12/17/2009                                                                                       View Comments

Dispelling the Original Sin

By Wise_Fool

Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950-955...Image via Wikipedia

Isn’t it hard when everything is going along OK, and then out of left field, something comes along to completely STUFF IT UP! The following information is so important it’s scary.

Over the last 5 years the National Geographic has conducted “The Genographic Project” to establish human origins. They have tested the DNA of approximately 35,000 people and what they have found will have a profound impact, especially on inerrant bible believing Xtians.

Why? The study has shown that ALL males share the same Y chromosome (Male Y chromosome is passed on unchanged from generation to generation), which traces back to a single male – Adam, Garden of Eden, 4000BC, right? – No, the East Coast of Africa, 50-60,000BC (let’s call him Alpha Y). From this extensive, highly documented, and practically indisputable research we can’t help but come to the following conclusions;

No Adam. No Sin. No Saviour required. Adam cannot possibly have been the first male on earth – as he has a fixed genealogy dating him at an exact time in history (approx 6,000 years ago). This means God had to do this miraculous intervention against the laws of nature to make a new man out of the dust of the ground – for what reason? To set him up as the fall guy for all of humanity?

Hold that thought. Let’s suppose that is true, that would imply there are two strains of Y chromosome in existence, the one Alpha Male, and one for Adam (so far 35,000 people have been tested (Jew and Gentile) and only Alpha Y has been discovered),we must deduct the following:
  1. Adams “Original Sin” would only apply to his offspring - as God was into cursing the lineage (in some cases to a 1000 generations).
  2. The Alpha Y lineage therefore was sinless; otherwise God would not have had to manufacture Adam.
  3. Even if there was a lot of intermarrying between the two strains, there could still be “sinless” people on the earth today. That being said, if Adam was a divine creation made by the hand of God himself, surely it would have been the Adam Y chromosome that would have dominated to this day.
  4. As most all of us have the Alpha Y chromosome, we cannot be Adams descendants and therefore “Original Sin” does not apply to us.
  5. No Original Sin, No Saviour required

The other scenarios are even more devastating for Xtianity – if there was NO Adam at all, or that he was just a nobody who could not have had any significant impact on mankind, no matter what he did.

No Adam. No Sin. No Saviour required.

This is the absolute cornerstone of the Xtian faith. The bible says that just as one man, Adam, caused the problem, one man, Jesus, came to fix it up. The whole argument has now gone down the toilet. No intelligent person can deny the facts - How long will the church be able to hold out against this one, as every rationalisation creates a new set of problems to answer.

Here are a couple of links:

National Geographic: “The Genographic Project

ABC TV Australia – Documentary on “The Genographic Project

As a side issue, this discovery rules out the Noah and the Ark story - Noah's family would all have had the Adam Y and therefore everyone in the world today would also have to have the Adam Y. If however, we confine Noah's adventure to a “localised” incident, that didn’t affect the whole world, all Jews, or at least the majority, should have the Adam Y – which is yet to be discovered.

The Garden of Eden myth is becoming like the Spruce Goose, it looks big and real, but it just doesn’t fly.



Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

50 comments:

webmdave said...

I fail to see how this scientific evidence disproves. Orthodox Christians openly admit that the creation account is mythology. The first chapters of Genesis if taken literally implode on themselves. They are self-contradictory at times, for example the Sun (the very celestial object by which measure the length of a day), doesn't come into existence until the 4th day. Better yet, Genesis 1 and 2, which are historically derived from two separate literary sources, contradict each other at times. In Chapter 1, Adam is the last creation of God, in Chapter 2, Adam is one of the first things created, before all other plant life and animals. The literary inconsistencies don't disprove the myth. Nor do the scientific discoveries disprove the myth.

These new discoveries may disprove certain interpretations (such as literal creationism, which Augustine had already dismantled in the 4th century), but disproving one interpretation of a text hardly makes the text altogether obsolete or irrelevant. These discoveries merely force the reader to look towards a wider scope of truth. Modern science has provided many great advancements, but it alone does not have a monopoly on truth.

