Thursday, August 26, 2010

Mitochondrial Eve

One of the problems for Evolutionism is the discovery of mitochondrial DNA. This DNA is passed down maternally. In an article published recently, "scientists" indicated that using various assumptions they have calculated mitochondrial Eve (the female ancestor of all living humans) as having lived about 200,000 years ago (link to article). That number is probably one or two orders of magnitude to high, but the result is problematic for evolutionary science that wants to push back common descent significantly beyond 200,000 years.

As a result, we see resort to the following example of speculation:
"There is always some other female that predated mitochondrial Eve, whose DNA didn't make it up to modernity," said Marek Kimmel, a professor of statistics at Rice University. "So the age of the mitochondrial Eve is always less than the age of the true, first female modern human."
How on earth could Professor Kimmel have access to that information? The only reason for making that kind of claim is the idea that naturalism does not accept the idea of a woman formed from the first man's rib.

-TurretinFan

10 comments:

Wes White said...

Thanks for your defense of Biblical creationism. I'd be interested in your response to something I put up today:

http://johannesweslianus.blogspot.com/2010/08/mny-presbytery-missionary-ron-choong-on.html

Turretinfan said...

In brief: I think he's a heretic.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hello TF,

One sees this sort of which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg argumentation all the time from those who accept evolution as a fact. Considering that they haven't even proved which evolutionary hypothesis is correct-Darwinian vs. Lamarckian vs. some other notion inbetween, it is amazing that a scientist would presuppose evolution is factual especially when they can not explain the mechanics behind how it supposedly occurs. This is not so much science as political correct pablum.

Frankly, the biblical account still explains best how man came to be and until someone can prove it false beyond all doubt, I will continue to believe in it as the literal truth.

Such men need to realize that natural laws can never contradict the Scriptures as God is the Author of both.

BTW, I wonder how Kimmel would deal with Dr. Russell Humphrey's theories about the Big Bang and time dilation which is consistent with the biblical account that the universe was created in six (6) days?

Nice article...

God bless!

louis said...

Reference or link to Humphrey's theories, por favor?

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi louis,

Here are some links:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Russell_Humphreys

http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Russell-Humphreys-Baumgardner/dp/0974864935

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology

While I have seen some of the "old creation" scientists criticize his work, I have also seen others that tend to agree with his theory even if they tend to disagree with some of his calculations andput the earth a bit older than what he does. I first came across the time dilation theory watching of all things a TV show on Hebrew archeology wherein a Orthodox Jewish physicist stated that time dilation caused by matter spreading out from the Big Bang is why the Genesis account should be accepted as true.

Now I realize that I might be criticized for my views being only an ignorant attorney, but from everything I have read in my 50 years is that properly understood, there is nothing that science can prove that will contradict the Word of God. Since God is the author of all truth, the truths of science and the truths of faith can never contradict one another. Rather it is our flawed finite understanding that prevents us from reconciling the two truths. When I am presented with folks that claim otherwise, I might try to learn as much as I can (if it is within my intellectual capacity)to show that the two can be reconciled. If I find that my limited understanding keeps the matter beyond my comprehension, I tend to follow the advice in Sirach 3: 19-23:

For great is the power of God; by the humble he is glorified. (Some Catholic Bibles state: For though many have been great in the course of time, it is to the humble He reveals his secrets.)
What is too sublime for you, seek not, into things beyond your strength search not. What is committed to you, attend to; for what is hidden is not your concern. With what is too much for you meddle not, when shown things beyond human understanding. Their own opinion has misled many, and false reasoning unbalanced their judgment.

God bless!

Srnec said...

I'm not sure I understand the problem for evolutionism, TurretinFan. Mitochondrial Eve's paternal grandmother would be a common ancestor of all humans alive today as well. And an earlier woman.

The book of Genesis (understood literally, at least) presents a problem for evolutionism. But mitochondrial DNA does not. Your last statement is therefore correct, but your first false.

wtanksley said...

Srnec said it well.

In addition, mitochondrial Eve could have had a parent, while the real Eve didn't. Some Old Earth creationists (Hugh Ross, for example) suspect that mitochondrial Eve is the Biblical Eve, while the so-called "Y-chromosome Adam" is actually Noah (since his Y-chromosome would have become unique after the flood, since his sons all carried his Y-chromosome). However, science doesn't tell us anything about the real name of "mitochrondrial Eve", nor about her parentage; and the Bible doesn't tell us whether it was Eve or one of her descendants who passed on the mitochondria that all humans now happen to carry.

Turretinfan said...

"Mitochondrial Eve's paternal grandmother would be a common ancestor of all humans alive today as well. And an earlier woman. "

There's no possible way to conclude that Mitochondrial Eve had any female ancestor based on the mitochondrial DNA evidence.

Mitochondrial DNA leads to a "dead-end" of a single human woman.

The same problem exists with the Y-Chromosome Adam. There's no way to legitimately extrapolate beyond that singularity based on the Y-chromosome evidence.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Eve or one of her descendants who passed on the mitochondria that all humans now happen to carry"

Eve is the mother of all the living.

What the Bible does not tell us is whether there is a more recent woman who is Noah-esque, in that she too is the mother of all the living. For example, if Noah's sons happened to marry same-womb sisters, the sisters' mother would be the female MRCA.

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Just for fun, then?

First: Mitochondrial DNA leads to a "dead-end" of a single human woman.

It doesn't get any better than that sentence! That one is a true camel as long as you slaughter him and roast him over an open pit fire and then have a meal!

Now for the fun of it.

Two things.

First, according to my belief, "put in me", Eve's biological makeup comes out of Adam's and Adam came out of the combination of several mixtures, nothing+red earth+the breath of God's Spirit=sinless humanity, ever so briefly.

Second, think backwards and forwards, these ways. First, start with your parents, one male and one female. Then work backwards and see if you end up with one male, Adam and one female, Eve? Second, start with Adam and Eve and think forwards to your father and mother!

You might be thinking a long time, I suppose? :)