Scientists Are Fools, Adam & Eve Were Real!

Geneticists continue to research an issue of great interest to creationists. As this article at PhysOrg tells us: Common genetic ancestors lived during roughly same time period. They say:

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam — two individuals who passed down a portion of their genomes to the vast expanse of humanity — are known as our most recent common ancestors, or MRCAs. But many aspects of their existence, including when they lived, are shrouded in mystery.

Now, a study led by the Stanford University School of Medicine indicates the two roughly overlapped during evolutionary time: from between 120,000 to 156,000 years ago for the man, and between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago for the woman.

Even with a possible overlap, that’s not a result creationists want to hear. They also don’t want to hear this:

Despite the Adam and Eve monikers, which evoke a single couple whose children peopled the world, it is extremely unlikely that the male and female MRCAs were exact contemporaries. And they weren’t the only man and woman alive at the time, or the only people to have present-day descendants. These two individuals simply had the good fortune of successfully passing on specific portions of their DNA, called the Y chromosome and the mitochondrial genome, through the millennia to most of us, while the corresponding sequences of others have largely died out due to natural selection or a random process called genetic drift.

We’ll let you read that article by yourself. Also, here’s a link to the paper in Science: Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males Versus Females. You need a subscription to read more than the abstract. We mention it because we have a great creationist reaction to that research.

This comes from the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). They’re described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. ICR’s article is Does ‘Y-Chromosome Adam’ Refute Genesis?

ICR’s article was written by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, described at the end as: “Deputy Director for Life Sciences Research [presumably at ICR] and received his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University.”

We’ll skip ICR’s description of what the scientists found, and take you right to their interpretation. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Secular geneticists believe that modern humans can trace their male genetic ancestry back to one man and their female genetic ancestry back to one woman. Two new studies suggest that female “mitochondrial Eve” and male “Y-chromosome Adam” lived a couple hundred thousand years ago. However, the assumptions researchers used to reach this dating concordance demonstrate the circular reasoning that is common in evolutionary age calculations.

Circular reasoning? That’s horrible! But ICR often slings that accusation around. As we’ve pointed out before, creationists actually endorse circular reasoning (see AIG’s Logic: Prepare To Lose Your Mind).

By the way, ICR mentions a few recent studies. We’ve only linked to one. They have the same objections to all of them. Let’s read on:

For example, rather than directly measuring mutation rates in various ethnicities, the authors assumed a constant rate across ethnicities. Previously published research undermines this assumption.

We haven’t looked into that. It wouldn’t matter for our purposes, because we’re certain that no reading of the mutational clock would be favorable to ICR, so that’s a trivial objection. They continue:

The authors also assumed a constant rate of change through time. Yet, the environmental changes associated with the Flood of Noah (e.g., possible accelerated radiometric decay) may have affected the rates of DNA change. Furthermore, in the approximately 4,000 years that have elapsed since the Flood, why should we assume that the human genetic mutation rate has been uniform?

That’s a powerful objection. They’re probably correct in assuming that the scientists didn’t consider that the Flood may have changed the laws of nuclear physics (we didn’t realize water could have that effect), but they also ignored the possibility that rate at which mutations occur may have significantly changed. Actually, the mutation rate had to be super-fast after the Flood, in order that the few “kinds” Noah took aboard the Ark could generate all the millions of species we see today. Here’s more:

Finally, the authors calibrated their molecular data to archaeological “dates.” These age assignments depend on notoriously unreliable radiometric dating techniques and thus are not independent validations for the molecular data.

Yet another flaw in the scientists’ work. This is really devastating! Here’s ICR’s conclusion:

All molecular-clock calculations require the observer to speculate about the past, and the Science study authors selected assumptions based on their model of evolutionary deep time, resulting in circular reasoning. Clearly, the hundred-thousand-year dates for “Y-chromosome Adam” and “mitochondrial Eve” do not bear up under careful scrutiny.

Those guys at ICR are fantastic. Creation science triumphs again!

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

31 responses to “Scientists Are Fools, Adam & Eve Were Real!

  1. SC: “Even with a possible overlap, that’s not a result creationists want to hear.”

    Unless the “creationists” are Discoveroids, in which case it will be not a problem at all, but an opportunity to crow about how “Darwinists” keep revising the dates, omit how those minor revisions have no bearing whatever on the validity of evolution, and spin it as yet another “weakness” to fool the public.

  2. Ceteris Paribus

    I’m somehow missing the genetic joke over at ICR. Adam is in control of the gender of his offspring by furnishing either an X or a Y to Eve

    But Eve was made from Adam’s Y gene, which was duplicated somehow so that Eve had two Y genes. That’s all the genes that are in play. Adam’s sons had an Ademic X gene and an Ademic Y gene.

