Evidence that populations descended from the 16 grandsons of Noah

by hooberus 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hooberus

  zen nudist said: genetics tell a very different story... according to the most recent data only ONE major tribe of humans left africa and are at the foundation of all other peoples on earth...the richest genetic diversity of the planet among humans still resides among its most ancient tribes who never left....in africa alone are the greatest genetic differences as one would expect of all other humans come from only one tribe that left....and this would not be the case had any global flood wiped out all humans but one family...the tribes in africa would likewise show the same genetic closeness that all other humans currently share, which is not the case.

  The genetic data is compatible with all modern humans being recently descended from a small population of flood survivors. Even evolutionists who do not believe in the global flood in the Bible use the term "Noah's Ark hypothesis" to describe the genetic situation with regards to all modern humans sharing a recent common ancestor. I am not saying that the evolutionists who use the term 'Noah's Ark hypothesis" are arguing for the historicity of the genesis account (they belive that the recent common ancestor/s of modern humans themselves sharred a common ancestor with apes) however, their use of terminology such as "Noahs' Ark hypothesis" does show that the genetic data is consistent with the Biblical account and inconsistent with some evolutionary scenarios.)

  The following is from:

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp

  I trust the analogy is clear. The mitochondrial Eve data does not force the belief that there was only one woman from whom we all descended ? in other words, it doesn?t prove the Bible ? but ? a very important ?but? ? it is most definitely consistent with it. In other words, had there been more than one mitochondrial ?surname?, it would have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario. And it was not something that was expected by evolutionists. To explain it in their scenario requires a small population of modern humans to arise in one part of the world (archaic humans having already evolved and spread across the globe), and from there, spread out to replace all the other less-evolved humans, so that we all descend from that small original population (the ?out-of-Africa? or ?Noah?s Ark? theory of human evolution).

  I don't believe that the genetic data requires an african origin for modern humans as opposed to an Ararat (Biblical location) origin.

  The following is from:

  http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-229.htm

  Unfortunately, there was a serpent stalking this "Eve" as well as the first Eve. The researchers used a computer program designed to reveal a "maximum parsimony" phylogeny. This would be the family tree with the least number of mutational changes, based on the assumption that evolution would have taken the most direct and efficient path?a rather strange assumption, considering the presumed random and haphazard nature of evolutionary change. The computer program was, however, far more complicated than the biochemists realized. They did not know that the result of their single computer run was biased by the order in which the data were entered. It is now recognized that with thousands of computer runs and with the data entered in different random orders, an African origin for modem humans is not preferred over the other continents. There is also the suggestion that in the original study the biochemists were influenced in their interpretation of the computer data by their awareness of other evidence, which seemed to them to favor an African origin.
• 

  hooberus

  Buster said: To accept the account of the flood, one would first need to rationalize another genetic reality: The Y-chromosome is passed, intact, down thru all the male members in a line. It was this chromosome that scientists used some few years ago to confirm the common ancestry of the Ethiopian Jews.

  That is to say that all men today would have the identical Y-chromosome. We don't.

  Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati Eight printing November 1999.

  "Evolutionists believed they had clear proof against the biblical account, because "Mitochondrial Eve" supposedly lived 200,000 years ago. However, recent evidence shows that mitochondrial DNA mutates far faster than previously thought. (24) If this new evidence is applied to "Mitochondrial Eve," it indicates that she would have lived only 6,000-6,500 years ago. (25) Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the biblically indicated age of the "mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), (26) but an enigma for evolution/long age beliefs. Interestingly, there is a parallel account with males: evidence from the Y-chromosome is consistent with all people being descended from a single man. (27) The data is also consistent with a recent date for this "Y-chromosome Adam." (28)"

  24. T.J. Parsons et al., "A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region," Nature Genetics, 15:363-368, 1997.

  25. L. Loewe and S. Scherer, "Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422-423, 1997; A. Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science, 279(5347):28-29, 1998.

  26. C. Wieland, "A Shrinking Date for 'Eve,' " CEN Technicl Journal, 12(1):1-3, 1998.

  27. R.L. Dorit, Hiroshi Akashi, and W. Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y-Chromosome," Science,268(5214):1183-85, May 26,1995; perspective in the same issue by S. Paabo, "The Y-Chromosome and the Origin of All of Us (Men)," p. 1141-1142.

