I see no way to fit mtDNA and YDNA with a literal interpretation of Genesis

[Papias]

On another thread we were discussion mtDNA, YDNA and Adam&Eve. I realized that if one interprets Genesis literally (with total breeding population of 2 ancestors 6,000 years ago), then (in addition to all the other intractable contradictions that causes), one would expect that all humans would have the same mt DNA, and all males would have the same YDNA.

Yet, that's very clearly not the case. (my mt DNA is type K1c2, similar to Otzi, and different from everyone I know who isn't my sibling, etc. My wife is V1, other people I know have H, H0, U, J2f1, and many others). It's easy and fun to get your DNA data at www.23andme.com - I highly recommend it.

The same goes for YDNA. We also can see that it's not a case of "DNA mutations happened more/faster in the past", since we have DNA from people in the past, and can see the expect (very slow) rate of change we see today. We even have mt & YDNA from people whose whole family tree, with a person named for each generation to today is known, and we can see again that there is not a different rate of change in the past.

Along with dozens of other clear evidences, this shows yet again that a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't match the real world. It may be even more clear than the similarly indisputable ERV data, or a nested hierarchy, or the many dating methods, or historical records, or....

What do you think? Is this more understandable to laypeople than the other ways we know that?

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

 

[Aman777]

On another thread we were discussion mtDNA, YDNA and Adam&Eve. I realized that if one interprets Genesis literally (with total breeding population of 2 ancestors 6,000 years ago), then (in addition to all the other intractable contradictions that causes), one would expect that all humans would have the same mt DNA, and all males would have the same YDNA.

Yet, that's very clearly not the case. (my mt DNA is type K1c2, similar to Otzi, and different from everyone I know who isn't my sibling, etc. My wife is V1, other people I know have H, H0, U, J2f1, and many others). It's easy and fun to get your DNA data at www.23andme.com - I highly recommend it.

The same goes for YDNA. We also can see that it's not a case of "DNA mutations happened more/faster in the past", since we have DNA from people in the past, and can see the expect (very slow) rate of change we see today. We even have mt & YDNA from people whose whole family tree, with a person named for each generation to today is known, and we can see again that there is not a different rate of change in the past.

Along with dozens of other clear evidences, this shows yet again that a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't match the real world. It may be even more clear than the similarly indisputable ERV data, or a nested hierarchy, or the many dating methods, or historical records, or....

What do you think? Is this more understandable to laypeople than the other ways we know that?

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

The problem is with the traditional religious view which does NOT agree with what is actually written in Genesis. Gen 6:1-4 explains HOW Humans inherited the DNA of the sons of God (prehistoric people) on both Adam's Earth and the present Earth. This also explains the diversity needed to produce the 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam alive today) and also tells us what happened to the sons of God. Amen?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have always found this diagram to be helpful.

As it turns out, you have other female ancestors that did not give you your mitochondrial DNA, and they lived at the same time as the female ancestor that did give you your mitochondrial DNA. All you have to do to illustrate this is look back just a few generations to your grandparents and great-grandparents.

The reason that we have a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for the Y-chromosome and mtDNA is that we all happen to have the same ancestors along the way. People marrying their cousins may make for funny jokes, but the truth of the matter is that we are all cousins. All that differs is how distant.

Why are we all cousins? It is kind of the reverse of the bacteria problem. As the old saw goes, if bacteria really did double every 20 minutes then we would be swimming in seas of bacteria within a few days. The same for humans. If everyone has different parents (2), different grandparents(4), different great-grandparents (8), and so on for multiple generations then we would have needed an ancestral human population of trillions within a short amount of time. This isn't the case. As it turns out, we don't have unique ancestors. We share them.

 

[Papias]

Lm-
Sure. All that makes sense (and isn't new to me).

Do you think that the mt and Y illustration of the impossibility of a breeding population of 2 back 6,000 years ago in the OP is more useful than other similar ways to show that's impossible?

 

[Oncedeceived]

On another thread we were discussion mtDNA, YDNA and Adam&Eve. I realized that if one interprets Genesis literally (with total breeding population of 2 ancestors 6,000 years ago), then (in addition to all the other intractable contradictions that causes), one would expect that all humans would have the same mt DNA, and all males would have the same YDNA.

Yet, that's very clearly not the case. (my mt DNA is type K1c2, similar to Otzi, and different from everyone I know who isn't my sibling, etc. My wife is V1, other people I know have H, H0, U, J2f1, and many others). It's easy and fun to get your DNA data at www.23andme.com - I highly recommend it.

The same goes for YDNA. We also can see that it's not a case of "DNA mutations happened more/faster in the past", since we have DNA from people in the past, and can see the expect (very slow) rate of change we see today. We even have mt & YDNA from people whose whole family tree, with a person named for each generation to today is known, and we can see again that there is not a different rate of change in the past.

Along with dozens of other clear evidences, this shows yet again that a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't match the real world. It may be even more clear than the similarly indisputable ERV data, or a nested hierarchy, or the many dating methods, or historical records, or....

What do you think? Is this more understandable to laypeople than the other ways we know that?

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

Genesis says nothing about six thousand years.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lm-
Sure. All that makes sense (and isn't new to me).

Do you think that the mt and Y illustration of the impossibility of a breeding population of 2 back 6,000 years ago in the OP is more useful than other similar ways to show that's impossible?

That example is fine. I have often used HLA alleles as another example. There are hundreds to thousands of alleles for these genes which doesn't match up with a recent common ancestor from just 6,000 years ago.

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/fig_tab/jhg20085t4.html

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Papias]

LM - Thanks. Yep, that's a good example too.

Once wrote:

Genesis says nothing about six thousand years.

