From the Guardian:
Humans are evolving more rapidly than previously thought, according to the largest ever genetics study of a single population.
Scientists reached the conclusion after showing that almost every man alive can trace his origins to one common male ancestor who lived about 250,000 years ago. The discovery that so-called “genetic Adam”, lived about 100,000 years more recently than previously understood suggests that humans must have been genetically diverging at a more rapid rate than thought.
Kári Stefánsson, of the company deCODE Genetics and senior author of the study, said: “It means we have evolved faster than we thought.”
The study also shows that the most recent common male ancestor was alive at around the same time as “mitochondrial Eve” – the last woman to whom all females alive today can trace their mitochondrial DNA.
Unlike their biblical counterparts, genetic Adam and Eve were by no means the only humans alive, and although they almost certainly never met, the latest estimate which gives a closer match between their dates makes more sense, according to the researchers. More.
See also: Why we don’t really know much about human evolution.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
If one man, his wife, their three sons, and the sons’ wives were the sole survivors of a world-wide disaster, then science should find that mitochondrial Eve lived further into the distant past than Y-chromosome Adam. If such calculations are at all realistic, then as they become more precise we will have an increasingly better estimate of the length of the antediluvian period, “mitochondrial Eve” being the Biblical Eve and “Y-chromosome Adam being the Biblical “Noah.” Just a thought.
Well, I guess scientists, living in the 21st century and peering into Darwin’s crystal ball, know a good bit more than God and the human writers of Scripture that can speak from experience, right?
per Harry at post 1:
Here is a paper which, though technical, shows that the modern genetic evidence we now have actually supports Adam and Eve. Moreover, the evidence it presents from the latest genetic research is completely inexplicable to neo-Darwinism, i.e. neo-Darwinism, once again, completely falls apart upon rigid scrutiny; (and although I don’t agree with the extreme 6000 year Young Earth model used as a starting presumption in the paper for deriving the graphs, the model, none-the-less, can be amended quite comfortably to a longer time period. Which I, personally, think provides a much more ‘comfortable’ fit to the overall body of evidence)
CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand;
Here is a more recent video on the subject by Dr. Carter:
And the preceding failure to accurately model population genetics, that Dr. Carter elucidated, is far from the only problem with the neo-Darwinian model.
Another major problem with the neo-Darwinian model is that major changes in body plans are not achievable by mutations to DNA.
In other words, the neo-Darwinian, (i.e. the modern synthesis), assumption that mutations to DNA can produce new body-plans does not have any empirical support, but is just another unsupported assumption that Darwinists have made in spite of contrary evidence!
Needless to say, if you can mutate DNA ’til the cows come home’ and still not produce changes in basic body plan morphology, then perhaps it is time to look for a new theory for how humans originated? 🙂
And yes, body plan morphology is far more different between man and chimps that Darwinists have led people to believe:
As to the supposed genetic similarity evidence between chimps and humans, it turns out that inferring relationship from genetic similarity is misleading from another angle as well. It turns out that vastly different creatures can have remarkably similar genetic sequences. Dr. Sternberg comments here:
This same ‘discrepancy’ is found in kangaroo genomes:
Thus that underscores the fact that Body plan morphology can be radically different in spite of remarkable similar genetic sequences.
Moreover, genetic sequences are not as similar between chimps and humans as Darwinists have led people to believe. Dr. Stephen Meyer puts the situation like this:
Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins has done a comprehensive analysis of chimpanzee and human chromosomes and the 70% figure he found was drastically different that the 98% figure that Darwinists had misled the general public with for decades
As well, the regulatory regions between chimps and humans are far more different that that 70% figure that Dr. Tomkins found. I’ve already referenced Dr. Sternberg’s talk in the first link where he speaks of drastic differences in regulatory regions. Here are a few more references to get that point across:
Yet mutations to gene regulatory networks are “always catastrophically bad”
Thus, where neo-Darwinists most need plascticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where ‘substantial’ differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
If neo-Darwinism were a normal science instead of a religion, this would have certainly counted as a major falsification of one of its primary theoretical predictions. But alas, Darwinist will ignore this as they do all other failed predictions of neo-Darwinism. It is simply heresy for Darwinists to ever express doubt of neo-Darwinism! 🙂
Moreover, the fossil record for supposed human evolution is not nearly as smooth and gradual as Darwinists have misled people to believe:
Skull fossils are usually lined up in an ascending order by Darwinists to give the appearance of gradual evolution, but this leading expert disagrees with that misleading line-up:
In the following podcasts, Casey Luskin, who has done much research of the literature on this topic, speaking at a 2014 Science and Human Origins conference, discusses why the fossil evidence is far from supporting the claim that humans evolved from some ape-like precursor.