Modern science discovers how the empirical world operates. Science by itself can not rightly make any metaphysical claim, despite the efforts of militant atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins. The scientific community would serve itself well if it stuck to its discipline. Please, allow the philosophers and theologians to explicate certain metaphysical claims from scientific discoveries.

webmdave said...

Hi BJ

In followup to your comments re a single male ancestor. As I sit on the fence in the creation/evolution stakes, it was not the objective of the article to prove or disprove either theory.

The article was to show, that science has given us substancial evidence pointing at a single male approximately 60,000 years ago in africa, not 6,000 years ago in the middle east. As this males Y chromosome is common to all males on the planet, therefore it is hard to build a case that Adam was a unique being created by God, and the author of original sin. Without the cornerstone of original sin, there was no reason to follow that up with a savior.

My personal opinion is that there was most likely a wise teacher called Jesus a couple of thousand years ago, but he was not the son of god. Like all religions, Christianity is primarily man made, built on some wise teachings, many of which are not dissimilar to Buddhas, but the rest is construct. Religion is about power and control - I could see it, but it just took me 30 years to acknowledge it.

The fact that Adam as the original man is now proven erroneous at best gives a very shakey foundation to build a life on. I cannot even begin to tell you what a fresh perspective I have on life since I gave belief in Jesus (I didn't say God) away earlier this year.

Cheers BJ, all the best in your journey

webmdave said...

~BJ,

http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=112...

Ardi, the hominid is 4.4 million years old, estimated by geophysics, a million years earlier than Lucy.

I am not aware of The Creation story, being set in Africa a few million years ago or so… it seems.

I am quite sure there are geneticists at this moment, doing research into the past based on evidence.

Regarding multiple DNA strains, the Creation argument doesn't account for a common ancestor, leading to possible specie variants; apes, Neanderthals, etc.

DNA defines us physiologically, and is being used to delineate/re-categorize previously identified affiliates of Homo sapiens by scientific approximation.

“In recent years, the Out of Africa theory has become increasingly dominant. In part, this is due to evidence provided by new genetic techniques. In three remarkable experiments, scientists extracted DNA from Neanderthal fossils and compared it with that of modern humans. The DNA was very different, supporting, but not proving the idea that Neanderthals were a separate species.”
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/facts/tree_evolution.html

The advances in understanding were catapulted forward by Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner, chemistry 1993 - based on a technique to produce an unlimited amount of DNA from the smallest amount of tissue. This affords scientists an unlimited supply of physical evidence to subject to testing, which was previously a 'major' barrier to genetic research advances.

The advances that are being made, are occurring in ever-increasing rates for some disciplines/areas; the evidence we have at the moment, defies both biblical Creation Stories in Genesis by fact based physical evidence.

Science is beyond the bible, it has effectively provided enough evidence to relegate that scrap-book properly as - fiction.

Peace

webmdave said...

What gets me is the way the xians will deny any real scientific evidence like this that points to their bible being a myth, and just claim that its the devil tricking you, or that science does not give real answers. They they turn around with monstrosities like their "creation museum" and try to claim that science supports all their myths! They make my brain hurt.

webmdave said...

Mitochondrial Eve wasn't married to Y-chromosomal Adam. They had other mates. Also, m-Eve wasn't the only female around in her time, nor was Y-Adam the only male around in his time.

webmdave said...

Your conclusions seem unfounded. Finding a single male ancestor would strengthen rather than diminish the creation story. If evolution were true then one would expect to find multiple DNA strains of upright hominids. Or so it seems to me.

God Bless you during this season of the year.
~BJ

webmdave said...

