLVE the problem for evolutionism's "required starting conditions" it only RESTATES it.

At EACH point of the chain - evolutionary mythology requires that for any given set S(y) you should have a "SET" of Mitochondrial DNA represented - that allows you trace BACK to S(y-1) for each of those subsets. IN the same way that nationalities and races in the US differntiatte "further" as you traverse up the family tree.

The "mathematical certainty" is that within the SINGLE line of ONE mitochondrial DNA chain you will always get back to ONE. What is NOT certain is that ALL other Mothers must die outside of that ONE Mother AND so must all their descendants.

Your statement simply begs the question for Evolutionism. It merely "restates" the problem - confronting Evolutionisms "multi-start" requirement instead of solving it.

"obviously".

There is NO way such a traversal (given the fact that we have only ONE mitochonrial DNA left for us today) could EVER result in MULTIPLE archtype females. Rather you must "invent" scenarios OUTSIDE of the data that we have today. Even in "all our exhaustive review of the DNA".

You merely express "hope" in your statement " this does not show that she is the mother of all humans to ever live". And your "faith" - requires you to have as a "certainty" the UNlikely scenario where all OTHER archtype females AND ALL their descendants were killed at some point leaving only ONE archtype female and her descendants on the earth. A classic "easter bunny miracle" that is now "needed" by evolutionism to "keep the faith".

As was said before - "belief" in evolutionism is "in spite of the data" not "because of it".


As for the "rate of mitochondrial mutations" over the millenia - even our atheist evolutionist drones admit that this is the least convincing quesswork they have. It assumes you can accurately measure mutation rates today AND assumes you can impose a constant rate over the generations - soley because you "need to". Another "easter-bunny" like miracle needed by the mythology.

And if you want to propose a higher rate of mutations in the past, please document it

Hmm - do "you have a 4000 year old sample of mitochondria" that I have not heard of??

Or are you arguing out of the "void of evidence you don't have" when you "assume" that the rate of mutation "can not change over the millenia"?


I can't believe that evolutionism finds children willing to believe their easter-bunny suppositions. But what is more amazing is that they find a single Christian to swallow it. You would think that "children of light" would not fall for the weakest of all the arguments of humanism's darkness.

In Christ,

Bob

[ November 03, 2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[UTEOTW]

BobRyan

I do not think that you are following the mathematics. If you start with a set of a given size and you each previous set is smaller, you eventually must end up with a set of one. Even in your strawman of evolution above hypothesizing three seperate lineages, according to theory, these two would have eventually shared a past ancestor. It is inevitable. One daughter can never have two mothers! Of course at the time there would have been other females. And at a different point in history, you would get a different Mitochondrial Eve because of these different females!

And it was not "one lucky pair" as you suggest. Mitochondrial Eve is dated to about 200,000 years ago while Y Chromosome Adam was about 60,000 years ago. The mitochondrial DNA can only trace relationships through the mother. The mitochondrial DNA can only trace relationships through the mother. And it does not require that the descendants of all other females are killed. That you can trace a mitochondrial line back to a single person is a mathematical certainty.

Hmm - do "you have a 4000 year old sample of mitochondria" that I have not heard of??

No I don't. (It would not surprise me if someone does, however.) That is why I gave you the example you could use to prove your case. Take a group of people living in the past that migrated or were dispersed into two or more groups at a fixed point in history. Compare their mitochondrial DNA. It would support you if we were to find that there had been, say, a couple of orders of magnitude (100 fold) more mutations in the interim than would be predicted by the current rate of mutation.

If the earth is only 6000 years old, there would be evidence to support it. I give you one example of what you could produce to begin your case above.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] BobRyan

I do not think that you are following the mathematics. If you start with a set of a given size and you each previous set is smaller, you eventually must end up with a set of one.

That is only true if the orginal "source" is "one".

Consider the case of 2000 archtype-females in the "age" where human offspring were "first produced". Each of them starts their own mitochondrial DNA line of descent.

"IF" you choose to traverse back up the chain "beyond humans" you still come to the "multisource" generation of for the first hominids. If you keep going up the chain - you still come to the multi-source generation for whatever the pre-hominid beast is and EVEN if you go all the way back to the primoridial seas - you come up with the multi-source "cells" of the abiogenesis age.

(At least if you use the mythologies of evolutionism to do it).

The only way to go back to ONE is to have a SINGLE source start AND to limit the population to ONLY that set which are the descendants of that ONE - any OTHER avenue gets you "more than one".

Obviously.

UTOW said -
hypothesizing three seperate lineages, according to theory, these two would have eventually shared a past ancestor. It is inevitable.

Hence my walk-through above showing that "at no point" does evolutionism tolerate the "one-lucky-shot" that you propose.

