Sciencescience

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 07:54 PM

Appalling Creationist Ignorance on Mitochondrial Eve

It has been common for Creationists to assert that mitochondrial Eve (mtEve) has been dated to ~6,500 years ago, thereby equating her with the Eve in Yahweh’s Big Book. Given the subsequent publication of research in this area, this claim has become increasingly dishonest and fails on:

1. A reliance upon research over 2 decades old that has been shown to be in error and
2. A complete lack of understanding of the concept of mtEve

1997 Research
The 6,500 year old claim is based on research by Parsons et. al. published in 1997 that sampled only 7% of the mitochondria genome. Even the authors of the study acknowledge that:

“In light of that finding, it seems unlikely that our understanding of the pattern and relative rates of sequence evolution within the mtDNA CR will require substantial revision based on the Awadalla et al. report. Our analysis also suggests that mtDNA forensic testing will be negligibly impacted by recombination; forensic applications already deal successfully with intergenerational mutation , clearly a far more significant effect."

Parsons’ research has been repeatedly superseded by researchers such as Ingmam, et. al, who, using 93% of the mitochondrial genome, estimate mtEve at -171,500 years. While this number has varied greatly since 2000, in no reputable research has it approached the Creationists’ 6500 estimate.

Misunderstanding (or other) of the Concept of mtEve
mtEve is the most recent female ancestor of the human race, not the first female ancestor. mtEve had both female and male ancestors herself. So the laughable attempt of Creationists to equate her with the Biblical Eve fails on definitional grounds. PBS Eons provides an excellent definition of mtEve:



It seems that in this matter, Creationists are violating the tenets of Yahweh’s Big Book: 2 Peter 3:5.

9 replies, 236 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Appalling Creationist Ignorance on Mitochondrial Eve (Original post)
Cold Warrior Feb 2019 OP
wonderwarthog Feb 2019 #1
Cold Warrior Feb 2019 #2
nolidad Feb 19 #6
wonderwarthog Feb 19 #8
nolidad Feb 19 #3
nolidad Feb 19 #4
nolidad Feb 19 #5
SatansSon666 Feb 19 #7
Cold Warrior Feb 19 #9

Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 11:31 PM

1. A man of reason



after my own heart.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wonderwarthog (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 18, 2019, 11:42 PM

2. What if you reached the age of Reason, only to find there was no reprieve?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 03:14 PM

6. Nice song!

To bad you have to use it to defend your indoctrination!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 07:33 PM

8. Love Al Stewart!



"Year of the Cat", 1975!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 10:48 AM

3. YOur deliberate errors are so huge! where to begin! Part 1

1. Teh article you cite shows much older ages. this was co-authored by Parsons.

2. I draw on research conducted in 2008 https://www.icr.org/article/new-genomes-project-data-indicate-young/

Once again pay attention to th efootnotes and who they cite. It is not a creationist conspiracy.

3. What your articles do not admit in the short blurb is that they also plug in pongid DNA to get the large ages needed, as well as assuming large ages for mankind to begin with. When you plug those in you are going to get a skewed answer. PArsons young age was based just on mtDNA studies without any assumed parameters.

But from the evolutionists own mouth:

So, to align the age with current evolutionary theories of human origins, subsequent calculations have started with assumptions that ensure at the outset that Mitochondrial Eve would have lived more than 100,000 years ago. Thus, evolution-inspired Mitochondrial Eve research is largely characterized by circular reasoning--evolutionary assumptions of deep time are used as an interpretive filter that (not surprisingly) then yields deep-time results.

This was made abundantly clear in a Rice University press release regarding the latest attempt to determine when Mitochondrial Eve lived. Researchers used a new statistical method that supposedly assured that the "Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago."2

But in explaining how they obtained this number, the researchers inadvertently admitted their bias that partially determined the outcome before they even began calculating. The press release described some of the steps required to interpret DNA base differences "into a measure of time."2

"And how they evolved in time depends upon the model of evolution that you use,"2 according to study co-author Krzysztof Cyran of Poland's Institute of Informatics at Silesian University of Technology. Of course, when one begins with an evolutionary model, one must expect evolutionary results.

Each model added coefficients that are numerically expressed answers to key questions, such as the rate of DNA base change, the effect of mutational hot spots, what DNA sequence to use for comparison (which, for evolutionists, is often from the chimpanzee), and the time between each generation.3 But many of those numbers were assumed:

Each model has its own assumptions, and each assumption has mathematical implications. To further complicate matters, some of the assumptions are not valid for human populations. For example, some models assume that population size never changes.2"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 10:51 AM

4. Part 2:

What is appalling is your use of alinsky type tactics to try to cover your deceptive ignorance!

First, evolution-minded geneticists assert that our ape-like ancestors lived around three million years ago and had other descendants that evolved into modern apes. If so, then human and modern ape DNA sequences should closely match. They don’t. A comparison of whole genomes, instead of select sequences already known to be similar, shows that natural processes would have needed to add at least 360 million precisely placed, information-packed DNA differences.1 This would be like asking wind or waves to write 10,000 useful instruction manuals. The most scientific explanation requires a master Programmer with unheard-of expertise in nanotechnology who created Adam and ape kinds separately from the start.

Second, nature-only devotees used the phrase “junk DNA” to describe 95 percent of the human genome they assumed had no function. Supposedly, millions of years of evolutionary mistakes accumulated all that “junk.” But when geneticists actually investigated those DNA sequences, they discovered that cells use and need them.2 Bye bye, evolutionary junk. Hello, well-crafted Adam.

Third, studies reveal genetic “clocks” that confirm the Bible’s timeline of a recent creation. Every generation, sperm and egg cells incorporate over 100 DNA copying errors.3 These errors, or mutations, gradually build up. This means you have at least 100 more mutations than your parents, 200 more than your grandparents, 300 more than your great-grandparents, etc. Wind back the mutation clock far enough and we arrive at Adam and Eve, whose DNA was created error-free.4 At this rate, humanity wouldn’t last for even 1,000 generations.5

Finally, geneticists have found evidence for Eve in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). We inherit this kind of genetic code from our mothers, and it accumulates mutations like nuclear DNA does. Every person tested so far has one of three fundamental lineages, or versions, of mtDNA: M, N, or R.6 The wives of Noah’s three sons explain this intriguing detail of modern human genetics. Genesis 10:32 says, “These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Geneticists worked out the equivalent of Eve’s mtDNA sequence by subtracting all the mutations that have occurred since its creation.7

Human-chimp DNA differences, densely packed and functional DNA information, genetic clocks, and mtDNA reconstructions clearly point to recent creation.8 Genetics strongly confirms Adam and Eve were real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 11:16 AM

5. A question I know you will refuse to answer!

Why do you cherry pick so terribly?

You rely on one study (BTW that was not shown to be in error- just adapted with Chimp DNA to get longer ages) when all subsequent studies using only human DNA all show very young ages for the mother of all homo sapiens!

One thing you did fail to mention is that Parsons study was peer reviewed and approved for publication by evolutionists and not creationists! Were all those evolutionists under a creationist spell?

I do applaud you in that at least you are trying ot use science! Many here have relied on just insult and slander as their best defense of evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 03:43 PM

7. There is no use to teach you anything.

You simply refuse to understand anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 08:49 PM

9. An evolutionists own words!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience