[Continued from Part 1]
Our first parents could have easily provided far more genetic variety than the human race now displays. Much of that diversity would have been lost when the human race was reduced once again to only three breeding couples because of the flood of Noah. It must be noted that these three breeding couples would have, of course, obtained their genetic inheritance in the same way as humans do today. This will be discussed later.
Now we shall go to the genetic evidence for humanity’s first father, the man Adam
Shortly after discovering “mitochondrial Eve,” researchers became interested in doing the same for the “genetic Adam.” They had found the genetic “mother of all living,” now they wanted evidence for our original human father.
What was needed was something as unique in male inheritance as mitoDNA was thought to be in female inheritance. The obvious was the Y-chromosome, found only in male humans. This would be a significant trail to trace back to our first father. This was done, and the man was of course dubbed “Y-Chromosome Adam:”
By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 – 90,000 years ago, a man also known as Y-chromosomal Adam. ~Spencer Wells
Evolutionist Spencer Wells is the go-to guru evolutionist for “genetic Adam.” His National Geographic documentary aired on PBS presents the evidence from his research found also in his 2002 book, “The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey.”
The key here is that our genetic Adam was found to have a history only 3/4 as long as genetic Eve (that is, 90,000 years instead of 120,000 years). Although the 90,000 years does not fit the Biblical time line, the ratio of 3/4 does fit exactly.
MitoDNA is rarely distributed through the father, but almost always through the mother in each generation. The glitch that multiplied the speed of variation in the mitoDNA was the discovery that males may contribute mitoDNA to their offspring, though it is rare when they do so.
Could there be a factor that might increase the rate of Y-chromosome variation among males as well, in much the same way as accelerated the mitoDNA variation in all of us?
It is already known that fertile women are capable of carrying (and thereby transmitting to their male offspring) a Y-chromosome. Actress Jamie Lee Curtis is the most famous example of a normal woman who is a carrier. Whether a cause for such a 20-times-faster diversification rate will ever be found for the male Y, the fact still remains that the history of the Y-DNA is given as 3/4 the history of the mitoDNA as estimated by the evolutionist. This ratio fits the human genetic history as indicated in the Bible.
Think of the mitoDNA that was on the Ark
The three couples from which we are all descended were made up of three women with three different family backgrounds (Genesis 9:19). Combine that with the potential but rare contribution from the male mitoDNA, and you get a large variety of it in the three pairs disembarking from the Ark just over 4350 years ago.
Now consider the Y-DNA diversity on the Ark.
All three Y-chromosomes were transmitted from the same man’s DNA. That one man was Noah. Y-DNA therefore should not have as much variety today as mitoDNA has.
Indeed, one of the portions of the human Y has been found to be identical among all living males today. It is a 729-unit long sequence that should have randomly changed a great deal in 90,000 years, but really did not have sufficient time to change at all, during the actual Biblical 4450 years since Y variation began with Noah’s offspring. (Dorit, R; Akashi, H; Gilbert, W; “Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y Chromosome,” Science, vol. 268, p1183-5, 1995
… there are no differences at this location on the Y chromosome between human males living today.
According to the Biblical history of humans then, 1686 years of mitoDNA variation since Eve was represented by four mitoDNA samples on the Ark.
Add that to the 4350 years since then, and you get over 6000 years’ worth of human female genetic history.
But only 4450 years-worth of male genetic diversity should show up in the world today (Shem’s genetic split from his father Noah occurred at the time of his birth, 98 years before the Flood).
This works out cleanly as a 3/4 ratio to the variety of female genetic inheritance.
Once again, the genetic history of mankind correlates better with the Biblical record and time line than with the Darwinian one. It may even fit more cleanly if a female Y-chromosome contribution to the male lineage can be established, as has already been found for the male mitoDNA contribution.
Also early in the study of the human genome, there was evidence the entire human race was once reduced to only a tiny few about the timing of Noah’s Flood in Genesis.
Before DNA analysis was developed, blood serum protein analysis was used in doing genetic research. In the 1970s, scientists realized that such a “genetic bottleneck” had indeed occurred, as indicated by the amount of variety found in the human blood protein called hemoglobin. (Haigh, J. and Maynard Smith, J. “Population size and protein variation in man,” Genetical Research, vol. 19, p73-89, 1972)
The research of Spencer Wells and others has verified many times over that all living humans are descended from one of four—and only four—human gene pools.
Why not just one gene pool? Your opinion will depend upon whether you believe in evolution or not.
Think of the crew on Noah’s Ark. There was Noah and his family—that makes one gene pool. Then there were the three wives of the sons, from three more gene pools—that makes a total of four.
Once again, modern science has corroborated the Biblical version of the history of humankind—not the Darwinian version.
But can you go from 6 people to 7 billion in only 4350 years. Yes.
- Given an average family size of 2.5 children per generation from the Flood until the year 2000 AD, the world’s population can be mathematically estimated at 6.5 billion.
- If the first Homo sapiens came on the scene even 500,000 years ago (versus the Biblical 6000 years), then that number could be many trillions of times greater.
So why is the human population not vastly greater than it is now, as the Darwinian time-scale predicts? Why is the population right with the prediction from the Biblical model?
Logic demands that the Biblical history of the human race is the true time-scale. There simply is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the biblical history of mankind. There is an abundance of scientific evidence from the field of genetic research, demanding complete abandonment of the distorted Darwinian history along with its artificially inflated time-scale.