Sciencescience

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 11:37 AM

Evolutionary Dogma, Not Science, Kicks Out Adam


BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2014
Share Email Facebook Twitter Google+
Secular geneticists continue to claim that humans did not come from a literal Adam and Eve.1 But if clues in the human genome do not reject Adam from our ancestry, then why would scientists insist that he was not real?

A University of Sheffield news release titled “Putting ‘Adam’ in his rightful place in evolutionary history” introduced efforts led by professor Eran Elhaik to refute the confusing results of a 2013 report showing that the male ancestors of humanity predated the female ancestors by hundreds of thousands of years.2

To be clear, the media have borrowed the name Adam as a convenient reference to an ancestral male genotype found across an entire ancient population. They don’t refer to the biblical Adam in any literal sense. Elhaik in particular “doesn’t believe that Moses, Aaron, or the 12 tribes of Israel ever existed,” let alone ancient Adam.3

At least he is consistent—if Adam was not real, then all of Scripture is called into question since the core historical events it records and the core spiritual truths it communicates all rely on a literal Adam: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”4

Why not believe in Adam? Do we have genetic features that preclude the existence of the progenitor of all humanity?

The short answer is no. Secular population geneticists consistently insist on using historical models that reject Adam and Eve out of hand. For example, the authors of the paper that Elhaik rebutted, published in The American Journal of Human Genetics, assumed that humans evolved from a chimp-like ancestor when they constructed their supposed timeline. They wrote, “The ancestral state of each polymorphic site was inferred with pairwise alignments between the human and chimpanzee reference sequences.”5

For them, chimpanzees have replaced Adam.

And even Elhaik’s rebuttal “used conventional biological models to date our most common male ancestor ‘Adam’ in his rightful place in evolutionary history.”2 “Conventional” dogma ensures evolution, and “models” based on it interfinger measurements with evolutionary assumptions. This stance rejects biblical history not because of data, but before the data are even approached.

Dogmatic insistence on evolution no matter the data isn’t new. Last year, when Elhaik and his former supervising professor, Dan Graur, tried to put the spectacular ENCODE results into their proper evolutionary place, they only succeeded in showing that baseless assertions, unscientific rhetoric, and circular arguments masked unfounded evolutionary assumptions.6

In contrast to dogma-first models that replace a recent Adam with eons of apes, a new data-first study of mitochondrial DNA reports that mankind only carries a few thousand years’ worth of polymorphic sites—consistent with biblical history.7

Both atheistic and theistic evolutionists believe they must toss Adam under the evolutionary bus to preserve the past they prefer, but they certainly have no scientific reason to do so. The data continue to support a recent creation of the man Adam from whom all humanity descended.

References

If they are right, then they must know better than Jesus, who referred to the first couple as real people. See Mark 10:6.
Putting ‘Adam’ in his rightful place in evolutionary history. University of Sheffield news release. Posted on sheffield.ac.uk January 22, 2014, accessed January 29, 2014.
Rubin, R. ‘Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert. The Jewish Daily Forward. Posted on forward.com May 7, 2013, accessed January 29, 2014.
1 Corinthians 15:22.
Mendez, F. L. et al. 2013. An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree. American Journal of Human Genetics. 92 (3): 454-459.
Jeanson, N. and B. Thomas. The Resurrection of ‘Junk DNA’? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org March 20, 2013, accessed January 29, 2014.
Jeanson, N. 2013. Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes from ~2700 Metazoan Species. Answers Research Journal. 6: 467-501.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on February 14, 2014.

4 replies, 113 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 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Evolutionary Dogma, Not Science, Kicks Out Adam (Original post)
nolidad Feb 19 OP
Troll2 Feb 19 #1
Cold Warrior Feb 19 #2
nolidad Feb 19 #3
nolidad Feb 19 #4

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 11:51 AM

1. Actually, the most recent common ancestor of the Y chromosome was considerably earlier than mtEve

One of the most notable findings of our study is that all the estimated dates from the southern African
data are older than the dates estimated in previous studies: at least 38 kyrs older when counting the
number of mutations to the root, and 60 kyrs older when estimated with BEAST. For example, in the
southern African data the mean TMRCA for the A2-T node is 178 kyrs by counting mutations and 206
kyrs using the BEAST tree and a relaxed clock model, while Poznik et al. (2013) estimated an age of
138 kyrs for the same node and using the same mutation rate. One concern with the older ages we
estimate is that they might simply reflect errors introduced by imputation. However, our results
indicate that whereas estimates based on relaxed clock models and imputed data should indeed be
viewed with caution (Supplemental Figure S12), the TMRCA based on mutation counts is not affected
(see Supplemental Figure S13). It therefore seems that the finding in the present study of an older age
for the A2-T node is not an artifact caused by imputation

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/12/20/034983.full.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 03:33 PM

2. They simply refuse to understand the concept of the Most Recent Common Ancester

Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 05:23 PM

3. Oh we understand the concept

we just know it is not science. There is 0 evidence to support an ape/man common ancestor other than the opinions of evolutionists looking at bones.

The fact you believe the dogma is what is sad!

As the Encode project has advanced genetic studies and mutrations and their rates are better known- it is posing greater and greater difficulties for the hypotheses of evolution to hold ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2019, 05:46 PM

4. Well that study was debunked for several reasons

Not just by YEC scientists but by evolutionists as well.

The Most important key is that the human genome cannot survive that length. Genetic entropy has been well established with an average of 100-300mutations/generation with a generation=20 years (grandma 60 ,mom40 kid 20)
with different ethnicities showing even higher rates!

If this was considered over the entire DNA data it is a small thing- but when it is as the studies shown confined to mtDNA then after 300 generations (6000 years) you have approx 12,000 mutations which is a near lethal load and would decimate human populations.

Here is an article and also a technical paper

https://www.icr.org/article/how-old-life

https://www.icr.org/article/genetic-entropy-points-young-creation

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience