Genetics and Adam and Eve

[amortalman]

I began to wonder about this after reading a post by rikuoamero wherein he made mention of it. It sounded like a worthy subject to explore.

So the question for debate is:

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 10 by Still small]

So in answer to the question in the OP -“Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?� - the answer is clearly - “No�.

Clearly? You've employed the standard creationist's trick of cherry picking, and in this case completely ignored the time frame. According to biblical chronology, Adam and Eve lived some 6000 years ago. This destroys any argument that the present population of humans evolved from this breeding pair, and you can't just ignore that time frame when making a genetics argument.

Also, explain, genetically, how Adam lived to 930 years old. How did people live that long a measly 6000 years ago when hitting 110 now is a rarity and 122 is the oldest (and now contested) age for a human being.

If you're going to ignore these time frame issues and select only some points that you like the conclusion is not "clearly - No." The paper you referenced just pointed out that genetic variation with humans is no different in degree than in any other animals, which is exactly what you'd expect as we are just another animal. If we ever get to the point were we can sequence the genome of Homo erectus ... another species of genus Homo, we'll most likely find great similarity to modern humans, and somewhere between us and the common ancestor we share with chimp and bonobos.

The Adam and Eve story of the bible cannot be taken literally due to the time frame it supposedly happened, the present genetic diversity and distribuition of humans some 6000 years later, and for many other reasons like the huge life spans of the early biblical characters, which are impossible in the real world. If you can play fast and loose with time frames by orders of magnitude, you don't have a consistent argument.

“Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?� - the answer is clearly - “Yes�.

[John Human]

Genetically speaking, the human race could not have started out with a literal single breeding pair.

Gee, does that amount to a dis-proof of the fairy-tale myth of "natural selection" as the mechanism for the appearance of new species?

New species are unable to interbreed with other species. An exception-that-proves-the-rule is horses and donkeys, who can mate and produce a sterile offspring (mule). How can a new species appear, often with a different number of chromosomes, without a single breeding pair? For that matter, how can a new species appear through fairy-tale myth "natural selection" WITH a single breeding pair? How could nature "randomly" come up with identical, able-to-procreate male-and-female genetic mutations, including changes in the number of chromosomes?

Beyond that, how could a brand-new human population of several dozen or hundred (the presumed minimum to prevent inbreeding resulting in the species dying off after a few generations because the children are sterile) suddenly appear by means of "natural selection"? It would seem that some other factor has to account for the sudden appearance of humans in the evolutionary scheme of things.

[ttruscott]

Yes it does. Genetically speaking, the human race could not have started out with a literal single breeding pair. The next generation, their children, would have had to start practicing incest, and inbreeding is a well understood problem.

I was referring to the idea that the start of evolutionary life, we are encouraged to believe that the mutation that started two sex reproduction happened everywhere with genetic diversity and not from a single source. ???

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 12 by John Human]

Beyond that, how could a brand-new human population of several dozen or hundred (the presumed minimum to prevent inbreeding resulting in the species dying off after a few generations because the children are sterile) suddenly appear by means of "natural selection"? It would seem that some other factor has to account for the sudden appearance of humans in the evolutionary scheme of things.

Sudden? You seem to be suggesting that a couple of apes "suddenly" gave birth to a human being via a process that went straight from ape to human in one step. There are many diagrams like these to indicate the very "bushy" evolutionary path from apes to humans ... it is some 5-10 million years in duration:

https://www.filthymonkeymen.com/2016/10 ... 3-large-2/

https://www.livescience.com/44995-human ... aphic.html

Not all the details are known of course because fossils are hard to find, but enough information is available to show how humans evolved from great apes, including descriptions of many of the intermediate species along the way. Natural selection would "favor" higher intelligence, along with other features that benefitted the organisms such as bipedalism (freeing the hands for making tools, using weapons, gathering food, etc.), long distance walking and running which may have promoted the loss of body hair, and many other examples. It wasn't a sudden, one-step process from ape to human ... that isn't how natural selection generally works. And it isn't "magic" or a "fairy tale."

[John Human]

[Replying to post 12 by John Human]

Beyond that, how could a brand-new human population of several dozen or hundred (the presumed minimum to prevent inbreeding resulting in the species dying off after a few generations because the children are sterile) suddenly appear by means of "natural selection"? It would seem that some other factor has to account for the sudden appearance of humans in the evolutionary scheme of things.