    Eve, and all of Eves’s daughters had two Ademic Y genes.

    So why is the ICR talking about some date gap between Adam and Eve?

  3. CP:Eve, and all of Eves’s daughters had two Ademic Y genes.

    So that explains how Eve’s great^200 granddaughter underwent parthenogenesis and wound up having a son. 😉

  4. That’s right, Frank. And that’s where the phrase “Jesus H(aploid) Christ” comes from.

  5. So one of their arguments is based on the damn flud? Really? And these people are taken seriously by whom? Then “you can’t trust the dating technique” crap? Then you can’t possibly make any conclusions based in the past because what exactly? Then they throw out the circular reasoning accusation? These people really do live in their own sick and twisted little bubble don’t they?

    This whole thing has gone beyond the bizzare. Stupid little monkeys wearing lab coats, pretending to be scientists. About all they accomplish is tossing crap on the wall. To great accolades from their fellowship no less. I need to go take a couple ibuprofen, my head hit the desk pretty hard that time…

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Observers needed to speculate that the laws of physics had not changed over time, that’s where the circular reasoning comes from???

    Did they not notice that they’re projected times were plus/minus 18-25,000 years? Hardly the specific result of choosing ‘constant’ rates of mutation, I think. And way way way off from 6,000 years ago.

  7. They don’t know what “careful scutiny” is, even though it’s easier than real physics.

  8. LOL @ Pete Moulton. Brilliant! 😆

    The real question is whether Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. in hand, will go the whole hog and prepare a detailed technical refutation of the research he offhandedly criticises. That is, instead of sitting outside the ring, throwing rotten apples. (The inevitable answer to that question is a resounding, “Not on your nelly, ever!”)

    The monumental ingenuity of creationism, the thing that makes it unassailable, lies of course in the introduction of fuzzy ad hoc assumptions and shifty tweaks, e.g. widely variable mutation rates, and the further introduction of cunningly opportune it-can’t-be-true-because-it-doesn’t-fit-my-worldview equivocations. It’s like watching Swan Lake, original score and all, done by lobotomised circus contortionists and drooling clowns. You have a good idea what the next clumsy convulsions will look like but you carry on watching the grotesquery anyway.

  9. And here’s their get out of jail free card, the first “reference” in the article means that they do not have to present any evidence!

    1) Evolutionists do not believe in a literal Adam or Eve. Rather, they claim that modern humans descended from a population of ancestors over the last several hundred thousand years. These two statements may seem at odds, but population genetics permits this seeming contradiction. The background calculations lie beyond the scope of the present article.

  10. “But Eve was made from Adam’s Y gene,”

    Surely you mean “X gene”?

    And I apologize for calling you Shirley.

  11. I wonder how these guys explain God’s decision to start off the human race with some major acts of incest. Those were the days, eh?

  12. Mary L:

    They don’t know what “careful scutiny” is

    Of course they do. It’s where they take anything that doesn’t fit into the box of their primative interpretation of the Bible and carefully scrutinize it for any possible ad hoc explanation (like “possible accelerated radiometric decay” that would merely leave the Earth a molten radiactive mass) and declare the science not to be science at all. It takes a lot of work to be so divorced from reality.

  13. And by “X gene” I mean X chromosome.

    Note to self: don’t post when tired.

  14. Mary L:

    They don’t know what “careful scutiny” is

    Of course they do! They take anything that doesn’t fit in the little box of their interpretation of the Bible and scrutinize it carefully for any ad hoc explantion (such as “possible accelerated radiometric decay,” which would merely leave the Earth a molten radioactive mass) and declare that the science isn’t science.

    It takes a lot of work to be so divorced from reality.

  15. Sorry, John Pieret. I have no idea why your comment was delayed by the spam filter.

  16. Woops, SC … time to reach down again and eliminate the accidental double post.

  17. Done, John Pieret. Do you comment on other WordPress blogs where someone may have tagged you as a spammer? Or maybe it’s just sunspot activity that’s doing this to you.

  18. I thought the fact that the two different creation stories were clearly written as parables would undermine their narrow view of the book of Genesis.
    The 7 days of creation and Adam and Eve are two different parables, but many people who were wrongly taught that these were literal truths instead of parables seem more willing to defend their interpretation rather than actually want to learn the truth.

