Re: DNA supports OEC?
- From: "Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackleton@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Aug 2006 13:35:34 -0700
Giant Sloth wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 09:08:36 -0700, "Giant Sloth"
<nospammers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
I have a request from a creationist to comment on some OEC claims.
This is easy to do, except for one of the claims:
****
Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make
predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one
man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see
Genesis 6). One would predict from this claim that males would have
lower genetic variability on their y-chromosomes, compared to the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed on exclusively through
women. Published scientific studies confirm this biblical prediction,
since the last common ancestor dates for the y-chromosome tend to be
less than that for mtDNA.
****
from http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
I'm not sure what to say about this one. Please comment!
GS
Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by scientists to the woman who is
the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans. We
know about Eve because of mitochondria, parts of cells that are only
passed from mother to offspring - never from the father.
Each mitochondrion contains mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), and the
comparison of DNA sequences from mtDNA reveals a phylogeny. Based on
the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with
observed genetic drift, Eve is believed to have lived in a population
of humans about 150,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia or Tanzania.
Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-mrca) is the male most recent common ancestor
from whom all male human Y chromosomes are descended. Unlike other
genes, those of the Y chromosome are passed exclusively from father to
sons, just as mitochondrial DNA is passed to all children only by
their mothers.
The Y-chromosomal Adam can therfore be considered as the most recent
common paternal ancestor of all humans, considering an unbroken
paternal line of descent only: fathers, paternal grandfathers, etc.
Y-chromosomal Adam is not the same individual at all points in human
history. The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of humans alive
today is different from the one for humans alive a thousand years in
the future: as male lines die out, a more recent individual, the
Y-mrca of a subtree of the preceding Y-Adam, becomes the new Y-Adam.
The Y-chromosomal Adam for living humans probably lived between 60,000
and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker
studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates,
Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by thousands of
generations.
They are named after the "Adam" and "Eve" in Genesis as a metaphor
only, and are not considered to be the first humans. There would have
been many others alive at the same time.
So no, that claim you quoted does not tell the truth, there is no
bottleneck in the middle of the bronze age so Noah and his ark is just
one more fairy story.
--
Bob.
For the OEC, the common male ancestor would be Noah, and thus not the
first human male. Though the Flood was local, it apparently wiped out
all humans. However, the idea is that the latest common female
ancestor would be Eve, specially created by God, the first female.
If they propose that Noah was y-Adam at about 50kya and the evidence
shows that m-Eve lived about 150kya....that creates a problem for me
[to say the least]. Would they seriously have us believe that three
women [Noah's daughters-in-law] that were born in the same area would
not have a more recent m-Eve than 100k years prior to that?
Seems like a non-starter to me.
Ken
Your answer shows how only part of the scientific theory we have now is
used by the OEC, he ignores the actual dates that current scientific
theory has for the common ancestors.
GS
.
- References:
- DNA supports OEC?
- From: Giant Sloth
- Re: DNA supports OEC?
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: DNA supports OEC?
- From: Giant Sloth
- DNA supports OEC?
- Prev by Date: Re: Opt out?
- Next by Date: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: DNA supports OEC?
- Next by thread: Re: DNA supports OEC?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
