Rib of Contention by cpcjrgsm


More Info
									                                   Rib of Contention.

                                             Charles Creager Jr.

                                           Genesis Science Mission

                                    Genesis Science Mission Online Store

                                               Copy right 2010

                                    You are free to distribute this Article.

The Bible clearly states that all mankind is descended from one man and woman; Adam and Eve. In recent
years genetic studies have shown this to be the case. One interesting outcome of these studies is support for
the fact that our most recent female ancestor ( Eve ) is actually older than our most recent common male
ancestor. ( Noah )

Of the two lines of study the one pointing to Eve is the most interesting. Not only does it provide compelling
evidence for Biblical history, it also stands as an example, of how evolutionary interpretation actually
obscures evidence in support of the Biblical account, and the lengths evolutionists will go to dismiss such

                                          I. Back Ground.
In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley compared the mitochondrial DNA ( mtDNA ) of
several groups of people from different geographic locations. They concluded that all of these people had the
same female ancestor and called her "Mitochondrial Eve." They then proceeded to calculate the mutations
rate based on such evolutionary assumptions as the time of our alleged divergence from a supposed common
ancestor with chimps. They concluded based on this estimated mutation rate that Mitochondrial Eve lived
100,000 - 200,000 years ago

In 1997 a paper entitled A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control
Region by Parsons, Thomas J., et al. was published in Nature Genetics. They compared the mtDNA of many
mother child pairs and found that mutations in mtDNA occur about 20 times more rapidly than previously
thought. Based on these measurements they calculated Mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.
                                            II. Discussion.
When I first read about the 1997 study, I was intrigued by the fact that the new date fit the Biblical account
so well, but the story has proven more interesting than I ever imagined. Several months later I got into an e-
mail discussion about mitochondrial eve, with an evolutionist. He was insistent that only the 100,000-
200,000 year date was valid. I also noticed that the 6,500 year date was largely ignored by evolutionist web

The evolutionist I was having the discussion with claimed that the 6,500 year date was invalid because the
Berkeley team had used substitution rates, while Parsons’ study had measured mutation rates. I was also
informed that Parsons could not have measured substitution rates, because substitutions take many
generations for Natural Selection to select the genes to become fixed in the genome. It turns out that this was
the key unraveling the plot. I soon began to realize that the whole substitution vs. mutation issue was just an
evolutionist word game, being used to excuse the dismissal of the 6,500 year date.

                                        III. The Real Story.
What this all boils down to is that real empirical data is supposed to give way to evolutionary estimates,
solely because the empirical data goes contrary to evolution. The fact is that when you stripped away all the
evolutionary terminology and assumptions you get:

    1. The Berkeley team measured differences in human mitochondria DNA.
    2. Parsons’ study measured the rate of change in human mitochondria DNA.

When these two sets of empirical data are put together, they yield a date for Mitochondrial Eve of about 6500
years. This is about the time the Bible gives for when the real Eve lived. The only real reason this figure is
rejected is because it agrees with the Bible, while being contrary to evolution.

Now it is possible that mitochondrial eve is not actually Eve herself but one of her female descendants. She
would be the last common ancestor of Noah's three sons. wives. Eve could have been the last common
ancestor of these three woman but that ancestor could have been one of Eve's pre Flood female descendants.

                                          IV A New Study.
The following paper was presented to me by an evolutionist as more accurate because it used a new method:
Max Ingman et al, Nature 408, 708 - 713, Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans
(published in 2000) \

Note the following quote:

      From the mean genetic distance between all the humans and the one chimpanzee sequence (0.17
      substitutions per site) and the assumption, based on palaeontological and genetic evidence, of a
      divergence time between humans and chimpanzees of 5 Myr, the mutation rate ( ) for the
      mitochondrial molecule, excluding the D-loop, is estimated to be 1.70 10 -8 substitutions per
      site per year.
Note that they are still calculating the rates based on the assumption that we have a common ancestor with
chimps. This is a new method? It's nothing but a reworking of the same method used at Berkeley. The fact is
that they are still assuming evolution, to get the old dates.

We still have the one case where it is known that they actually measured the rate of change in human
mitochondria DNA, It resulted in a date of 6,500 years.

This is proving to be an excellent case study in how evolutionists assume evolution in calculating dates while
ignoring dates that are contrary to it.



To top