DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

  • Francois
    Francois

    If you will cast your minds backwards, you will find that each and every time that religion has challenged science, religion has been forced to limp from the field with its tail between its legs. Not most of the time, not a majority of the time, but each and every time. And as regards evolution, religion will eventually loose that argument as well.

    It occurs to me that religion should stay completely neutral as regards science and concern itself solely with the scientist.

    It is far past time when human beings should cease trafficking in pleasing fables teased out of their ancient books. Think how confused would the original readers of Genesis have been if the writer had launched into a treatise on DNA, and how from that one smart molecule turned loose on this planet all that we see that is alive sprung. The message matched the audience when Genesis was presented in its current form. Now, however, we should have grown past the need for such intellectual pablum, these doillies for the mind. These things are leading their adherents directly to a gross embarrassment.

    francois

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    SS:

    Thank you for this recent article about neanderthal DNA. You said :

    As far as the common ancestor/eve from mitachondrial dna is concerned maybe this will help. It looks like there were many. For instance this article talks about a common ancestor for neanderthals and modern humans [about 500,000 years ago], based on mtdna. Common ancestor doesn't appear to prove anything, with regard to the biblical eve.

    Again, I find it a bit difficult to distinguish between theory and fact in this article (which appeared as Whither the Neanderthals? in Science of March 7, 2003). Much of what Richard Klein writes is quite clearly theory. He proposes various theories as to why the Neanderthals became extinct. For example, Klein said modern humans may have evolved a gene promoting speech and language that the Neanderthals lacked, but "this is a theory without substantial proof".

    In fact, in the same article in Yahoo! News it went on to quote Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropologist, who said "he is unconvinced of either Klein's arguments [that there was not interbreeding after modern humans evolved in Africa] or theories that there was interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans".

    Harpending said the genetic evidence is only marginal and open to different interpretations.

    "Right now, there's no compelling evidence for either point of view," he said.

    A couple of days ago I came across a newspaper cutting from The Times of London, 29 March 2000, regarding DNA evidence from the bones of a Neanderthal child found in a cave in the Caucasus. The BBC link to it can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/694467.stm. The Times article said :

    After comparing their DNA with those of modern human beings and with other Neanderthal remains from Feldhofer in Germany, differences were found between the two Neanderthal specimens. However, they were consistent with having belonged to populations isolated from one another 1,500 miles apart.

    There were much larger differences between the two Neanderthal specimens and modern human beings, indicating that there was no direct line of descent. Had we been descended directly from Neanderthals - as a minority of specialists has continued to believe - we would have shared much more of the DNA sequences.

    The team [led by William Goodwin of Glasgow University] concludes in Nature that separation between modern human and Neanderthal was about 500,000 years ago, though it could have been as long ago as 853,000 years or as recent as 365,000.

    It seems to me that the facts are that the DNA of neanderthals is too distinct from modern human DNA for them to be related. Thus there is no question as to whether a distant mitochondrial Eve can be traced back to Neanderthals. The theory is that molecular evidence can show that there was a common ancestor for neanderthals and modern humans, but this is based on circular reasoning. You start with the assumption that there was a common ancestor and then say that as they shared the same DNA in the past it would have taken them [500,000 years, give or take a couple of hundred thousand years] for the DNA to have become as different as it is today. But if they didn't have a common ancestor and share the same DNA at one time then a comparison of the DNA shows nothing at all.

    So, I am not suggesting that mitochondrial DNA proves a "mother Eve" of the human race, but I understand it is what we would expect if there was such a "mother Eve". Further, the difference in DNA between neanderthals and modern humans simply shows that they are different.

    Earnest

  • rem
    rem
    It seems to me that the facts are that the DNA of neanderthals is too distinct from modern human DNA for them to be related.

    No. The facts are that the DNA of neanderthals is too distinct from modern human DNA for them to be directly related. The DNA is similar enough that there is no doubt that humans and neanderthals are related more distantly.

    Thus there is no question as to whether a distant mitochondrial Eve can be traced back to Neanderthals.

    Hopefully no one is seriously suggesting that our current mitochondrial Eve can be traced back to Neanderthals. I'm not sure what Neanderthals have to do do with any mitochondrial Eve discussion. It is a mathematical fact that the Neanderthals had their own mitochondrial Eve, but the chances of their mitochondrial Eve being the same as ours is extremely low (virtually zero).

    Also, to say that the mitochondrial Eve phenomenon is consistent with a real Eve as described in the bible is basically worthless. It is not supporting evidence for the bible's specific creation myth. The fact that women exist is also consistent with the Eve of the bible, but that still doesn't provide any evidence that the bible account is true. That's the difference with Creation and Evolution. Creation only has evidence that can be interpreted as consistent with it. Evolution has evidence to support it.

    rem

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Most scientists on both sides of the creation/evolution debate agree that modern humans and neanderthals share a common homo-sapian/human ancestor (Though evolutionists believe this ancestor to be archaic).

    The difference primarily relates to dating this ancestor. The arcticle by Earnest gave a set of dates between 853,000 to 365,000 years ago. I would be interesting to see if these dates were calculated based on assumptions of humans and apes sharing a common ancestor. Thus if the dates are based on this assumption, then the dates would be invalidated if humans decended from created humans and not from a long evolutionary process in which we share a common ancestor with the apes. and this common ancestor itself evolved from ancient fish etc.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    rem said:

    That's the difference with Creation and Evolution. Creation only has evidence that can be interpreted as consistent with it. Evolution has evidence to support it.

    Actually rem, while the DNA similarities can be interpreted as being consistent with both models (because both models predict similarities), the fact that only the creation model can accurately explain the origin of DNA itself shows that the creation model is supported by the evidence, whereas evolution is not.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Rem

    Hopefully no one is seriously suggesting that our current mitochondrial Eve can be traced back to Neanderthals.

    No, that wasn't the objective.

    I'm not sure what Neanderthals have to do do with any mitochondrial Eve discussion. It is a mathematical fact that the Neanderthals had their own mitochondrial Eve, but the chances of their mitochondrial Eve being the same as ours is extremely low (virtually zero).

    The way i understand it, is that they extrapolate backwards until the mtdna matches, and voila, mteve. If this is correct, then if they extrapolate the dna of the two races back far enough, they eventually hit a match, and so another mteve. Correct me, if that's innacurate.

    SS

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    While technically abiogenesis could be considered as being separate from evolution, this does not change the fact that the creation model explains both the origin and similarities of DNA.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Hoob

    The creation model doesn't explain where life came from, either. God is alive, right? So, you will say that life always was???

    SS

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    The following is taken from an arcticle on how evolutionists came up with the divergence dates for neanderthals. It appears that the long dates are based on the assumption of an ape-human common ancestor, hense the dates should not be used as evidence against a recent Biblical Eve.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4218tj_v12n1.asp

    To estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common to the Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we used an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4–5 million years ago and corrected the observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same nucleotide site. This yielded a date of 550,000 to 690,000 years before present for the divergence of the Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the age of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the same procedure, a date of 120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in agreement with previous estimates. Although these dates rely on the calibration point of the chimpanzee-human divergence and have errors of unknown magnitude associated with them, they indicate that the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal sequence and modern human sequences is about four times greater than that of the common ancestor of modern human mtDNAs.39
  • rem
    rem

    Hooberus,

    Creation theory does not explain or give us any worthwile insight on the development of DNA at all. All creation says is goddidit. End of story. This does not help us learn anything deeper about our biology, whereas abiogenesis theories work with known laws of physics. Even though there is no real knowledge of what happened yet, research in this area has provided us much insight about our makeup.

    rem

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit