Hi Isabella,
It seems to me that what you are talking about is less "scientific fact" than "scientists' opinions". You noted that you were not educated in physical science. Well, I am. I've studied science since I was about seven years old (from my dad's college textbooks) until now, and was educated in college in the sciences, and can hold my own with most scientists in my knowledge of all areas of science, especially physics, chemistry, and biology.
So, I'll volunteer to educate everyone here about genetics and DNA and how it is interpreted with respect to the Biblical timelines and with respect to human origins.
Here are some things to know and consider about genetics and the human DNA timeline.
The age of the human DNA lines are calculated in two different ways: Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) and Y-Chromosomes.
Mitochondrial DNA is found in every human cell, and is identical (excluding mutations) from mother to child. This kind of testing can be done on both males and females. It can trace the line of descent through female ancestors.
The age of the MtDNA lines in humans is calculated based upon the number of mutations and the rate at which they are believed to occur, through generations to the estimated MtDNA of the first true human.
The problem inherent in MtDNA testing is that the rate of mutation is assumed to be steady. This theory is called uniformitarianism. The opposing theory is catastrophism.
A form of catastrophism is the leading consensus of scientists today, given the abundant evidence of global change. So, based upon the catastrophic theory, we cannot accurately tell whether mutations occurred at a steady rate or not.
Whether we assume catastrophism or uniformitarianism, there is still a huge margin of error in these type of calculations.
Currently genetic scientists estimate that the human MtDNA line is about 130,000 to 170,000 years old, but that number changes frequently. This cell line terminates in the hypothetical "Mitochondrial Eve".
Y-chromosome testing is only performed upon males, because only males have Y-chromosomes.
A process similar to the one I described above is used to determine the age of the male cell lines. Rates of change are determined for Y-chromosome cell lines, then the age of the cell lines are calculated.
Currently genetic scientists estimate that the human Y-chromosome lines are about 60,000 to 90,000 years old. That number has also changed frequently. The Y-chromosomal studies terminated in several lines, but the hypothetical ancestor is called "Y-chromosomal Adam"
Now, as you will notice, there is a difference between the age of the DNA between the MtDNA studies and the Y-chromosome studies. However, if you study this a bit, you'll find that it is of no significance whatsoever against the Biblical belief in an actual Adam and Eve.
First, these DNA studies represent
hypothetical persons, not real persons, which the geneticists freely admit. The reality may be that there may be many cell lines not represented in these studies. These studies only represent the oldest cell lines known.
Second, as I pointed out, the rate of change may not be accurate, and nobody really knows one way or another. That leaves a large margin of error.
Third, all the DNA studies of these types indicate what the Bible tells us--mankind originated in North Africa. This is also confirmed by language studies, which indicate that the hypothetical original language of mankind originated in basically the same place. This is further confirmed by blood type studies that also indicate that North Africa was the cradle of human civilization.
Now, if one wanted to point to the DNA and genetics studies, it can easily be seen that they are fully consistent with what the Bible says concerning the origins of mankind.
The following will also directly answer your statement that "Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line," which rationally does not make sense, unless women were having children with non-human men, or were procreating by parthenogenesis. The reality is that both human lines started at the same time, but only the MtDNA line has been traced back nearly to the prototypical human female.
The Bible tells us that Noah built an Ark about 5000 years ago (give or take a few thousand). According to the book of Genesis, there were eight people on that Ark--Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives.
Now if you know about genetics--which I do--then you'd know that the MtDNA line would probably be identical for those people back to Eve, but the male Y-chromosomal line would begin at the time of Noah's Flood with three or four lines of descent. Amazingly enough, this is exactly what is found in genetics today, and is a confirmation of the accuracy of the Bible.
The main objection that people may make is that there doesn't seem to be enough time for this to have happened, given that Noah's Flood was only 5000 years ago, while the genetic cell lines represent anywhere from 60,000 to 200,000 years.
There are two explanations which can be taken individually or both together, which easily answer this objection.
(A) RATE OF CHANGE -- The rate of change may have differed in the past. If Noah's Flood were even sort of close to what is described--and it is found in almost every ancient religion in all parts of the world--then there were catastrophic atmospheric events, including but not limited to air pressure, water vapor density, cloud cover, and maybe even solar activity. All of these things would contribute to a vastly different rate of mutational change, allowing a relatively small amount of years to expand to as long as necessary.
(B) GENEALOGICAL TIME SPANS IN SCRIPTURE -- Several hundred years ago, Archbishop James Ussher calculated the age of the world by carefully going through the Bible and adding up the ages of people and the dates of known events to come to the conclusion that the world began around 4004 B.C. What Bishop Ussher did not know was that Hebrew genealogies do not necessarily include every individual in a line of ancestry, but often leave out the "unimportant" ones as they please. Because of this, the earliest Biblical genealogies may represent a time-span of hundreds of thousands of years. The Sumerians, who were contemporaries of those early Biblical accounts, had in their royal genealogies, kings that had lived for up to 25,000 years. While that is probably an inflation of those genealogies, it certainly represented a considerably longer time span to similar events, like their equivalent to Noah's Flood. Therefore, there is enough room in the genealogies to allow for the necessary time to match with the genetic discoveries of modern times.
The summary of all this is that it is both Biblical and scientific to use genetics if one happens to know how they both work. Also, modern genetic studies confirms and/or lends credence to the statements of Scripture concerning human origins.
John for Christ
Isabella said:
PolyDoc said:
Isabella said:
Genetics will tell you that the female line is far older than the male line.
But as Fairlight pointed out, God's Word trumps anything man's "wisdom" might come up with. And the Bible says ....
Yes, that is fair enough. I can't talk about physical science, as I am not educated enough IN the physical science, but I think it is MORE than fair for you and Fairlight and any other person to reject science if you choose, I am just asking you not to use terms like DNA etc, if you refuse to accept what DNA tells you as scientific facts.
In other words, it is hypocritical to pick and choose what part of genetic science you choose to believe, I might not understand your stance but I defend your right to reject science in general.
regards,
B
