Waist Hip Ratios and the Four Year Itch
Rochester and the Curse of the Fast Ferry

Mitochondria DNA and the Y Chromosome


Some scientists were reading a post on this blog or somewhere else when they came across a serious reference to Adam and Eve. They laughed so hard they fell off their perches and cracked their heads, whereupon they were rushed to the hospital. After some patching and a blood transfusion each to top off the tank, they were released.

Alright, alright! So they weren't scientists. I mean....they were, but they were specifically evolutionists. Not all scientists believe evolution, though most do.

But why should they laugh till they hurt themselves? Do we not hear all the time about the missing link that connects us to primates? That's link, (singular) not links (plural). If the necessary mutation needed to separate our ancestors from those of the orangutan has a one in bazillion chance of occurring, are we to believe it happened numerous times? So even from their standpoint, if it just happened once, why not term that being Eve, and its first mate Adam? (or vice versa)

This conclusion is supported by some evidence. Scientists have studied mitochondria DNA, inherited only from the female, and have traced all living humans back to a single female, a MRCA (most recent common ancestor). They have studied the Y chromosome, inherited only from the male, and traced us all back to a common male ancestor as well!

Now don't get all excited. Evolutionists don't say they were married, or even lived at the same time. The dates they assign, depending on who you read, are within the framework of Genesis. But they don't say these were the only two persons alive in their time. Far from it.

They do agree on a common male and a common female ancestor. Some agree on a time frame compliant with Genesis. And that's something.


Yes, with regard to the evolution/creation debate, we do think it's well to weigh in on behalf of the good guys, not only of account of the question itself, but also on account of its clear implications. If God truly did create the earth and humankind, maybe he has a purpose for them. Maybe he just won't stand by and see humans wreck everything he has made. Maybe he will toss the destructive louts, just like a landlord will toss rotten tenants. In short, maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel.

On the other hand, if earth and everything on it are merely the result of blind chance, of mutation, preserved only by natural selection, then if humans have any bright future, it lies in efforts they themselves are making.

And they’re not doing so well.


Tom Irregardless and Me                No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash



Defending Jehovah’s Witnesses with style from attacks... in Russia, with the book ‘I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses—Searching for the Why’ (free).... and in the West, with the book, 'In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction'



I've found that many arguments that are interpreted to support evolution do not dismiss creation. For example: many of the timeframes given for the rise of civilization are around 6,000 years ago (4,000 BCE). This is in line with the Biblical account of human origins.

"What about Carbon Dating?" one might ask (sometimes two ask, as well). Carbon Dating is based on the assumption that Carbon 14 decays at a very specific rate. Wikipedia.org mentions what another assumption is that the same amount of Carbon 14 was in the atmosphere in the past as in 1950. So if the ratios are off, then the assumption is wrong, and therefore the measurements would be off.

Again, evolutionist tend to submit items for "proof" of evolution. However, I haven't seen any "proof" that discredits Creation.

Romulus Crowe

Tom, there's one often-overlooked issue with this X and Y ancestor thing. It's often said that the Y-chromosome Adam can't have been associated with X-chromosome Eve, because 'Adam' lived much later.

Shame on science for missing the obvious. It wasn't Adam they found.

On the Ark, there was Noah, his three sons (who all inherited their Y chormosomes from him), Noah's wife and their sons' wives.

The four women were unrelated. They carried different X chromosomes, which could be traced back to a much earlier common ancestor (Eve). Women have two X chromosomes, men have one, so there were 12 human X chromosomes on the Ark, probably all unrelated.

There were four Y chromosomes, three of which were derived from one, Noah.

All other sources of the Y chromosome would have been erased by the flood, except Noah and his sons.

So if we trace back from now, then (assuming the Bible is correct) it would be possible to find the time at which Eve lived, but not possible to find Adam.

Only one instance of Adam's Y-chromosome survived the flood, in Noah. His sons carried the same Y as him. So any tracing we do on the Y chromosome will stop at Noah.

That's as good an explanation of the discrepancy in dates as anything I've seen from the scientists involved in that work. In fact, it's a better explanation than most, even if I do say so myself.

I see a fundamentalism arising in science, where some panic if anything they find looks like it might, in any way, support religious beliefs. That gives rise to spurious, rushed, ill-thought-out explanations, and that's bad science.

There's a lot of it about.

tom sheepandgoats


Thank you for the info on dating. I knew there was something there, but I'd forgotten the details. Maybe your source can bring me up to speed. Or maybe Rom can weigh in on this. He has a clear head and is not afraid to tackle prevailing opinion.


"In fact, it's a better explanation than most, even if I do say so myself."

I second that, Rom, it is a good explanation. I never thought of it. Thanks.


Thanks, Tom. Rom, I've thought similar thoughts myself regarding Noah and the Ark.

I'm curious, though. Assuming that the flood story is true, then would it be a logical conclusion that the Carbon 14 ratios would have been different from 1950? If that's true, is it possible that the "ancient man" scenarious could be seriously off in dates? I know there's a lot of assumptions there, but I like exploring lines of logic. To stretch the point further: could it also follow that Neanderthal Man (there's evidence that they coexisted with Homo Sapiens) is perhaps the offspring of the Nephelim of Biblical fame?

I know I'm stretching a thought process here, but it seems to me to tidy things up a bit. That's just me speculating, though. Any thoughts from anyone>


To the comment about Carbon-14 dating. Apparently, you didn't read its Wikipedia entry in its entirety.

Creationists like to think the problem with varying C-14 levels in the atmosphere completely discredits the entire dating method. It doesn't. Modern date calculations take these variations into account. If we know what the carbon levels in the atmosphere are in a certain period, an accurate date can be extrapolated. We know these levels from a variety of sources: ice core samples and tree rings to mention a few. At the very worst, Carbon dating can be off by about 700 years. When you're talking about millions of years, that's not much at all. There is no controversy over Carbon 14 outside of religious circles.


I must clarify something I posted about Carbon dating. Contrary to popular belief, radiocarbon dating is not used for samples that are millions of years old. It is only suitable to use the method for organic matter up to 45,000-60,000 years old.

This method, however, is not the only method used. Radiocarbon dating is not used to determine the age of dinosaur fossils, for example. This is where Radiometric dating steps in.

Radiometric dating measures the breakdown of other isotopes (the breakdown of Potassium-40 to Argon-40 being the most common) in the rock. Since the earth's crust is layered like a cake, the layer where a fossil is found determines the age.

Attacking scientists for using radiocarbon dating on million-year-old fossils is a straw man argument, since no real scientist uses this method on samples that old in the first place.

tom sheepandgoats

Brian, thanks for the clarification. As my other posts make clear, I accept Bible accounts and their interpretations when they are uncontaminated by the fundamentalists. I do not look to science as the "be all and end all." But neither do I want to fly in the face of what is scientifically established. Thanks again and feel free to weigh in any time you spot a blunder, which you might be able to catch sooner than I.

The comments to this entry are closed.