Let them each submit a hypothesis re. each claim to the broad scientific community and let it stand up to peer review. Creationism is hardly regarded as "science" as it is. Those people look more and more ridiculous. It is galling that some of them view scientific discernment of their work to be an "attack by Satan". Some of those people are honestly as dumb as Bobby Boucher and his mamma in 'The Waterboy' (starring Adam Sandler). Bobby and his momma have interesting explanations of why certain things happen. That is a pretty funny film...

webmdave said...

Thank you for that post. I love science. Following the scientific method is the only approach to solving real problems. Taking things on faith is absurd.

We live in the information age. I believe the propagation of hard scientific evidence will stomp out much of Xianity in areas with educated people. Fundamentalism (Xianity and other religions) will probably remain amongst the uneducated and impoverished masses. It sure would be nice to infiltrate pockets of radical Islam and confront them with hard scientific evidence. They are a group I am increasingly worried about, as they are scary delusional.

BTW, Christian "scientists" will probably claim the data from this study points to a single "Adam". Some Christians believe in a "Gap Theory" which suggests a time gap between verses 1 and 2 in chapter 1 of Genesis. This give them "wiggle room" that the Earth may be old.

webmdave said...

Pj,

I’ll have to defer that part of the topic to someone with more information.

My understanding is limited to Sykes’ findings, that there were 13 clan-mothers living in Africa. Of the 13, only ‘one’ explored, and traversed beyond the borders of Africa.

That particular clan-mother is singularly responsible for human globalization as we know the human form today.

In short, we all trace our global ancestry back to that single particular Eve/clan-mother.

Questions surrounding the left-behind, 12 clan-mothers; how long they lived, and the circumstances of their internal African evolution are still fertile grounds to research, for me - with the exception of knowing ~6 million Africans were transmigrated out-of-Africa between 1450C.E. and later 19th century via the slave trade industry.

What we do know, is that humans didn’t miraculously pop-up in a fantasized Holy Land Garden of Eden – in “Perfect” Genetic Form a few thousand years back… because of geographical fossil evidence, and the drift of genetic code, screaming of ‘junk DNA’ elements.

Further, that it’s a false attribution, to argue male dominance in terms of Creation, e.g., a Male God and his first “easy-bake oven” masterpiece, e.g., male Adam. Human globalization, isn’t interesting because of Adam’s first steps out-of-Africa, but because of Eve’s.

Peace

webmdave said...

Whoops, thanks. :)

webmdave said...

OK, There was a write-up in our local newspaper about this book today.

Title: Adam's Gene and the Mitochondrial Eve.
Author: Ahamed V.P. Kutty

Evidently, Dr. Kutty takes the Adam and Eve story, mixes in some science, and tries to make it fly.

A quote from a review:

"Although this method does have a few minor holes since using evidence connecting so many different sources is sometimes thin. For instance, the use of a theory in general relativity to explain how angels of heaven might be able to travel through wormholes to get between Heaven and Earth is, according to Kutty himself, “not readily acceptable but feasible”. In other words, there is only so much that science can explain."

Only so much that science can explain, so---god did it. Once again. Angels traveling through wormholes. Feasible.

The reason I find this notable is that this guy is my former pulmonologist. Maybe the reason he never did the tests that would have diagnosed my tracheal malacia was that he was a) Too darn busy working on his book, or b) praying that god would tell him what was wrong with me, but god was to darn busy helping him with his book.

At any rate, after years of him treating me for "asthma", I finally traveled 180 miles to a doctor who took a history and immediately did the tests necessary to find out what was actually wrong with me.

So, even if this book was not a mish-mash of somebody else's science research and some seriously flawed mythology, I would look back on his half-assed doctoring and figure the book wasn't worth bothering with, anyway.

The last quote in the review:

"It constructs a dazzling house of carefully implemented cards from decks that were previously completely segregated, and results in nothing less than science within religion within art, in perfect balance."

A house of cards. Yep, that sounds exactly like what Kutty has constructed.

webmdave said...

