Intelligent Design

If the human race really split into three distinct groups in 150 years, as New Scientist claims …

Spread the love

… the creationists are probably right, no? Like, it was guided and can happen fast.

From a recent article in New Scientist:

Humanity’s dramatic race across the Old World after it left its African cradle has been told countless times. But for a true sense of the rapidity of events, look no further than the Y chromosome. The most comprehensive analysis of the Y yet shows that within 150 years, an evolutionary blink of an eye, the first migrants to make it into Eurasia split into three distinct groups that can still be identified today.

Three distinct groups in only four, possibly five, generations?

Maybe too much money and prestige is tied up in not just admitting that the creationists were right? But then how many more mistakes do researchers have to make in order to placate the Darwin lobby? The cost of defending Darwin and his followers gets higher all the time, in time and personnel.

Also, from the same article:

The first Eurasians were significant for another reason: their pioneering exploration brought them into contact with Neanderthals for the first time. Studies within the last few years have shown that interbreeding did occur between the two species, although there is no evidence a Y chromosome from a male Neanderthal passed into the Homo sapiens gene pool.

Or rather, there is no evidence so far.

Mmmm. Anyone get the memo about Neanderthal art?

13 Replies to “If the human race really split into three distinct groups in 150 years, as New Scientist claims …

  1. 1
    goodusername says:

    the creationists are probably right, no? Like, it was guided and can happen fast.

    That what can happen fast? A point mutation? Well, yeah, I imagine they would happen fast.

    Three distinct groups in only four, possibly five, generations?

    If you have 3 groups defined by single point mutations, that’s all long you’ll need to get 3 groups. It’s the time estimated to get 2 point mutations. It’s not like we’re talking about the formation of “races” here.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Sure. And the diamond cutter’s tap is only one mutation, but if he is an expert, he suddenly splits a good lump of diamond into segs worth way more. Just one point mutation.

    An accident, right? Hmmm. Funny, all these accidents. Whatta chain.

    And dunno what happened to “selecting variations useful, under changing conditions of life”, “favouring the good and rejecting the bad,” “preserving and adding up all that is good,”;f=false

    Musta been someone else running the plant back then.

  3. 3
    goodusername says:

    I’m having trouble parsing your reply, and I’m not sure what it is you think this article is about.

    But all this article is saying is that there was a group of people, that then split into two groups, each going their separate way. Then, within a century or so (not long since they had barely differentiated) one of those populations also split into two groups and went their separate ways. That’s it.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that it should be surprising (at least to evolutionists) how much the groups differentiated in less than 150 years – but the estimate for the time of divergence is based on the amount of differentiation! 🙂 Their estimate of less than 150 years is based on their own estimate of the mutation rate.
    And they’re saying that the second split must have occurred soon after the first split because the first two groups had hardly differentiated.

  4. 4
    wd400 says:

    Could you clearly explain why you think this result means “the creationists are probably right…”? It’s not all clear from the article or your comments.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400, while you are waiting for an answer to your question, can you answer a question I have? Could you please give me JUST ONE example of material processes creating functional complexity/information? You know wd400 something along the lines of JUST ONE molecular machine being created by neo-Darwinian processes in the lab? I’ve been waiting for an answer to that specific question for several years now and a straightforward and truthful answer has not been forthcoming? Will you finally remedy this crushing lack of evidence for your preferred atheistic position and provide the requested example? And if you can’t provide even one example, why do you believe Darwinism is true?

  6. 6
    wd400 says:


    It’s going to depend on exactly what you many by complexity and information. Evolution by N.S. is an information generating process,and it’s easy to get complexity (a mess, after all, can be complex).

    Off the top of my head, here’s one neat example. Now, how does that fail to meet the standard?

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    wd400, you reference,

    Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
    Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce* – 2009

    then you ask:

    ‘Now, how does that fail to meet the standard?’