Sudden? You seem to be suggesting that a couple of apes "suddenly" gave birth to a human being via a process that went straight from ape to human in one step. There are many diagrams like these to indicate the very "bushy" evolutionary path from apes to humans ... it is some 5-10 million years in duration:

https://www.filthymonkeymen.com/2016/10 ... 3-large-2/

https://www.livescience.com/44995-human ... aphic.html

Not all the details are known of course because fossils are hard to find, but enough information is available to show how humans evolved from great apes, including descriptions of many of the intermediate species along the way. Natural selection would "favor" higher intelligence, along with other features that benefitted the organisms such as bipedalism (freeing the hands for making tools, using weapons, gathering food, etc.), long distance walking and running which may have promoted the loss of body hair, and many other examples. It wasn't a sudden, one-step process from ape to human ... that isn't how natural selection generally works. And it isn't "magic" or a "fairy tale."

Um, there seem to be a few points that need clarification, to make sure that we aren't talking past each other. And of course we're both capable of making errors and innocent misrepresentations, so it pays to double-check...

First of all:

humans evolved from great apes

That one is going to be a VERY hard sell, based on the fossil record. Perhaps it is better to say that humans and great apes evolved from a common ancestor, but when the genetic split occurred, neither humans nor great apes existed.

Moving along:

There are many diagrams like these to indicate the very "bushy" evolutionary path from apes to humans ... it is some 5-10 million years in duration:

https://www.filthymonkeymen.com/2016/10 ... 3-large-2/

https://www.livescience.com/44995-human ... aphic.html

Okay, the first diagram suggests that "homo erectus" is an ancestor of humans, but the second one shows "homo erectus" as an evolutionary dead end.

From the fossil record we can glean inferences and make suppositions, which scientists debate among themselves, while acknowledging the basic idea of a progression of more upright beings with bigger brain capacities.

That's all, a progression of more upright beings with bigger brain capacities. If I am not mistaken, there is nothing in the fossil record to suggest or imply that "natural selection" plays a role in speciation: the sudden appearance of new species that are incapable of breeding with older-but-similar species that might have differing numbers of chromosomes.

What is known as "natural selection" can explain variations within a species, and it can explain how competition between two different species causes one to go extinct. However, "natural selection" simply can't explain speciation, even though it is "established orthodoxy" and "received wisdom" for fundamentalist true-believing reductionist materialists who flatly reject such suppositions as "God did it" or the biosphere of Planet Earth as a giant laboratory for space-alien graduate students, or -- ???

Regarding chromosomes and evolution, I have recently learned that mammals have in the neighborhood of 40 chromosomes (more or less, depending on the species), while marsupiles have in the neighborhood of 16 (more or less). That's a really big difference. Is there any way to explain such a great difference through "evolution by natural selection"? Where is the supposed common ancestor? How could such a great difference in chromosomes "randomly" evolve?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 15 by John Human]

That one is going to be a VERY hard sell, based on the fossil record. Perhaps it is better to say that humans and great apes evolved from a common ancestor, but when the genetic split occurred, neither humans nor great apes existed.

Humans share a common ancestor with two extant great apes ... chimpanzees and bonobos. That common ancestor isn't around now, but was a member of Hominini as in this diagram:

http://www.conservenature.org/learn_abo ... xonomy.htm

It is this Hominini common ancestor (for Homo and Pan) that I am referring to.

But "based on the fossil record" is not all we have to go on. Genetics has confirmed this basic path, and we've now sequenced the genomes of multiple humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas, as well as Neanderthals and Denisovans. Comparative analysis of fossils is not the only way to "fill in the blanks" in the evolutionary trees, and the genetics work over the last 40 years has contributed tremendously to understanding of human evolution from a great ape ancestor.

Regarding chromosomes and evolution, I have recently learned that mammals have in the neighborhood of 40 chromosomes (more or less, depending on the species), while marsupiles have in the neighborhood of 16 (more or less). That's a really big difference. Is there any way to explain such a great difference through "evolution by natural selection"? Where is the supposed common ancestor? How could such a great difference in chromosomes "randomly" evolve?

Have you read Dawkin's book "The Ancestors Tale"? It works backwards from humans to single-celled organisms and summarizes (based on info at the time it was written) the major ancestral connections and common ancestors. He probably has some information on how marsupials and mammals connect. I don't think there is any correlation between chromosome number and position on the evolutionary tree. Chromosomes are nothing but long strands of DNA, and I don't know why long strands of DNA group up into chromosomes as they do. But given that major disruptions to chromosome structure can occur that aren't fatal and don't totally prevent reproduction (eg. trisomy 21, which is either a triplet of human chromosome 21, or a translocation, and is the cause of Down's Syndrome) I can imagine that over millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations some major genetic changes are bound to occur, including changes in chromosome number and speciation (eg. 48 to 46 chromosomes ape to human va fusion of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 into human chromosome 2).