  19. John Pieret: “Of course they do [know what ‘careful scrutiny’ is]. It’s where they take anything that doesn’t fit into the box of their primative interpretation of the Bible and carefully scrutinize it for any possible ad hoc explanation (like ‘possible accelerated radiometric decay’…”

    But then they get sloppy when they can’t agree on whether “X is young and looks it,” “X is young but looks old” or “X really is old just like ‘Darwinists’ say but I still don’t come from no monkey.”

    As you know, ID peddlers mostly avoid those traps by playing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But they too have slipped up on occasion, even admitting that we do “come from monkeys.” They can afford to, though, as their target audience is mostly oblivious. And most critics are so busy refuting their many misrepresentation of evolution, that they rarely ever get to those striking admissions.

  20. Charles Deetz ;)

    I read thru the physorg article looking for the number of generations, which I think is the strongest way to refute the ICR position. Didn’t find it, but if I assume 20 years per generation, Y-Adam is 5,000 generations ago, at least. That would be a generation per year for a creationist. And I don’t think they can get away with claiming mutations are disconnected from generations.

    So, FrankJ, you are right. Here they are nitpicking the span of generations, suggesting different mutation rates, meanwhile regardless of those “possible errors”, their timeline doesn’t come close to fitting the physical facts. So we don’t have an answer from them on this, which of the three sloppy choices they have.

  21. As has been pointed out, the “Anthropic Principle” argument is based on the idea that the constants of nature have to be within certain fairly narrow limits in order for human life to be possible. (It then goes on to argue that this shows that the constants must be purposefully designed to those specifications.) In order for things like radioactive decay, the speed of light, and so on to be compatible with less than many millions of years of time, several of those constants have to be variable by large multiples. Not merely off by less than a few percent (as demanded by the Anthropic Principle), but off by orders of magnitude (as demanded by YEC).

  22. They have to hypothesize a billion-fold acceleration in radioactive decay to explain radiometric dating results, so they make that a positive by saying that as a bonus, the super-radiation also caused super-mutations that “explain” why the Y chromosome Adam etc. Appeared to live 120,000 years ago.

    No matter that a billion-fold acceleration would cause the radioactive isotope of potassium K40 to kill you with radiation poisoning, and the radioactive elements in the Earth would melt the Earth. The “bonus” is that super-radiation would super-mutate all human DNA, thus “explaining” human genetic diversity at the cost of universally fatal cancer, radiation poisoning, and melting our planet.

    Oh and they also abandoned the fine tuning principle which says that any tiny change in any law of physics will make all life impossible, replacing that with the assertion that billion-fold acceleration in ALL laws of physics harms no life anywhere.

    — Diogenes

  23. In the above comment, I meant the K40 in your own body would kill you.

  24. John Pieret, I think something else of yours got lost in the spam filter. Please post it again, as I can’t salvage it.

  25. Charles Deetz ;)

    Found AIG wrote about this last August, too, coming to the same ‘circular reasoning’ conclusion. Love this expert quote at the end from Purdom:

    We know that the biblical Adam and Eve lived approximately 6,000 years ago because of biblical chronology, and science confirms a young human race. The fact that there is a low level of variation found in mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA from many different people groups all over the world is because only a short time has passed between humans today and Adam and Eve. If there was more time, like the hundreds of thousands of years that the evolutionists suggest (in addition to the millions of years since humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor), we should see a lot more variation in the DNA and that is simply not what we observe.

  26. SC: I usually hang out long enough to see that a post shows up (which is why I doubleposted … the first didn’t show up right away but then did as soon as I posted again). I don’t remember any that didn’t show up before. If there were any, they must not have been worth worrying about. 😉

  27. That Georgia Purdom quote is jaw-dropping in the audacity of its dishonesty. Purdom is pathological.

  28. Humans are so genetically similar because we went through a “bottleneck” about 200,000 years ago (a type of genetic drift) which reduced diversity in the survivors of the event. There is considerable variation in parts of the mitochondrial DNA, but less in most of it because of, wait for it…., natural selection. I wish some of the nuts could take my genetics course…..No! I guess not. My bad.

  29. Anonymous: That Georgia Purdom quote is jaw-dropping in the audacity of its dishonesty. Purdom is pathological.”

    What makes the audacity jaw-dropping is that she says that evolutionists speak of those long time periods, even though she is fully aware that OECs and IDers do too.

  30. Reblogged this on Allergisch auf Dummheit and commented:
    Warum heißt es eigentlich “Intelligent Design”, wenn die Intelligenz abwesend ist? Da müsste ja medizinischer Alkohol als alkoholfreies Erfrischungsgetränk gelten, oder?

  31. Now, I really expect Harvard to comment this! PH.D. form Harvard. Really …