Just a question in regards to the mtdna Eve, I watched that doco on natgeo a week or so ago and found it extremely interesting but there were thousands of years between the "eve" and the "adam" how did we all come from them if they never had the chance to meet? Now, I'm not trying to "disprove" anything but I'm still wondering...

Peace

webmdave said...

:-D Credit where credit is due...

'E's a stiff! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the E-meter, 'e'd be pushin' up the daisies!

webmdave said...

so fascinating!! I love this kind of stuff

webmdave said...

Good explanation, except that C-14 decays to N-14 (by beta decay), not C-12.

webmdave said...

Welcome Freedom (Great Name)

It feels great doesn't it?! One thing the bible got right....."The Truth shall set you FREE!"

It's wonderful to find REAL Truth, especially after believing a lie for 20 years! I spent more than 40 years in the delusion; consider yourself fortunate that you got wise 20 years earlier than I did.

Welcome. Post your story, it will help solidify your new mindset. We look forward to hearing more from you.

XPD (Ex-Pastor Dan)

webmdave said...

Excellent info rrom Parse and Hotlips

My simple understanding is it's a bit like a family tree. What they have discovered is that there is apparently only one Y common to all males. So then, looking at each cultural group you see the other DNA that that group has in common, and then look for DNA traces that the parent cultures of that strain have in common with other cultural strains. From there it's a matter of building the tree backwards to the more common DNA traces and assessing a time scale based on the history we do have, and other scientic tools
As we have 99%+ (not sure of the exact %) in common with all other humans, the differences they are talking in % are incedibly small, but the spectrum is large.

webmdave said...

Welcome Freedom, as with you, I deconverted about 6 months ago after researching the facts and using my "God given" intellect, that was after thirty years of "believing".

I think everyone here will make you feel welcome and supported. It can be a bit of a bumpy takeoff, especially with your close relationships. That being said, nothing is worth living a lie for, and the people around you that love you for you, and not for what you believe, will still be there long after the dust settles.

"Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I'm free at last"

You will get used to a lot of posts on this site being a little sarcastic or "tongue in cheek" - I pray for you for discernment (see what I mean - must be the devil)

webmdave said...

No, exfundy channeled his former self, and briefly reconverted me to my former xtian self. Luckily, the Matrix Reloaded was playing, and the feelings of intense lust I felt for the voluptuous Monica Bellucci sent me right back into the ranks of the damned.

Welcome, and glad to hear there is a new baby exchristian in the world.

webmdave said...

Freedom, Hi, I'm not trying to jump in in front of juan, but Welcome !
juan marco is one of the regulars here who has a quick wit & very funny sense of humor ! Believe me, he said that tongue-in-cheek !
He is a non-believer.
P.S. I am glad that I'm atheist too ! It's no fun trying to live a big lie.

webmdave said...

Excellent point. The fact that satan is willing to go to such great lengths to deceive scientists with DNA only makes my faith stronger. He is real, PTL!!

webmdave said...

I agree that many, who’ve learned/accept the bible, as literalists, see the bible as The Lens to view all of one's reality and life.

I saw a decorative plate prominently displayed in a store recently, with the following biblical proverb/wise saying:

Proverbs 1:7 - "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."

Fear is a cognitive response to perceived danger; someone consumed by a sense of danger, is focused on protection, not consideration.

If someone is learning while in protect mode, they are reinforcing their sense/source of danger, thereby, moving one to clutch tighter, the concept many of us think entirely allegorical illusion.

In short, those who begin seeking knowledge via the 'fear of God' lens, will see everything as justified 'reinforcement' for the illusory lens itself.

Preaching godly 'fear', is to advocate a state of mind that requires one to take all information/knowledge and turn it inward - to build a mental wall that suffocates/prevents one from finding individuality and outward growth and - a connection with others outside the 'fear-driven' pack.