Natural selection doesn't care about how genetic changes happen, or what they are (eg. a simple single base substitution, or something much more serious like Trisomy 21 where an entire third 21st chromosome can appear in just one generational birth ... that is a major change). If the resulting change results in a survival and/or reproductive advantage to the organism natural selection would "favor" it (select for it), regardless of if the change were minor or major or how it came about. So it isn't an issue of whether natural selection can "explain" changes in chromosome number over time, or speciation. It just allows beneficial changes to remain, and if a series of genetic changes occur that eventually result in a change in chromosome number that is no problem for natural selection ... it works with what is there after the genetic change has happened.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]

Genetics more than confirms at least Eve. And that Eve lived 4500 years ago. Although it was not Eve but Noah's wife. Remember that all of life had a bottleneck about 4500 years ago.

Mitochondrial Eve they call her. Both evolutionist and creationist agree that all of mankind is a descendant of one woman and they call her Mitochondrial Eve.

Mitochondrial DNA is found in both male and females but it is only the females that pass it on to the off spring. Both evolutionists and creationists would agree that modern mtDNA differences are the result of copying errors (i.e., mutations).

To use mtDNA as a clock, we simply use this measured mutation rate to make testable predictions based on either the evolutionary timescale or on the YEC timescale and then compare the predictions with the scientific, observed facts. Thus, by multiplying the measured mutation rate of mtDNA by 180,000 years or by 4,500 years, we can make testable predictions about the timescale of human origins. Comparing these predictions to actual mtDNA differences at the global scale reveals a result that strongly contradicts the evolutionary timescale and confirms the YEC timescale.

After 180,000 years, humans would have accumulated over 2,000 DNA differences (range = 1,220 to ~4,700) via the process of mutation to mtDNA. In just 4,364 years, humans would have accumulated only 30 to 114 mutations. Currently, about 78 differences exist on average in African populations (i.e., the most genetically diverse of all the human ethnic groups), with a maximum difference of ~120. Clearly, the YEC timescale accurately predicts the number of DNA differences that we observe today, while the evolutionary timescale predicts numbers an order of magnitude higher. Similar results hold true in animal species

So not only does genetics confirm Adam and Eve but also the fact that they lived 4500 years ago.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 10 by Still small]

So in answer to the question in the OP -“Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?� - the answer is clearly - “No�.

Clearly? You've employed the standard creationist's trick of cherry picking, . . .

And clearly, you have employed the standard evolutionist’s trick of automatically dismissing anything which goes against your predetermined ideology. There was no ‘cherry picking’ as the articles which were linked spoke mainly to the fact of genetic bottlenecks and the lack of genetic variation within species and distinct separation or apparent genetic barriers between species.

. . . and in this case completely ignored the time frame. According to biblical chronology, Adam and Eve lived some 6000 years ago. This destroys any argument that the present population of humans evolved from this breeding pair, and you can't just ignore that time frame when making a genetics argument.

To this point, we must first understand that we know nothing about historic mutation rates and next to nothing about modern rates. Most mutation rate estimates we see in the scientific literature are biased downwards because of the assumption of deep-time evolution. This is a problem for two reasons. One, they may be calculating divergence times for two species that were created separately (e.g., chimps and humans) and are thus not technically comparable. Two, they divide the differences by a very large number. If humans and chimps are X% different, to calculate mutation rates, they divide X by 6 million (the number of years since we supposedly diverged from chimps). This always generates a low estimate of mutation rates. The timing of the split between modern humans and Neandertals is based on this very low rate calculated from the assumed human-chimp divergence time. Mutation rates based on genealogy are much higher than those based on phylogeny(link) and are probably much more realistic. Recent studies have shown that measurable mutation rates are much higher than either the phylogenetic or even the genealogical methods predict.(link). As the creation model relies upon the adaptation and specialisation of existing genetic information, either via epigenetics or allele expression and only to a very minimal degree, mutations, as opposed to random mutations and natural selection only, the requirement of vast expanses of time are not necessary. Therefore, 6,000 - 10,000 years is more than enough time.

Also, explain, genetically, how Adam lived to 930 years old. How did people live that long a measly 6000 years ago when hitting 110 now is a rarity and 122 is the oldest (and now contested) age for a human being.