To show how misleading Darwinists can be with the ‘reconstruction’ of fossil evidence for supposed human evolution, the following video shows how a Darwinist used a powersaw to give the hip bone of ‘Lucy’ the correct angle so it could walk upright:
The same type of shenanigans can be found in how Darwinists handled the skull fossils of Lucy:
Other ‘Lucy’ fossils have been found since the ‘powersaw incident’ that show that Lucy could not have possibly walked upright.
Yet, despite this contrary evidence, Lucy is still dogmatically defended by many Darwinists as if it were some type of missing link instead of just another ape like it really is.
Here a paleontologist expresses his surprise when his false conception of Lucy met the reality of Lucy’s bones:
Well despite the determination of Darwinists to perpetuate fraudulent interpretations of the evidence, the evidence itself speaks otherwise:
Here is a correct ‘reconstruction’ of the Lucy fossil that portrays Lucy as she most likely looked:
Quite a difference compared to what Darwinists try to tell us Lucy looked like isn’t it?
So science proves the bible is right. All men are of one blood and from one first man. I guess no one before eh
I guess their was no interference from other “hominids”!
A neanderthal wasn’t our firstr daddy. i never liked them actually.
Who says that such long time is needed for gene change? Prove it1 Why not other mechanisms that speecd things up.
We don’t look alike so gene change did happen. if it happened fast, after the flood, then it also would show this. They are guessing about timelines on gene change.
I don’t think evolution welcomes a first man idea.
Hello bornagain77,
Thanks for your reply to my remarks. You gave me a lot to look into. I appreciate that.
Let me clarify my previous remarks. I reread them and realized I didn’t make myself clear. What I meant by “the length of the antediluvian period” was the length of the period between Eve and Noah, not the period from the beginning of time to Noah. If Y-chromosomal Adam is the most recent patrilineal common ancestor of humanity, then, biblically, that ancestry would converge on Noah. If mitochondrial Eve is humanity’s matrilineal common ancestor, that ancestry would, biblically, narrow through Noah’s wife and his sons’ wives and through them converge on the Eve of Genesis. If calculating the times at which mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived becomes credibly reliable (I have doubts about that even being possible, but I still find it very interesting), then we would have a better notion of the length of time that elapsed between Eve and Noah.
I think that could be a rather long period of time, considering the following from Genesis:
In mentioning “the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown” the author is assuming his contemporaries are familiar with the notable personalities of antediluvian history. How many millennia might the antediluvian history of humanity comprise? That history and the stories of its mighty men of renown are lost to us, but if it can be credibly, albeit very roughly determined when mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam (Noah) lived we would at least have some idea of the length of the period of time of which it consisted.
The contributors to this forum appear to be a very diverse group whose foundational intellectual assumptions range from those of Young Earth Creationists to those of hard core atheists. Some readers, I assume, are scoffing at the very notion that the antediluvian period of human history might have consisted of many millennia, while others are scoffing at the very notion that there is such a thing as an antediluvian period.
I commend the YECs for their sincere belief in the truth of God’s Word and in its inerrancy. I share that belief with them. We disagree on the interpretation of God’s word; we have no disagreement regarding its inerrancy.
I would ask the atheists to consider the possibility that the mind that Max Planck believed was the “matrix of all matter” has revealed itself to humanity. Let go of your judgment of religion for a minute and consider the possibility that mind brought matter into being, not the reverse. Consider for a moment the possibility that the primary, fundamental reality is someone not something. I can’t imagine what could be more fascinating than that. Many intellectual giants, like Augustine, after years of intellectual pursuits that in the end were not intellectually satisfying for them, found that such considerations were enthralling. They found that which filled an emptiness in themselves that nothing else had done. Augustine ultimately responded to the Mind that is the matrix of all matter with “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”
No, nothing of the sort. Most of your Y-chromosome DNA comes from the same male (“Adam”) as the Y-chromosome DNA of all other men living today, and your mitochondrial DNA come from the same female (“Eve”) as the mtDNA of all modern women. But the Y chromosome and the mitochondria contain only a tiny fraction of your entire genome. The rest comes from “Zoe”, “Kevin”, “Jim”, “Sue”, “Mohammed”, “Alice”, “Howard”, “Tom”, “Ernestina”, “Charlie”, “Xiuying”, “Tricia”, “Nick”, and a few thousand other “most recent common ancestors” of various loci in your and other people’s chromosomes.
