Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any Christians/Creationists torn over the timeline presented in the GP?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Any Christians/Creationists torn over the timeline presented in the GP?

    I am just curious what other Creation believers think about the timeline back to the theoretical Eurasian "Adam." DNA doesn't lie. There is no doubt about that and it one of the most effective tools in the genealogist's toolbox. I find it interesting that it is stated that this "Adam" DID have human ancestors, but that there was NO proof since the genetic trail stopped with him. Now the obvious question (for me anyway) is if there is NO genetic trail back of him, how do they know for a fact that he had human ancestors??

    Anyway, I'm not trying to start a big debate, but I find myself somewhat torn between knowing that the DNA research is basically proof positive and believing that the earth is not as old as what is implied in the GP results. I suppose in a way the two really aren't related as the DNA research can obviously exsist and can assist us in our genealogy research without the GP, but I am very curious to know what others think. I wish I could have stated all this a little better, but oh well...

  • #2
    If 'Adam' didn't have ancestors, how would you account for that fact that he didn't know 'Eve', didn't even live within thousands of years of her?

    Comment


    • #3
      Huh? I don't think understand what you meant by that.

      I probably shouldn't have mentioned the "Adam" issue, as the main point of my post was the timeline descrepancy and what other Creation believers thought about it.

      Comment


      • #4
        The y-chromosome DNA traces back to one man we call 'Adam'. mtDNA traces back to one woman we call 'Eve'. They did not co-exist, but lived thousands of years apart.

        Comment


        • #5
          Creation and Scientific Adam

          I just got through watching Journey Of Man by Spencer Wells. If you haven't seen this documentry, it would probably be a good ideal to watch it. I watch it over and over again so that I don't miss out on something. In the documentry it stated that the Bible is a Book of Faith not DNA Evidence. Something along those lines. That the Bible Adam's name means People. So for me as a Christian, Faith is everything. I am not closed minded either. I believe Scientific Adam is a descendant of Bible Adam and when it is possible to trace his DNA back to Bible Adam we will know physically. Until Then It is back to your Spiritual Faith and what you personaly believe. Now about genetic Eve. This is a mystery to me and haven't spent alot of time researching it, but plan too, and if anyone can enlighten me on the subject it is very welcomed. I plan on having myself and my sister tested on our Mother's DNA to see where that leads. I am very interested in all the comments on this subject. James

          Comment


          • #6
            Who says there is no proof of genetic ancestors to Adam? That would only be true if you restricted yourself to humans.

            Consider that the DNA science tells us we are genetically linked to other animals and that there is a whole body of research looking into the relatedness of different animal species (comparative genomics). It turns out that some animals have the same junk DNA humans have...

            The Y-chromosome and Mtdna are only parts of a much larger genetic picture that stretches back millions of years.

            Comment


            • #7
              That's what I was about to ask...
              our "Adam's" ancestors weren't quite modern humans,
              if we could trace further back, perhaps we could find
              the Y-chromosome of the direct ancestor of humans and some other species,
              say, chimpanzees.

              If that's possible, is it at all possible to find which Y-lineages do chimps
              today have, and what's the distance between our lineages and theirs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by EBurgess
                Who says there is no proof of genetic ancestors to Adam? That would only be true if you restricted yourself to humans.

                Consider that the DNA science tells us we are genetically linked to other animals and that there is a whole body of research looking into the relatedness of different animal species (comparative genomics). It turns out that some animals have the same junk DNA humans have...

                The Y-chromosome and Mtdna are only parts of a much larger genetic picture that stretches back millions of years.
                You obviously missed my entire point. The point is that I believe in Creation, and I am curious how other Creation believers feel about the time line presented in the GP. Of course I am restricting the search to only humans, as I do not believe that we "evolved" from chimps or any other species. Some sections of evolutionary theory are undeniable...natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc., but the story of Creation is very straightforward about the fact that God created man in His own image...man's current form.

                Concerning the age of the Earth and the 4.5 billion year theory, most scientist will tell you that Carbon-14 dating, along with the other radioactive dating methods used today, are only accurate up to 3500 - 5000 years ago. There are too many assumptions that Carbon dating is based on. For example, you have to assume that the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the atmosphere, and/or the objects being dated, has ALWAYS been the same and has remained constant since the beginning of time, whenever that was. Any good scientist will admit the faults found in these dating methods. For now there is just as much, if not more, evidence to support a "young earth" theory as there is to support an "old earth" theory, and either side can put up a fairly convincing argument.

                Anyway, my main point was that I was interested to know how other Creation believers felt about the time line presented in the GP and other genetic research.

                Sirtims, I really appreciate your reply.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I guess I should have stated my response differently.

                  What I am trying to say is that you can't accept the science behind GP and then restrict it to humans.

                  In other words, the SNP markers are a clock used by scientists to track an out of Africa Adam, the clock did not start ticking with this Adam, there are ticks before him evident in other species.

                  So I am curious how any creationist can reconcile this? To my way of thinking you would have to reject the science behind GP completely?

                  With regards to your comments on carbon dating, as it turns out there are other dating methods based on the same principles (dacaying isotopes) that go much further back in time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not among those torn over GP's timeline but I just wanted to bring your attention to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor).

                    If you've ever wondered when the clock of evolution started ticking, take a look at some reflexions from scientists who are trying to decipher this mistery and finding the right chronometer to measure time since the beggining of life.

                    http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0402...27674a_pf.html
                    http://www.stanford.edu/~amatin/Mati...0Phylogeny.pdf

                    Also, check the Tree of Life web project.
                    http://tolweb.org/tree/

                    IMO, believing that any sacred book on earth is the last word of a divine creator is incomprehensible.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by EBurgess
                      I guess I should have stated my response differently.