I don't interact well with those who have irrational compulsions or phobias, as... to me... any interaction I'd have with such individuals, would give them additional bricks to build their mental walls.

If I have to interact though, I use humor, as it openly 'mocks' and 'challenges' the driving 'fear'/root-cause its self.

Peace

webmdave said...

MF,

Here is a good book, that speaks in general terms for the lay person to understand, regarding time-lines, dating, mutation creep, etc., its Copyright date is 2001, but the research has been continuous. Since the publication, additional scientific evidence has increased the number of clan mothers to 10-12, as opposed to the originally identified "7", per the book title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughter...

An extremely easy read, if you're interested in helping out the layman who's truly perplexed about genetics, and human descent from a scientific POV.

The author provides a fictional narrative, in the later part of the book, detailing what it imaginatively might have been like for those prehistoric women who are solely responsible for this planet's human species.

As usual, if one were to take the book and crunch it down to empirical brass-tacs, they'd end up with a few pages of facts to sum it all up in an executive summary.

In typical fashion, in order to get the original research out, before someone infringed on the findings, the researchers published after peer presentation.

Since the publishing, the researchers have continual data coming in, to support their initial findings, and they've been getting genetic code voluntarily from thousands of people across the globe so they can map out the mito-drift geographically, back to our mothers and provide a richer description of our human evolution.

The book also touches on social conventions, like how societies/civilizations have adopted the ancestral linking via paternal/sir names, etc., as opposed to the many societies that trace their ancestry by maternal means. The research is an empirical means to cut through political convention and impropriety, i.e., identifying stolen children by maternal links, etc.

As science pushes us further towards objective understanding, the only non-proponents will be 'politicians', and others involved in deliberately clouding the objective facts for their own profit/benefit.

Just as it's possible to link the traces of our genetic past by objective means and provide objective family names, it is also possible to develop objective moral standards, etc. However, as has been stated by many throughout history:

Demosthenes: "Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."

Religion is based on a pack mentality, the protection of well-defined lines in the sand...

However, as we become more cognizant of our genetic heritage, we become more aware of our 'human' connection to those, we've never considered before, testing the pack rules on who is, and who isn't worthy to be considered a pack member - objectivity trumps tribalism and other social conveniences.

Peace

webmdave said...

The short version is that we have estimates as to how rapidly mutations accumulate. Using that, we can extrapolate how long it takes to homogenize the Y chromosome.

It's similar in nature to radiometric dating. We know that living organisms - all organisms - have mildly radioactive C-14 in a specific ratio to C-12. (As it decays, it gets replaced by new C-14 caused by cosmic radiation interacting somehow with N-14. Don't ask me the details, as I don't remember much more than that.) Once the organism dies, it stops taking in new C-14, and what is there slowly starts to decay to C-12. By comparing the ratio of the C-14 remaining to the C-12 present, we can estimate how much has decayed, and (by the known rate of decay) estimate how old the process is.

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is that even though the mutation rate is an estimate, it's actually pretty close - as we do tests to determine mutation rates.

webmdave said...

Juan_Marco,

I am assuming you were serious...

I hope you find out sooner rather than later in life that there are no gods in this world.

This is my very first post after being a long time christian (20 yrs). Less than a week ago - on my own and doing my own research - I realized that the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are completely made up.

Although I always thought (actually, always told) that atheism is evil and all people that say they are a-theist are bad, I now have to admit that I am an atheist. I am proud to be.

The bible is myth and fables, stories passed down for generations. I was really shocked to learn of all the errors and contradictions riddled throughout.

The Julie Sweeney performance 'Letting go of God' showing on Showtime this month piqued my interest. For the first time in my life I began to use my brain to determine if any of what these people were saying had any merit.

Thank god I'm an atheist! What an amazing peace I have. I have not felt this free and peaceful in at least 10 years.

webmdave said...

The sooner humans face reality and come to terms with the lack of evidence of any gods ever on earth, the better.