Right, Genesis only brings us up through Jacob. However, literalists interpret the genealogies in Cr, Lk and Mt to Jesus at ~2000 years ago as literally historical, which gives 77 generations if using Lk, or 72 generations if using Mt + Lk. Obviously, such a small number of generations is not consistent with the mt and Y (and the allele data LM mentioned) data.

I agree that the Bibles don't require a 6,000 year time since Adam.

In Jesus-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

I see no way to fit mtDNA and YDNA with a literal interpretation of Genesis

I don't either.

I don't know what Adam's DNA was; or Shem's, Ham's, or Japheth's.

I'll admit though: this stuff is over my head.

In addition, if Adam's DNA wasn't a double helix, but straight, then I'm sure there would be problems trying to trace our DNA back to Adam anyway.

We live in a twisted world thanks to twisted DNA ... do we not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis only brings us up through Jacob.

Either that, or Geneis only brings us up through Benjamin.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't either.

I don't know what Adam's DNA was; or Shem's, Ham's, or Japheth's.

I'll admit though: this stuff is over my head.

Our genomes are a direct written record of our ancestry. If the stories in Genesis are literal, then we should evidence of that in our DNA records.

In addition, if Adam's DNA wasn't a double helix, but straight, then I'm sure there would be problems trying to trace our DNA back to Adam anyway.

The helical structure has nothing to do with our ability to sequence it. In fact, DNA can take on different shapes such as stem loops. The helical structure just happens to be the low energy state for DNA in a most biological conditions. It is the equivalent of the fetal position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our genomes are a direct written record of our ancestry.

How can they be?

Don't they taper off somewhere down the pike?

I don't understand how someone can say we aren't descended from Adam, when we don't have Adam's DNA.

How do I know, for example, that I'm not descended from Jack the Ripper?

If the stories in Genesis are literal, then we should evidence of that in our DNA records.

How so?

Without something to compare it (DNA) to, I fail to see how that works.

The helical structure has nothing to do with our ability to sequence it. In fact, DNA can take on different shapes such as stem loops. The helical structure just happens to be the low energy state for DNA in a most biological conditions. It is the equivalent of the fetal position.

Interesting.

 

[Loudmouth]

How can they be?

Don't you know how babies are made?

Don't they taper off somewhere down the pike?

I don't understand how someone can say we aren't descended from Adam, when we don't have Adam's DNA.

Seems pretty explanatory to me. If we don't have Adam's DNA, then it is pretty obvious that we aren't descended from Adam. I think there are a few episodes of the Maury Povich show that deal with this topic.

What we often say is that there is too much genetic variation in the human population to be descended from a single couple just 6,000 years ago. Is that what you are referring to? In this case, we wouldn't need the original DNA. All we need to do is measure the current genetic diversity.

How do I know, for example, that I'm not descended from Jack the Ripper?How so?

First, you would have to identify Jack the Ripper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems pretty explanatory to me. If we don't have Adam's DNA, then it is pretty obvious that we aren't descended from Adam.

Um ... just because we don't have something, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

 

[juvenissun]

On another thread we were discussion mtDNA, YDNA and Adam&Eve. I realized that if one interprets Genesis literally (with total breeding population of 2 ancestors 6,000 years ago), then (in addition to all the other intractable contradictions that causes), one would expect that all humans would have the same mt DNA, and all males would have the same YDNA.

Yet, that's very clearly not the case. (my mt DNA is type K1c2, similar to Otzi, and different from everyone I know who isn't my sibling, etc. My wife is V1, other people I know have H, H0, U, J2f1, and many others). It's easy and fun to get your DNA data at www.23andme.com - I highly recommend it.

The same goes for YDNA. We also can see that it's not a case of "DNA mutations happened more/faster in the past", since we have DNA from people in the past, and can see the expect (very slow) rate of change we see today. We even have mt & YDNA from people whose whole family tree, with a person named for each generation to today is known, and we can see again that there is not a different rate of change in the past.

Along with dozens of other clear evidences, this shows yet again that a literal interpretation of Genesis doesn't match the real world. It may be even more clear than the similarly indisputable ERV data, or a nested hierarchy, or the many dating methods, or historical records, or....

What do you think? Is this more understandable to laypeople than the other ways we know that?

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

Could you estimate how much time should it take to make the situation fit what it is today?
Is two million years long enough?

 

[juvenissun]

The problem is with the traditional religious view which does NOT agree with what is actually written in Genesis. Gen 6:1-4 explains HOW Humans inherited the DNA of the sons of God (prehistoric people) on both Adam's Earth and the present Earth. This also explains the diversity needed to produce the 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam alive today) and also tells us what happened to the sons of God. Amen?

Too bad that no one took your response. They simply do not know what to say about it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps God created Adam and Eve with wide genetic diversity from the getgo. That would get mankind off to a good start without inbreeding. I once dated a girl whose 10 brothers and sisters bore no 'family' resemblance to each other at all. Her father was full blood Italian, her mother full blood Norwegian.....and no there was no hanky-panky.

 

[lasthero]

Perhaps God created Adam and Eve with wide genetic diversity from the getgo. That would get mankind off to a good start without inbreeding. I once dated a girl whose 10 brothers and sisters bore no 'family' resemblance to each other at all. Her father was full blood Italian, her mother full blood Norwegian.....and no there was no hanky-panky.

How do you know there was no hanky panky?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How do you know there was no hanky panky?

You gotta trust me on that one (I can't go into details for obvious reasons).

 

[AV1611VET]

You gotta trust me on that one ...

Asking a scientist to trust someone on something is like asking a chef to close his eyes and bake a soufflé.