And the reason is the survivale of the fittest mantra - needs the survivors to be not only prolific - but also to start with critical mass such that they can find mates and can be in reasonable proximity - of each other AND can survive disease, predation and starvation long enough to "meet" and breed.

UTEOW -- One daughter can never have two mothers!

And "of course" that's why traversal up a SINGLE mitochondrial line ALWAYS reduces to one. The fact that there IS ONLY ONE line is the big kicker for evolutionism's mythologies. Simply restating that having only ONE means that you can only have ONE as the source - merely restates the problem for evolutionism it does not solve it.

UTEOW --

Of course at the time there would have been other females. And at a different point in history, you would get a different Mitochondrial Eve because of these different females!

Unfortunately that "of course" is merely "Assuming" evolutionisms claims though the present SINGLE set is in denial of that. It "assumes" a day of multiple mitochonrial lines ALL living at one time - something we do not have today but "evolutionism NEEDS" so it "makes it up".

UTEOW --

And it was not "one lucky pair" as you suggest. Mitochondrial Eve is dated to about 200,000 years ago while Y Chromosome Adam was about 60,000 years ago. The mitochondrial DNA can only trace relationships through the mother. The mitochondrial DNA can only trace relationships through the mother.

You have not solved the problem. EVEN if you had a reliable mutational clock (which evoltionists themselve admit "you do not") - you STILL have the problem of one woman and her mate (whatever the FIRST woman to HAVE our mitochondria would be??

).

No matter how long BEFORE that you postulate her mate the PROBLEM is that if the WOMAN is the FIRST with her mitochondrial DNA (which was your stopping point by definition) you must now have a woman that DOES NOT have her mothers mitochondrial DNA (by definition) AND she must live in an environment where there are other men (that presumably have mothers) who have been around for 1000's of generations even though this is the START of "eve's" line of mitochondrial DNA.

All of this - is "highly unlikely" and in fact scientifically impossible.

But as said evolutionism is "believed" in spite of the data - not because of it.

UTEOW --
And it does not require that the descendants of all other females are killed.

You just said that other women existed (as a given) at the time of the FIRST single woman to have our mitochonrial DNA - what are you proposing for them and their offspring? Or are you simply ignoring the problem?

Hmm - do "you have a 4000 year old sample of mitochondria" that I have not heard of??

UTEOW --No I don't. (It would not surprise me if someone does, however.)

So you are arguing the point of "constant rate" out of the void of soft tissue fossiles that you do not have??

Gasppp! I am "shocked"!

UTEOW --Take a group of people living in the past that migrated or were dispersed into two or more groups at a fixed point in history. Compare their mitochondrial DNA.

Indeed. If you had examples of their soft - tissue from 20,000 years ago and compare it to their descendants at 19,000 and 18,000 to verify that indeed it was "constant at each point" (since your view demands constant rates at every point) you would merely have "the start". You would then need it for every generation since.

I on the other hand would need to find only ONE generation delta in the soft tissue 3000 or 4000 years ago.

Of course 'neither of us' have those soft tissue comparisons between successive generations back then.

(Just another data point)

UTEOW --
If the earth is only 6000 years old, there would be evidence to support it.

Hmm. So IF the earth is only 6000 years old instead of 4 billion years old THEN we would have MANY 4000 and 5000 year old soft tissue fossils to use for generational deltas but if the earth is Billions of years older with many generations living before that 4000 year window then we have "less" to work with (or are you saying that you have a lot of softissue fossils from that period again)??

I like the way you assume your point no matter how extreme - rather than proving it.

Can I do that too?


In Christ,

Bob

[ November 03, 2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[NeilUnreal]

It simply "restates" the problem for evolutionism's doctrines - in terms of set notation.

I'll repeat this again, so that it cannot be misinterpreted:

The "mitochondrial Eve" effect has NO DEPENDENCE on either evolution or even biology. It will occur in any, Any, ANY statistical system which behaves in the same way as a sexually propagating population -- regardless of whether evolution is occurring or not.

"Mitochondrial Eve" helps confirm the other findings of evolutionary and old-earth sciences, but is in no way based on them.

-Neil

 

[UTEOTW]

The "mitochondrial Eve" effect has NO DEPENDENCE on either evolution or even biology. It will occur in any, Any, ANY statistical system which behaves in the same way as a sexually propagating population -- regardless of whether evolution is occurring or not.

And that should be enough to send this in a more productive direction. The existence of a Mitochondrial Eve is not really a data point demonstrating proof for or against evolution. It is a function of a sexually reproducing population and will always occur.