  28. D.J. Batten, "Y-Chromosome Adam?" CEN Technical Journal, 9(2):139-140, 1995. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/216.asp
• 

  [email protected]

  Freedom to debate is good.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/churchofjehovah/
• 

  Buster

  Hoob, I looked into the references you provided. Sorry, you are quoting people who are taking the research out of conrtext. You are quoting snippets out of context and ignoring the fact that the research was actually pointing out the opposite of what you are expecting people to believe.

  So: It surprises no one that research indicates that all males are descedned from one individual. But this is being used as a Straw Man argument. It is not the point. The question is how far back that individual goes, and could it have possibly been as recent as the fictional Noah The mathematical model used in the Dorit et al. ariticle points to a 270,000 year-old common ancestor.

  Also, other apologists misquote these articles by focusing on the statements of similarities of all the tested Y-chromes. But again, the issue isn't with the similarities, it is with the differences. I have the exact same Y as my Dad, and so on. But I don't have the exact same Y as my next-door neighbor. The differences are in the mutations (few tho they may be)since that common ancestor - much further back than that storytime boatbuilding character.

  You are quoting misquotes. Feel free to have the last word.

  - Cliff
• 

  Valis

  Buster have you ever had spicy grilled chicken, pepper jack cheese and pickled jalapenos on a pizza?

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  funkyderek

  Hooberus, your continued ignorance of a subject you seem to spend a lot of time studying is baffling. It's clear you don't understand the concepts you're discussing, and you seem to have got your entire knowledge of biology and human evolution from a laughably inaccurate and biased creationist website, despite having repeatedly referred to websites and books that could provide you with real useful information on the subject. It's obvious you have trouble grasping even the simplest points of the arguments as you tend to blitz the board with blocks of text pasted from your favourite site, rather than engaging in a rational discussion of evidence.

  So read a real book about evolution or look at the talk.origins website and if you don't understand something ask somebody
• 

  hooberus

  So: It surprises no one that research indicates that all males are descedned from one individual.

  It was not a surprise to creationists, but it is damaging to some evolutionary scenarios.

  But this is being used as a Straw Man argument. It is not the point. The question is how far back that individual goes, and could it have possibly been as recent as the fictional Noah The mathematical model used in the Dorit et al. ariticle points to a 270,000 year-old common ancestor.

  How are these dates calculated? It has been my experience that dates such as these are calculated based on the evolutionary assumptions that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor (the assumption of evolution) and that this ancestor lived around 4.5 million years ago. Dates based on evolutionary assumptions may be useful in trying to determine how long ago evolutionary events happened if evolution were known or to be true. However, dates based on evolutionary assumptions do not disprove a biblical chronology of all men being recently descended from Adam, because in this case there was no human/chimpanzee common ancestor. The empirical way to calculate the time of a human common ancestor for all modern men is to compare the genetic distance of modern men and then using real world studies of mutation rates (as opposed to those calculated based on the assumption of human/ chimps sharring a common ancestor).

  Also, other apologists misquote these articles by focusing on the statements of similarities of all the tested Y-chromes. But again, the issue isn't with the similarities, it is with the differences. I have the exact same Y as my Dad, and so on. But I don't have the exact same Y as my next-door neighbor. The differences are in the mutations (few tho they may be)since that common ancestor - much further back than that storytime boatbuilding character.

  Creationists also believe that mutations have occurred since Adam. The question is that of dates.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus is to evolution as Bibleman is to chronology. It's truly sad that after all this time hooberus has not given up his childhood fantasies. I presume he still believes in Santa Claus.
  
  rem
• 

  Valis

  hrmm...16 grandsons huh? Even if they didn't split up wouldn't there be considerable inbreeding? If this were the case the entire population of the world would be living in a trailer park somewhere in the Apalachian mountains...*LOL*

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  ThiChi

  The concept of one ancestor violates the fundamental principles of a random process in relation to genetics and mathematic probabilities. For evolution to be true it is required that there be so many different base strands of DNA that we must be able to accurately place every organism on Earth into a specific genetic family and not be able to move species around the way evolutionists do today