Piotr, when I was growing up I was told that humans are more evolved today (i.e. smarter, bigger, faster, etc..) than they were just a few thousand years ago. Now that I’ve looked into the matter, it appears that I was taught something that was false.
In fact, when we look at the fossil and genetic evidence, we find that humans have been Devolving instead of Evolving:
As well, the genetic evidence shows this same pattern of degeneration instead of evolution:
Of related note, contrary to what Hitler thought, light skin, blond hair and blue eyes, are all found to be losses of genetic information, not gains:
Moreover, Africans have more genetic information than the other races:
And whereas the preceding evidence that humans are getting ‘Dumber, Smaller And Weaker’ should be surprising for a neo-Darwinist, such deterioration is not unexpected for the Theist:
I guess what I’m really trying to ask you Piotr is this, “Where is the evidence that humans are evolving into something better, (smarter, bigger, faster), as I was taught as I was growing up?”
Verse and Music:
piotr
I don’t see why your correcting mem.
They are admitting we all had a original ancestor. Chick side too.
Science proves the bible was right. Why not?
Bornagain 77
are you saying brain size is relative to smartness? I’m sure there is no difference in brain size since adam but anyways there is no evidence brains size is related to smarts.
The bible says our intelligence comes from our immaterial soul being made in gods image. Our brain is just a tool for us between our soul and the material world.
in fact i think the brain is just a memory machine.
blue eyes etc are not losses. they are gains for people in northern areas due to a pigmentation adaptation.
the need was there and the bodies changed. niot a random mutation. a innate mechanism. It was on purpose and general across segregated people groups.
I’m sure hitler didn’t say blue eyes equals superior because slavic and celtic peooples have blue eyes. I could wrong as i don’t know what Hitler said.
I do think people would choose blue/blond ness as it tends to be more attractive.
They are admitting we all had a original ancestor.
Nope.All populations necessarily have “mtEves” and “Y-chrom Adams”.
BA77
Absolutely. Your posts are supplementary evidence.
I wasn’t your teacher, so don’t ask me why they taught you nonsense. If evolution consisted in becoming smarter, bigger and faster, the Earth would by now be dominated by superintelligent Giant Roadrunners.
Unguided evolution can’t explain Y chromosomes.
Piotr: you agree with the evidence that I presented that demonstrates humans have been Devolving for the past several thousands of years and then go on to state:
But that is the whole problem. Darwinian evolution, i.e. natural selection and random mutation, has been characterized as ‘survival of the fittest’. A world of ‘blind, pitiless, indifference’ according to Dawkins.
But if that was truly the world we lived in then the only ‘life’ that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind, pitiless, evolution ruled and only the ‘fittest’ are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here:
i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful reproduction. But that is not what we find. Time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their individual ‘fitness to reproduce’.
In fact, instead of a world driven by competition, i.e. ‘survival of the fittest’, as Darwin envisioned, we find an amazing holistic ‘worldwide’ synchrony that is inexplicable to neo-Darwinism:
Indeed, instead of eating us, time after time these different types of microbial life are found to be helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their individual ability to successfully reproduce,,,
Piotr, you also said that my posts were ‘supplementary evidence’ that we are Devolving. But actually Piotr my posts, and everybody else’s posts, are proof that we are made in the ‘image of God’.
Unguided material processes are simply grossly inadequate to explain to origination of functional information. Yet human beings uniquely produce information almost as a force of habit. Moreover, we aquired this unique ability suddenly, not gradually, as is presupposed in Darwinism.
More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
As well, as if that was not ‘spooky enough’ information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information.
Verses and Music:
bornagain77: But if that was truly the world we lived in then the only ‘life’ that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most mutational firepower, since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind, pitiless, evolution ruled and only the ‘fittest’ are allowed to survive.
Well, bacteria do make up most of the planet’s biomass and numbers. However, from what we understand, they are keeping humans around as an investment in interplanetary sporulation. Gotta keep your eye on the future!
as to: “they (bacteria) are keeping humans around as an investment in interplanetary sporulation. Gotta keep your eye on the future!”
So the Darwinian explanation is that Bacteria are keeping humans around for teleological, goal oriented, purposes?
Welcome to the ID camp Zach! 🙂
wd400
I thought that was the thread point here??
They are saying something about us is from a common ancestor.
anyways gene stuff isn’t my bag. I will bow out.