Aging is certain to be much more complex than these simplified discussions, based on preliminary findings, might lead us to think. However, the evidence so far strongly suggests that genetics plays a major part. As we do not have access to samples of Adam’s DNA for scientific testing and analysis, one can only speculate from current observations. Our DNA controls the division of our cells making new cells to replace old ‘worn out’ cells. This ‘dividing’ is limited in number, in humans, currently being about 80-90 times. At the end of DNA strands within the chromosome, is a section called telomeres which act like a counter and protects the actual genetic information at the end of the DNA strand. Telomeres function as protective caps that protect the ends of linear chromosomes from degradation and recombination (fusion) with other chromosomes or DNA fragments. Each time the cell divides, a piece of the telomere breaks off, shortening the telomere until the number of divisions reaches its upper limit, after which the DNA strand becomes damaged and/or stops replacing old cells. If old cells are not being replaced, organs break down and wear out, eventually causing death. As Adam was created with the perfect genome (that being without mutations), his ‘upper dividing limit’ may have been far greater than that of current DNA but through an accumulation of near-neutral deleterious mutations, this may have been greatly reduced. Breeding experiments have shown that longevity can be bred in and out of populations of fruit fly and worms by selective DNA related to longevity. This can also be seen in humans where there is a family history of longevity either extended or reduced. As genetic entropy increases, (an accumulation of near-neutral deleterious mutations), this could affect the length of the telomere and, thus, the limit of cell divisions, an effect which can be amplified by a population bottleneck such as would be a result of the Noahic Flood.

If you're going to ignore these time frame issues and select only some points that you like the conclusion is not "clearly - No." The paper you referenced just pointed out that genetic variation with humans is no different in degree than in any other animals, which is exactly what you'd expect as we are just another animal. If we ever get to the point were we can sequence the genome of Homo erectus ... another species of genus Homo, we'll most likely find great similarity to modern humans, and somewhere between us and the common ancestor we share with chimp and bonobos.

As I mentioned earlier, the articles which were linked spoke mainly to the fact of recent genetic bottlenecks as indicated by the lack of genetic variation within species and distinct separation or apparent genetic barriers between species. As the Phys.org article stated -
�The study results represent a surprise given predictions found in textbooks, and based on mathematical models of evolution, that the bigger the population of a species, the greater the genetic variation one expects to find.
"Is genetic diversity related to the size of the population?" asks Dr. Stoeckle. "The answer is no. The mitochondrial diversity within 7.6 billion humans or 500 million house sparrows or 100,000 sandpipers from around the world is about the same."
The paper notes, however, that evolution is relentless, that species are always changing, and, therefore, the degree of variation within a given species offers a clue into how long ago it emerged distinctly—in other words, the older the species the greater the average genetic variation between its members.� (Emphasis added)
and

Another intriguing insight from the study, says Mr. Ausubel, is that "genetically, the world is not a blurry place. It is hard to find 'intermediates' - the evolutionary stepping stones between species. The intermediates disappear."
Dr. Thaler notes: "Darwin struggled to understand the absence of intermediates and his questions remain fruitful."
"The research is a new way to show that species are 'islands in sequence space.' Each species has its own narrow, very specific consensus sequence, just as our phone system has short, unique numeric codes to tell cities and countries apart."
Adds Dr. Thaler: "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies. They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." (Emphasis added)
Do the papers indicate similar percentages of variation within a species? Yes. And what was the conclusion that the authors drew from this? That all species went through a recent genetic bottleneck, ‘recent’ relative whether from an evolutionary time-frame or that of a Creationist time-frame.

The Adam and Eve story of the bible cannot be taken literally due to the time frame it supposedly happened, the present genetic diversity and distribuition of humans some 6000 years later, and for many other reasons like the huge life spans of the early biblical characters, which are impossible in the real world. If you can play fast and loose with time frames by orders of magnitude, you don't have a consistent argument.

The authors of the linked papers are evolutionists interpreting the data and writing from an evolutionary point of view which accounts for their deep-time chronology. Yet, as they admit, the findings were unexpected and surprising “given predictions found in textbooks, and based on mathematical models of evolution�. Yet, the same data interpreted from a Creationist point of view, is exactly what is expected. Therefore, which theory provides a better explanation of the observed evidence?

“Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?� - the answer is clearly - “Yes�.

“Does this response prove the dismissive nature of some close-minded evolutionists?�
Emphatically “Yes�.

“Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?�
To the open-minded, honest thinker, “No�, while it does not prove a literal Adam and Eve, to the question, “does it disprove a literal Adam and Eve�, it’s an emphatic “No�.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 18 by Still small]

And clearly, you have employed the standard evolutionist’s trick of automatically dismissing anything which goes against your predetermined ideology.

My views aren't based on any "predetermined ideology" ... they are simply accepting what science has told us and that is summarized in modern text books, science papers, etc. There is no need to cast it as an ideology. If I claimed to believe that the heliocentric model of our solar system was correct would that be an ideology, or simply an acceptance of a scientific result?