                      What I am trying to say is that you can't accept the science behind GP and then restrict it to humans.

                      In other words, the SNP markers are a clock used by scientists to track an out of Africa Adam, the clock did not start ticking with this Adam, there are ticks before him evident in other species.

                      So I am curious how any creationist can reconcile this? To my way of thinking you would have to reject the science behind GP completely?

                      With regards to your comments on carbon dating, as it turns out there are other dating methods based on the same principles (dacaying isotopes) that go much further back in time.
                      I don't think that you would have to reject the science behind it completely. The existence of the markers is obvious. They are there, and that is undeniable, but the methods used to create the timeline are where the inaccuracies are found. All radioactive dating methods need the same basic assumptions to work, and at best are only accurate to a few thousand years as stated previously.

                      Another question is this...the GP project actually states that the genetic trail "stops" at the Eurasian "Adam." If this is true, then what evidence prevents this Adam from being the biblical Adam? Could create an interesting discussion at least...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Victor
                        IMO, believing that any sacred book on earth is the last word of a divine creator is incomprehensible.
                        Could you explain exactly what you meant by "the last word?" Also, why is it so incomprehensible?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I had a discussion with someone who was obviously, though not by his own admission, a creationist. He said that it was absurd to even consider testing y-DNA, since every man's y-DNA was perfectly identical. His faith told him that evolution didn't happen & that mutations, the minutia of evolution, were thus impossible. His faith told him that all men are descended from the Biblical Adam & no mutations have occurred, so why test y-DNA, since you won't find any mutations?

                          This brings to mind a question posed by other creationists, which is: If evolution happened in the past, why isn't it happening today? The traditional answer was that evolution occurs so slowly that it can't be detected.

                          Welcome to the wonderful world of modern genetics! DNA testing proves that mutations do happen. The language that one uses to discuss y-DNA & mtDNA results is the language of evolutionary biology. I am talking about haplogroups, clades, subclades, time of divergence, etc. If nothing else, DNA analysis tracks out the final, almost modern, twigs on the branching bush of human evolution.

                          Timothy Peterman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Great links Victor, I will be browsing that tree of life site for a while to come.

                            jdchess:

                            I still don't fully understand your position and really I am pursuing this thread out of curiosity. I admit my biblical knowledge is rusty but shouldn't the Y-dna markers be those of Noah and not Adam? I say this because it will have some effect on the time line. Noah having presumably lived many generations later. Also what is the current creationist view of what the timeline should be?

                            The problem I have with your point on the timeline is that you accept the science of markers but reject the priciple behind them linking man to other primates? Even if the timeline were completely off the mark and the variability permitted a much more recent Adam you are still using the markers...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by EBurgess
                              Great links Victor, I will be browsing that tree of life site for a while to come.

                              jdchess:

                              I still don't fully understand your position and really I am pursuing this thread out of curiosity. I admit my biblical knowledge is rusty but shouldn't the Y-dna markers be those of Noah and not Adam? I say this because it will have some effect on the time line. Noah having presumably lived many generations later. Also what is the current creationist view of what the timeline should be?

                              The problem I have with your point on the timeline is that you accept the science of markers but reject the priciple behind them linking man to other primates? Even if the timeline were completely off the mark and the variability permitted a much more recent Adam you are still using the markers...

                              Again, my original intention in posting this was to get the opinions of other Creation believers and to get their feelings on the overall time line. You are correct that the markers should be those of Noah as his family was the only ones to survive the Flood. However, Noah was a direct descendant of Adam. Shouldn't the genetic trail also lead from Noah back to Adam? Could the Flood have bottlenecked the trail and possibly stopped it? Also, what about the situation at the Tower of Babel? Could this not have been a point of great divergence not only mutation wise, but also in migratory routes?

                              As a general rule most Creation believers follow the young earth theory, and believe the world to be roughly 6,000 years old. To get this age, one does have to believe that there are basically no gaps in the genealogy of the Bible and that Genesis contains a tight chronology.

                              What I do not understand is what you are stating regarding the relation between the exsistence of the genetic markers and links to other primates. I am definitely not an expert (or even remotely close for that matter) on genetics and DNA, but I truly don't see how the exsistence of certain genetic markers shows a relation to other primates. I'm sure that some will point to the fact that chimp DNA is 98% identical to human DNA. My issue with this is the fact that a 2% difference is still a DIFFERENCE none-the-less. The markers do however show mutations found in HUMAN lineages, and can help understand how humans migrated over time. Really the only part I have an issue with is WHEN those migrations and mutations happened. I suppose what I am trying to say is that I believe that the mutations and markers exsist as DNA proves that, but I do not believe that any of the genetic markers marked a mutation from one species into an entirely different species. Again, I DO believe that mutations can occur WITHIN a species, but not as a transformation from one to another. If you could help me understand what you mean by the link between markers and other primates, I would appreciate it, but the GP has mentioned nothing of this "link," and has simply talked about mutations among human lineages and migratory patterns. Maybe I'm totally missing the point, but I don't think I am. It is, however, a good point you make about Noah vs. Adam. Perhaps in my previous post, instead of asking what prevents the Euraisian Adam from being the Biblical Adam, I should have asked what kept him from being the Biblical Noah.

                              As stated originally though, I am still interested in what other Creationists have to say about all this.

                              I apologize for the long post and I'm sorry if I repeated myself in there somewhere.
                              Last edited by jdchess; 7 December 2005, 11:23 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X