We think that we are advanced, but if the simple-minded humans of the past 2000 years had got their act together and had never believed all the rubbish that's been spouted about gods and religion, we would be even more advanced than Ron Hubbard thinks he is. Of course, none of us could ever be richer than he is, but we would have laughed him and his followers out of existence long ago.

webmdave said...

Here's the xtians out of every scientific discovery against the buybull.

"The wisdom of this world is foolishness to god." 1 Cor. 3:19

This statement counteracts all scientific discovery in the past, present, and future, in the minds of xtians. Because to xtians, the buybull contains all information and knowledge pertinent to all humans from the beginning of life, to the very end.

Although the buybull cannot be used as a reference book to build even a simple bird house, or information to heal a paper cut on the finger, to the fundy, the buybull already contains all the knowledge that can be obtained or ever desired, any other source of information is from Satan and his angels to deceive and turn people away from jeebus.

I can only see religions growing bigger in light of any scientific information or fact...it's so sad :-(

Xtians have been so convinced of hell, they are sooo afraid of hell, they say they are not, but they speak with forked tongue.

webmdave said...

I don't doubt the science as such, but for argument sake (When I have the conversation with others) how does the science prove the time frame? I will try to look this up, but thought someone might be able to give a laymans version of the answer here. This is a very interesting piece of knowledge and one that I have been unfamiliar with to this point. Thanks for the info!

Be Free,

MF

webmdave said...

"He was," actually. L. Ron Hubbard has been, to paraphrase Astreja, an ex-Scientologist since 1986.

webmdave said...

They never will. They're too afraid to let go of the nonsense.

webmdave said...

This is just another scientific fact to be added to a long list ignored by religious crazies. Like all other scientific discoveries, they'll find a way to ignore it or explain it away.

Another interesting DNA study done several years ago turned up a related interesting fact. That study found that there is more difference in DNA among black people than there is between black people and other ethnic groups. This is a real blow to people who think of black people as inherently inferior and also points to Africa as the origin of the human race.

As for the story of Adam and Eve, anyone with half a brain could see that it was just a story created by a primitive people to explain something they couldn't understand. There are just too many problems to consider it a real event even without the DNA evidence.

webmdave said...

Jehovah's leghumpers will just consider this a plot by Satan to lead people away from Jebus.

webmdave said...

That is profound. Old Testament lore would logically place Eden in the part of the world from whence the Hebrews think they came. The Hebrews can't have Eden exist in Africa. Just like the Hebrew "God" considers the Hebrews to be God's "chosen people". What sense would it make to have the cradle of civilization be someplace else...

I believe science will crush mysticism among the educated peoples of the world. No place for mysticism.

webmdave said...

Unfortunately, I think you're right. I sure don't expect to see it happen in my lifetime anyhow.

webmdave said...

I remember while in Community Bible Study, we were presented with the Adam & Eve "proof", which was so fantasy-like, I actually thought that I just might burst out laughing right there in the class. Like all of christianity
it is just a silly story invented by nincompoops.

webmdave said...

They'd just say there was no Neanderthal.

webmdave said...

Wise Fool,

Thanks for the thought provoking article. I think the genome project, and a few other researchers have definitely given us more than enough evidence to conclusively assert the Literal Xtian Bible as a comprehensive historical record for this planet, as... myth.

There are competing genome theories, however, the out of Africa theory is currently dominant based on evidence, as opposed to a multi-regional theory suggesting that humanity evolved synchronously & in-parallel at different regions/groups, etc.

I agree with the out of Africa theory, and have... been focused on this research for a while, and have participated in the genome project.

The biggest and most glaring conflicts between Biblical Literalists and the genome evidence for those accepting the out of Africa theory:

-Mito-Eve came first.
-Mito-Eve and fossil evidence empirically prove human existence between 82K years and 234K years before present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

The empirical evidence of humanity older than the Genesis account per the Hebrew Torah/Bible/OT, empirically disproves the OT's "historical context/accuracy" for the date/origins of life on this planet, as literally advocated by young earth creationists, or biblical literalists.

