Taken from the Wikipedia about the current scienctific study pertaining to the "Eve Gene". Some of this is hard to comprehend for the biology-impaired like your truly, but stick with it."Naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation story by Wilson, has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living female of her time — she was not (indeed, had she been, humanity would have probably become extinct). Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of mitochondria that persists today.
Imagine a family tree of all humans living today. Now imagine a line from each individual to their mother, and continue those lines from each of those mothers to their mothers, and so on. Going back through time their mitochondrial lineages will converge as sisters share the same mother. The further back in time one goes, the fewer mitochondrial ancestors of living humans there will be until only one is left — this is the latest common matrilineal ancestor of all the humans alive today, i.e. Mitochondrial Eve.Now, going in the opposite direction of the family tree (from ancient times to today), imagine the same line, which now connects mothers to their daughters. Starting with the entire human population alive at some time in the past, lineages will become extinct as women die childless or only have male children. Eventually, only a single lineage remains, which is the same as before.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal (female-lineage) ancestor for mtDNA, not the MOST COMMON RECENT ANCESTOR (MRCA) of all humans. The MRCA's offspring HAVE LED TO ALL LIVING HUMANS, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineage, so she is estimated to have lived much longer ago than the MRCA. While Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have been living around 150,000 years ago, the MRCA is estimated to have been living ONLY A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO.So, ladies and gentleman, if I am reading this correctly, AND I MAY NOT BE, this article is stating that the MRCA or "Most Common Recent Ancestor" FOR ALL MANIKIND is estimated to have bee living ONLY A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO.
Anyone care to speculate? Dare I suggest that using reason, that the Bible..... just ..... might..... line ...... up .... with .......
dare I say it?
(drum roll)
SCIENCE??? (timpani) bom bom bom BOM BOM BOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM.)
To be continued...
8 comments:
Oh Craig.....
Seth is such a trouble maker.
Party on, Seth.
Nah. First off, the article doesn't suggest that the possibly traceable MRCA was the original human. Second, even if it were, that would put it about 4,000 years away from anything that YCE's would accept as Biblical.
I don't really know enough about genetics to speak about the possible veracity of this study, but logically, I don't see a theological conflict with it being true. That's not saying that I think it is true or false, just that I don't see a problem with it either way.
But that's more to the point, isn't it? Even if the nearest identifiable MRCE, (10,000 years ago), were said to be the original human, I wouldn't call that support of Biblical truth. To call it support of Biblical truth, (requiring some logical gymnastics), places Scripture under science; it says that it requires scientific verification in order to be true. Were that true, we'd have a whole lot of problems.
For example, archaeology shows that Jericho's walls never "came tumbling down." If the Bible required scientific verification, Biblical truth in any form would be cast in a whole mess of darkness and uncertainty. There are simply things that science cannot and will not be able to prove or disprove. There's a lot of the mysterious and miraculous in the Bible that is integral to our faith.
Further, acceptance of Mitochondrial Eve as Biblical support requires acceptance of a literal interpretation of the creation story, which is debatable at least and theologically flawed at most.
So not only does Mitochondrial Eve not align science and the Bible, we shouldn't try to make it seem that it does.
i dunno. i have some questions/comments for cach though. i usually agree with a lot of what you say. actually most. but, i do not think that just because archeologists say that jericho's walls never came tumbling down, doesn't mean that they didn't. hundred years from now, they could change their mind and say that new evidence shows that jericho's walls did come tumbling down. you said it best yourself, "there are simply things that science will not be able to prove or disprove." all I am saying is that scientists are limited, and they have been known to change their minds. also, you do have to keep in mind that some scientists may set out to disprove the bible, just as some scientists set out to prove it. it's a big war really. we have to be careful about what we believe.
also, mitochondrial eve, according to seth's article is scientific, and isn't neccessarily trying to support the bible. (or is it?) it is just presenting scientific evidence.
also, i am confused about your comment. are you trying to say that mitochondrial eve does line up with the bible or that it doesn't? i am confused because of your comment, "acceptance of ME as biblical support requires acceptance of literal interpretation of the creation story." This comment doesn't seem to line up with your first statement; "second, even if it were, that would put it about 4000 years away from anything that YCE's would accept as biblical." if it is 4000 years off, it can't be biblical.
sorry so confused. please explain.
Seth, didn't you earlier tell me that it would trace back 6000 years, not 10 thousand? confused here as well.
Sorry, OpPop, I suppose I wasn't as clear as I could have been.
First, I'll say that I didn't mean to imply that I didn't believe that the walls of Jericho fell as the Bible story tells us it did. I was making a point about the unreliability of science informing how we read the Bible. Science doesn't factor in the miraculous. It's just not a possible outcome for a scientific investigation. So when science says there's no evidence that the walls fell at Jericho, I say, "Doesn't matter." I'm not going to look to science for confirmation of the miraculous.
And I don't think that ME is set out to prove the Bible. I'm saying that we shouldn't view it that we either. We shouldn't get all excited and point and say, "See! See! Proof!"
I'm not saying that ME lines up with the Bible, and I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that I don't see it in conflict with the Bible, but I don't think that it should therefore be used as Biblical support. It was never intended as either Biblical support or refutation and I think it should be left there.
My comment about YEC was just to say that even if there were an initial YEC impulse to affirm this kind of science because it speaks to a single genetic origin of humanity, the timeline would nix that impulse. It can't work for YEC theory, and it can't work for non-literal interpretation either.
Does that even begin to clear things up, or have I just made things worse? Sorry!
thankyou cach! we are in agreement again!
not that cach needs me to agree with him.
Sorry, Operamama, for some reason I thought Operapapa had put up that comment to which I responded. I didn't mean to confuse the two of you. Mea culpa.
Anything to add here anyone? I would have thought this might generate more discussion!
Post a Comment