Therefore, 6,000 - 10,000 years is more than enough time.

The major problem with this claim of the Earth being only 6,000 - 10,000 years old is that it is out by 6 orders of magnitude! An error that huge doesn't need to consider anything at all from the field of genetics. Nearly every "ology" can disprove such short ages for the Earth, and has. If there was some factor of 2 error it might be debatable, but a factor of million is not. There is just far too much evidence to prove, without any doubt, that the Earth is far older than 6,000 to 10,000 years, and that there was no population bottleneck around 4,500 years ago. Estimates of human population are not that good the farther back in time you go of course, but it is thought that around 2500 BC there were some 20 million humans running around:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_pop ... _estimates

But certainly there appears to have been several million at least, and even at the oldest date of your range (10,000 years ago) the neolithic revolution was well underway and there are archeological finds dated to far older than that (eg. cave paintings, venus figurines, etc.). It is just completely ridiculous to believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, or less, without considering anything at all from genetics research. It can be disproven from nearly every scientific angle there is.

As we do not have access to samples of Adam’s DNA for scientific testing and analysis, one can only speculate from current observations.

But we have DNA from far older Homo members than Adam if such a person had actually existed. We have some DNA sequences from early Neanderthal that is 430,000 years old:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/20 ... n-history/

and Homo sapiens 45,000 years old:

https://www.nature.com/news/oldest-know ... ed-1.16194

What would DNA from a person from only 6,000 - 10,000 years ago (the mythical Adam) tell us?

As Adam was created with the perfect genome (that being without mutations)

Really? Then what about all the later humans that supposedly lived just as long, or longer (eg. Noah at 950 years, fathering children at 500 years old, etc.). Was his genome perfect as well? It is virtually impossible from a biological perspective for a modern human (and any human living a measly 6,000 - 10,000 years ago is an anatomically modern Homo sapien) to have lived to anywhere near 900+ years. It is ridiculous.

Does genetics disprove a literal Adam and Eve?�
To the open-minded, honest thinker, “No�, while it does not prove a literal Adam and Eve, to the question, “does it disprove a literal Adam and Eve�, it’s an emphatic “No�.

There are countless ways to disprove a literal Adam and Eve of the biblical variety without any references to genetics. But genetics does a good job of this as well, including disproving the Noah's flood myth which supposedly reduced the human population to only 8 people when there were actually several million both before, and after, the supposed flood event with no evidence whatsoever of any reduction in their numbers during the imaginary flood event. The Sumarians were writing text around 3,000 BC, which predates Noah's flood. Don't you think someone would have noticed the event happening and jotted it down before they drowned?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]

Genetics more than confirms at least Eve. And that Eve lived 4500 years ago. Although it was not Eve but Noah's wife. Remember that all of life had a bottleneck about 4500 years ago.

Mitochondrial Eve they call her. Both evolutionist and creationist agree that all of mankind is a descendant of one woman and they call her Mitochondrial Eve.

Mitochondrial DNA is found in both male and females but it is only the females that pass it on to the off spring. Both evolutionists and creationists would agree that modern mtDNA differences are the result of copying errors (i.e., mutations).

To use mtDNA as a clock, we simply use this measured mutation rate to make testable predictions based on either the evolutionary timescale or on the YEC timescale and then compare the predictions with the scientific, observed facts. Thus, by multiplying the measured mutation rate of mtDNA by 180,000 years or by 4,500 years, we can make testable predictions about the timescale of human origins. Comparing these predictions to actual mtDNA differences at the global scale reveals a result that strongly contradicts the evolutionary timescale and confirms the YEC timescale.

After 180,000 years, humans would have accumulated over 2,000 DNA differences (range = 1,220 to ~4,700) via the process of mutation to mtDNA. In just 4,364 years, humans would have accumulated only 30 to 114 mutations. Currently, about 78 differences exist on average in African populations (i.e., the most genetically diverse of all the human ethnic groups), with a maximum difference of ~120. Clearly, the YEC timescale accurately predicts the number of DNA differences that we observe today, while the evolutionary timescale predicts numbers an order of magnitude higher. Similar results hold true in animal species

So not only does genetics confirm Adam and Eve but also the fact that they lived 4500 years ago.

Propagating nonsense regurgitated by dishonest/morons YEC apologists like Jeanson.

Jeanson is conflating mutation rate(rate at which changes occur) with substitution rate( the rate at which the changes accumulate generation-to-generation).

Substitution rates are often much slower than mutation rates.

Counting somatic mutation as germline mutation is just dishonest/stupid. )

Also sir we have countless empirical evidence that disproves YEC:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... t_creation