The empirical evidence of "Mito-Eve", empirically disproves those advocating the "social context" of Hebrew tradition, that the male is the dominant sex, that males are the 'favored' sex of God, e.g., all apostles are male, the metaphor Jesus and Xtian pronoun God are both male ideations, etc.

However, well-developed reasoning skills and access to empirical evidence are much less accessible, than religious propaganda for many on this planet - one's cognitive world-view is mentally formed/pieced together, using information available.

All we can do, is offer the information and show the evidence. I am a firm believer, as an educator, that; "I can't prove/disprove someone's belief, for them".

Again, thanks for the thought provoking article.

Peace

webmdave said...

I actually took part in this, though I had to do the mtdna since I don't have a Y-chromosome ;) ...It was really cool to find out that my ancestors came up out of Africa about 40K years ago and spread out to become the Bedouins, Russians, and my line which went off to Scotland and Ireland. I never would've imagined being that closely linked to Bedouins, even though I know that in the big picture, we're all related. It also was one of the links in the chain that helped destroy faith for me...

webmdave said...

Very interesting post, but I doubt the faithful will have any trouble discarding this information. Still, if enough evidence is piled up, sooner or later that damned camels back has to break...

webmdave said...

Because (everybody say it with me) god works in mysterious ways. He is unknowable, and this just proves it.

webmdave said...

No to put too much importance on it, but I watched the program on ABC Australia TV and thought that Nat Geo did 350,000 DNA samples. Perhaps I heard wrong. But the point still remains, Adam and Eve were ridiculous inventions of uneducated, unscientific minds, people carrying on the remains of old myths and legends and re-inventing them for the simple-minded folk of 2000 years ago.

Just another nail in the cross for Christianity, another piece of evidence of the lies that have been sprouted and forced upon millions of people throught the ages.

I always ask Christians; what version of man was created in god's image? Was it Neanderthal man, hominid? Perhaps earlier? So god is either covered in long body hair and can't talk, only grunt, or he has evolved over 60,000 years, or he is merely an invention of nasty, warlike Hebrews who nominated their god Yahweh, god of war, as their one true god and religions have followed that invention ever since.

I know what I think and have for more than 50 years!

webmdave said...

Let me channel the old me from my fundy days . . .

The old me just informed the current me that there was an error in their data that we humans just arern't smart enough to even realize it's there.

webmdave said...

BTW, I had a look at the link on the National Geographic site. They said 350,000 people were going to be tested, though I didn't hear them say how many had been tested yet. 350,000 is a huge sample size.

webmdave said...

Fascinating. How many more 'clues' will it take before biblical literalists actually give up their ridiculous myths?

webmdave said...

Science has begun to show that the Bible is definitely and without a doubt myth. Regardless, previous mythology alone would suggest it is all myth anyway.

webmdave said...

MF,

In order to appreciate the depth of the scientific work, and progresses in this field, books from leading geneticists are where the credibility is most sound on the subject matter.

However, as a non-expert in genetics, from what I gleaned from the book, and studying genetics, the following applies to your question...

"Differences in DNA:
At conception, DNA from the parents is recombined and copied. In the process changes may occur as simple mistakes in copying. Researchers discovered a region of mitochondrial DNA that has a number of neutral mutations. Genetic genealogists analyze one of these neutral regions for differences, which indicate that later generations with the same mutations are related. These differences occur at the rate of about one every 20,000 years.

Out of Africa:
Sykes applied the mitochondrial DNA knowledge to determine the progress of Homo sapiens out of Africa, the only place where there are fossils covering the last three million years from Homo erectus, to Homo neanderthalensis, to Homo sapiens. In 1997, DNA was sequenced from a Neaderthal and it had 26 differences from the average modern European, which indicates that they last shared a common ancestor about 250,000 years ago."
http://genealogical-research-methods.suite101.c...