    Here’s how:

    Biological Information: The Puzzle of Life that Darwinism Hasn’t Solved – Stephen C. Meyer – 2009
    Thus, as my book Signature in the Cell shows, Joyce’s experiments not only demonstrate that self-replication itself depends upon information-rich molecules, but they also confirm that intelligent design is the only known means by which information arises.

    Biologic Institute Announces First Self-Replicating Motor Vehicle – Doug Axe –
    Excerpt: “So, advertising this as “self-replication” is a bit like advertising something as “free” when the actual deal is 1 free for every 1,600 purchased. It’s even worse, though, because you need lots of the pre-made precursors in cozy proximity to a finished RNA in order to kick the process off. That makes the real deal more like n free for every 1,600 n purchased, with the caveats that n must be a very large number and that full payment must be made in advance.”

    Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA – Jonathan McLatchie – July 2010
    Excerpt: As Stephen Meyer has comprehensively documented in his book, Signature in the Cell, the RNA-world hypothesis is fraught with problems, quite apart from those pertaining to the origin of information. For example, the formation of the first RNA molecule would have required the prior emergence of smaller constituent molecules, including ribose sugar, phosphate molecules, and the four RNA nucleotide bases. However, it turns out that both synthesizing and maintaining these essential RNA building blocks — especially ribose — and the nucleotide bases is a very difficult task under origin-of-life conditions.

    An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just-So Story (And Then Made Up Another to Replace it) – March 2012
    Excerpt: “I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct,” Caetano-Anollés said. “That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.”,, The ribosome is a “ribonucleoprotein machine,” a complex that can have as many as 80 proteins interacting with multiple RNA molecules,,,, Furthermore, “you can’t get RNA to perform the molecular function of protein synthesis that is necessary for the cell by itself.”… It appears the basic building blocks of the machinery of the cell have always been the same from the beginning of life to the present:

    The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory for the early evolution of life (except for all the others) – July 2012
    Excerpt: “The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis” – Eugene Koonin
    “The RNA world hypothesis has been reduced by ritual abuse to something like a creationist mantra” – Charles Kurland
    “I view it as little more than a popular fantasy.” – Charles Carter

  8. 8
    scordova says:

    Three groups, meaning 3 patriarchs? Hmm:

    Shem, Ham, Japheth 🙂

    See table of nations:

  9. 9
    wd400 says:

    So, we ahve BA failing in engage with a paper, and insted replying with scarcely relevant link-spam. And we have O’leary simply failing to join up the dots between her comments and a pop-sci interpretation of new science paper.

    UD is getting a bit predictable…

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    The good, the bad, and the ugly?

    Would I have to chose?

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    so wd400, you consider the Joyce experiment, where intelligence was used to generate precise sequences of RNA molecules, in cozy proximity to each other, as proof of what the power of unguided Darwinian processes can do? Really?? And your credibility to be unbiased in all this fails to take a hit because of why exactly?

  12. 12
    Robert Byers says:

    it all relies on presumptions about genetics. All guessing.
    We didn’t come from Africa and lose our African features.
    They got them uniquely . This should be obvious.
    We did change rapidly after the flood but I think it was from innate triggers, after passing thresholds, to allow quick and needed adaptation to early problems upon migration.
    YEC creationism needs mechanisms for changes and so if they exist then the genetics would change hand in glove.
    Genetics is not a trail of heritage unless otherwise shown to be.
    Its just a line of reasoning dull evolutionist researchers.

  13. 13
    Breckmin says:

    I wouldn’t want to have to debate you because it’s like having to debate everything Doug Axe, Steve Meyer, John McLatchie, Jim Shapiro, (probably Scott Minnich), John Sanford, Berlinksi, Behe, (probably Marvin Lubenow), Dembski, Wells, Baumgardner, Humphreys, Jay Richards, and probably 50 other scientists write/say…all readily prepared in C&P form complete with citations/links.

    They could spend 15 posts just trying to rebuttal through the raw tonnage of points you make with multiple links.

    Oh, and I forgot to add to the list what the ever clever Phillip Cunningham writes/says..

    I wouldn’t want to debate him one on one (on evolution) either…

Leave a Reply