Bob, any assertion that the genetic lines will go back to a given point and then never get any closer to crossing is just that, an assertion. In the real world, the mixing that comes about through sexual reproduction will assure that you can take any group of individuals and if you trace either the maternal lineage or the paternal lineage, they will eventually cross through a common ancestor. They have to! And as to my example, you do not need DNA from the ancestors! Look at the DNA today from two groups that have been seperated for a known period of time. You can see the difference in their DNA. From this you can work out how much the DNA has changed since they seperated and the rate of mutation. That would help establish the rate of mutation through history and let you compare it to the rate of mutation today. And there are about 6 billion people alive today, plenty of people to compare the change in mitochondrial DNA between generations to see what the rate of change is today. If you were to find that the rates were orders of magnitude different, then you can question the date given to Mitochondrial Eve by the rate of mutation. If the numbers are similar, well sorry, play again. And that is the other place where Neil is correct, it becomes (well it actually is) just one more data point that fits evolutionary theory.

 

[DHK]

You seem to be overlooking that great event that we call the Flood. We are more descendants of Noah than we are of Eve. The Flood wiped out everything that lived pre-existent to it. From Noah onward we have plenty of information regarding Noah's descendants--enough to give each of us a general idea of which of Noah's sons we descended from, and where different nations came from. Having descended from Noah and his sons puts to rest any concept or thought of descending from the apes, mitochondria, or whatever else you might want to throw in there.
DHK

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, remember that the mitochondrial dna would have come through the wives of the sons of Noah, so at that time, they would not have been the one common ancestress, there were three of them. But dna based on the y chormosone would have all pointed back to Noah. So that 60,000 year old last common male ancestor was Noah and the 200,000 year old last common female ancestress was Eve! This give us a nice new genetically determined date for the flood, as well.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by DHK:
From Noah onward we have plenty of information regarding Noah's descendants--enough to give each of us a general idea of which of Noah's sons we descended from, and where different nations came from.

Cool. Where can I see some of this information we have plenty of? Good data like you intimate would seem to dispel some of the evidence of past migrations. For example, with your data can you show that I am wrong in thinking that my Cherokee ancestors came across a land bridge from Asia 10 - 20,000 years ago?

Having descended from Noah and his sons puts to rest any concept or thought of descending from the apes, mitochondria, or whatever else you might want to throw in there.

Please explain. I am not sure I follow you here. Evidence that shows my ancestry is through my mother does not show that my great-grandmother was not also my ancestor. Besides, we were only discussing mitochondrial DNA in relation to humans, we have not tried to tie it back farther than that.

And we are apes!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by NeilUnreal:
Bob said </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It simply "restates" the problem for evolutionism's doctrines - in terms of set notation.

Neil repeats -- I'll repeat this again, so that it cannot be misinterpreted:

The "mitochondrial Eve" effect has NO DEPENDENCE on either evolution or even biology. It will occur in any, Any, ANY statistical system which behaves in the same way as a sexually propagating population -- regardless of whether evolution is occurring or not.

"Mitochondrial Eve" helps confirm the other findings of evolutionary and old-earth sciences, but is in no way based on them.

-Neil </font>[/QUOTE]I will repeat this "again" so that there can be no further dodging of the point..

The ME fact is "a certainty" within ONE and ONLY ONE line of Mitochondrial DNA strain.

What is "NOT a certainty" is that ALL OTHER DNA strains will have been destroyed any more than Blue Eyes ensure that ALL other eye colors will perish.

The "disconfirming" fact for evolutionism (so faithfully ignored here) is the "miracle" of all other Mitochondrial DNA strains being destroyed.

Continually "restating" that ONE strain of mtDNA can ALWAYs be traversed back up the line to the ONE source - is not solving the problem for evolutionsm. It is only CONFIRMING the Genesis prediction that there WILL be only ONE strain.

The Genesis "prediction" is ONE mitochondrial DNA strain IF the mtDNA is passed on exactly between mother and child - because Gensis has only ONE human mother for all of mankind.

The prediction of Evoltionism is that there will be MANY human species STARTing lines - many archtype females generating MANY mtDNA lines - each ONE of which could be traversed back to its OWN start. It does NOT predict that all human tribes but ONE will be wiped out or that all humans will have blue eyes or that all ntDNA strains but ONE will be wiped out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Well, remember that the mitochondrial dna would have come through the wives of the sons of Noah, so at that time, they would not have been the one common ancestress, there were three of them. But dna based on the y chormosone would have all pointed back to Noah. So that 60,000 year old last common male ancestor was Noah and the 200,000 year old last common female ancestress was Eve! This give us a nice new genetically determined date for the flood, as well.

#1. Indeed - Evolutionism will not tolerate a world wide flood for Noah any more than it tolerates a literal - accurate - trustworthy Genesis creation "Account".

#2. Eve is still the "one source" in the case above - so all of the women on Noah's boat - would have had the same mtDNA strain.

#3. The "clock" you point to has already been "shown" not to be "constant" - thus voiding the "assumptions" based on it.

In Christ,

Bob