Fossils were carbon dated.

DNA, et al., extractions were accomplished on the pre-historic, etc., fossils.

The genetic mutations among same genetic groups were figured by mapping a particular group "today” and fossils from the 'same' group back as far as fossil evidence provides.

The genetic 'rate of change' based on empirically evidenced DNA samples (living people today, and fossils), provided major shifts to occur at a rate of about one every 20K years.

Based on the number of shifts, the dating timeline was estimated.

In terms of explaining this to others, there is no Absolute answer for an exact date, as a matter of fact, our watches do not keep exact time, nuclear clocks do the best but are not infinitely absolute.

Science does not deal in absolutes, the philosophy of science, per those who are actually educated; understand that science is built on proximation, applying Bacon's approach to discovery; he’s credited with fusing empiricism and inductive reasoning.

Since, empirical science deals in proximation, there will always be ‘estimation’, e.g., % error rate.

This... error rate... does not discount the physical evidence, in the case of carbon-dating, it is the acknowledgement that when assigning an ‘exact’ time-stamp to a piece of physical evidence, it isn’t done with the precision of seconds, but in larger degrees of proximation, e.g., many times – years, depending on the conditions of the evidence.

In the end, one can argue for a few years flexibility, when we are talking in the scale of 200K+ years, but it’s entirely poppycock to demand forensic evidence to elicit 194K+ year discrepancies… in order to preserve a young earth creationist/literalist belief based on words in a scrap-book.

However, that is how many discussions seem to go with those who don’t really understand the science behind the argument.

A final analogy, someone using a laser range finder may spot a tree 30ft away, but there is going to be a limit to the precision. The tree may actually be 30ft and three inches away, but the calibration and specifications of a particular range finder may not provide that level of accuracy.

While we can scientifically acknowledge that the tree is about 30ft away, there are those who would demand:

1) The non-existence of the tree, 2) The deceptive laser range finder, created to render agenda driven data, 3) That the tree is really three inches from our face, because a book says that's the origin of the forest, but in order to confirm the truth of the statement, we really, really, really need to have faith & close our eyes, (especially the eye of reason) as we reach out into empty space, because if we have enough faith, we’re sure to ‘feel’ something.

Peace

webmdave said...

I left Xtianity about 6 months ago, and now feel like I got into one of the last lifeboats on the Titanic.

In regards to the gap theory, I think they will have a lot of trouble relocating an entire river network to Africa (location of Eden).

webmdave said...

Once again, science has prevailed over superstition! Data always beats dogma.

webmdave said...

Hahahahahahaha!

webmdave said...

I fail to see how this scientific evidence disproves. Orthodox Christians openly admit that the creation account is mythology. The first chapters of Genesis if taken literally implode on themselves. They are self-contradictory at times, for example the Sun (the very celestial object by which measure the length of a day), doesn't come into existence until the 4th day. Better yet, Genesis 1 and 2, which are historically derived from two separate literary sources, contradict each other at times. In Chapter 1, Adam is the last creation of God, in Chapter 2, Adam is one of the first things created, before all other plant life and animals. The literary inconsistencies don't disprove the myth. Nor do the scientific discoveries disprove the myth.

These new discoveries may disprove certain interpretations (such as literal creationism, which Augustine had already dismantled in the 4th century), but disproving one interpretation of a text hardly makes the text altogether obsolete or irrelevant. These discoveries merely force the reader to look towards a wider scope of truth. Modern science has provided many great advancements, but it alone does not have a monopoly on truth.

Modern science discovers how the empirical world operates. Science by itself can not rightly make any metaphysical claim, despite the efforts of militant atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins. The scientific community would serve itself well if it stuck to its discipline. Please, allow the philosophers and theologians to explicate certain metaphysical claims from scientific discoveries.