Mitochondrial Eve and Noah's Dames

by donkey 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  donkey

  For a brief explanation of Mitochondrial Eve please refer to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

  One of the most compelling pieces of evidence against the flood is Mitochondrial Eve. If we consider that the Bible states Noah and co had 4 females on the love boat then all humans today are descended from the 4 women - hence making them collectivley the Mitochondrial Eve. This being the case all Mitochondrial mutation would have had to occur in the past 4300 years of history - this is simply impossible. I have tried in vain though to explain this to some dubs but they just don't get it...
• 

  Country Girl

  Donkey:
  

  Wouldn't that theory assume a constant and consistent manner/rate of the natural mutation of mitochondrial DNA? What of natural trauma to human populations? Could that not alter, genetically, even mitochondrial DNA to some extent, thereby interrupting or postposing, somehow, the "time scale" accorded to the natural genetic mutation of the mitochondrial DNA? Just curious. Absolutely fascinating!

  CG

  P.S. I am not speaking of "bottlenecking" periods, per se, but of some type of increased radiation from some source, or perhaps a virus?
• 

  donkey

  CG,

  So the lowest number I have seen proposed by credible science has been 50,000 years but the same scientists upped the top end to 500,000 years. Mitochondrial Eve (ME) is still a pretty new theory so we will see how it plays out. Please remember that the time of the aboriginal population of Australia seems to be 30,000 years ago (this was used as one of the statistical samples in the original ME dating study) and appears to have general acceptance among anthropologists. Either way its a massively long way off from the flood occurring 4,300 years ago.

  Donkey
• 

  hooberus

  So the lowest number I have seen proposed by credible science has been 50,000 years but the same scientists upped the top end to 500,000 years. Mitochondrial Eve (ME) is still a pretty new theory so we will see how it plays out. Please remember that the time of the aboriginal population of Australia seems to be 30,000 years ago (this was used as one of the statistical samples in the original ME dating study) and appears to have general acceptance among anthropologists. Either way its a massively long way off from the flood occurring 4,300 years ago.

  How are these dates calculated? It has been my experience that dates such as these are calculated based on the evolutionary assumptions that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor (the assumption of evolution) and that this ancestor lived around 4.5 million years ago. Dates based on evolutionary assumptions may be useful in trying to determine how long ago evolutionary events happened if evolution were known or to be true. However, dates based on evolutionary assumptions do not disprove a biblical chronology of all men being recently descended from Adam, because in this case there was no human/chimpanzee common ancestor. A more empirical way to calculate the time of a human common ancestor for all modern men is to compare the genetic distance of modern men and then using real world studies of mutation rates (as opposed to those calculated based on the assumption of human/ chimps sharring a common ancestor). The following is from Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati Eight printing November 1999.

  "Evolutionists believed they had clear proof against the biblical account, because "Mitochondrial Eve" supposedly lived 200,000 years ago. However, recent evidence shows that mitochondrial DNA mutates far faster than previously thought. (24) If this new evidence is applied to "Mitochondrial Eve," it indicates that she would have lived only 6,000-6,500 years ago. (25) Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the biblically indicated age of the "mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), (26) but an enigma for evolution/long age beliefs. Interestingly, there is a parallel account with males: evidence from the Y-chromosome is consistent with all people being descended from a single man. (27) The data is also consistent with a recent date for this "Y-chromosome Adam." (28)"

  24. T.J. Parsons et al., "A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region," Nature Genetics, 15:363-368, 1997.

  25. L. Loewe and S. Scherer, "Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422-423, 1997; A. Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science, 279(5347):28-29, 1998.

  26. C. Wieland, "A Shrinking Date for 'Eve,' " CEN Technicl Journal, 12(1):1-3, 1998.

  27. R.L. Dorit, Hiroshi Akashi, and W. Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y-Chromosome," Science,268(5214):1183-85, May 26,1995; perspective in the same issue by S. Paabo, "The Y-Chromosome and the Origin of All of Us (Men)," p. 1141-1142.

  28. D.J. Batten, "Y-Chromosome Adam?" CEN Technical Journal, 9(2):139-140, 1995.
• 

  Elsewhere

  If this new evidence is applied to "Mitochondrial Eve," it indicates that she would have lived only 6,000-6,500 years ago

  And as soon as evidence arises that shows that she lived much longer before, the creationists will suddenly start calling the research BS.

  Creationists love to find evidence that supports their little book of myths, but ignore everything else.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  One reason they don't get it is that the word "mitochondrial" is more than 3 syllables.
• 

  Country Girl

  Or that "mitochondrial" is more than three generations!

  CG
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  :It has been my experience that dates such as these are calculated based on the evolutionary assumptions that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor (the assumption of evolution)
  
  I'm not sure that these calculations really are based on evolutionary assumptions, but even if they were, then what's the problem? Predictions are based on foundation theories all of the time. The theory of Evolution is not in question and is as stable a foundation as any.
  
  For example, critical mass calculations for the atomic bomb were calculated off of Relativity and QM assumptions. Relativity and QM are no more accepted as accurate than is Evolution.
  
  rem
• 

  hooberus

  I'm not sure that these calculations really are based on evolutionary assumptions, but even if they were, then what's the problem? Predictions are based on foundation theories all of the time.

  The problem is that it is circular reasoning to use mitochondrial dates calculated from the assumption of evolution (humans/chimps sharing acommon ancestor) as objective evidence against humans being recently descended from a biblical eve (which does not have humans and chimps sharring a common ancestor). Such calculations may be useful in internal macro-evolutionary scenarios, however they are not objective evidence against a recent creation scenario (which is what this thread is about).

  The theory of Evolution is not in question and is as stable a foundation as any.

  For many it is (including those with a sceince background).
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  There is no circularity. The mitochondrial calculations are not set out to prove Evolution. Evolution is a given (get used to it). Since Evolution has shown to be an excellent model, calculations based on it are appropriate. If the calculations show that a recent bottleneck is highly improbable, then you'll just have to suck it up. Or you can ignore it like you usually do.
  
  And Evolution is not in question. The fact that a couple fringe scientists have a problem with it does not make it a controversial theory. The fact of Evolution and Common Decent is accepted by all scientists. Some argue about the technicalities of the various theories that comprise Evolution, but nobody but crackpot pseudoscientists outright deny Evolution.
  
  In any case, there are people with scientific backgrounds that believe all sorts of claptrap. Some scientists believe in UFO's, or BigFoot, or perpetual motion machines, etc. You have to be able to filter the fringe pseudoscience from real science. Again it comes down to predictions and the legitimacy of theories. Creation predicts nothing and does not further science. It has not made any discernable contribution to our knowledge of the universe. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, has been extremely beneficial to our understanding of biology.
  
  rem