Question:
Check out this article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2011/08/11/can-theology-evolve/
It talks about how we could not have descended from a number of humans any fewer than 10,000. Another person I spoke about this with said that it would be impossible to be any less because otherwise we would have genetic deformities (however addressed by the Biblical account that things like incest were not a problem until the gene pool was corrupted). However, there is a critical error upon which all of this rests. That error comes from the parent article for this article, which says:
"Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times--as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any "Adam"¯ and "Eve"¯ (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes coalesces¯ back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived."
Without this statement being true, the entire position of both of these articles completely dissolves. Of course, this all does indeed fall apart because it has been shown that the dating method used to estimate the difference between mitochondrial Adam and Eve is based on a discrepancy. If you like, you should hear Dr. Hugh Ross' recent series refuting the sentiment mentioned above here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8T1_PArJY
But I am curious Brother. I realize you once mentioned also that science has basically proved that we stem from a pair of human parents. Which scientific studies have suggested this? I am seeking more information so that when I defend the human race originating in a pair of human parents, I don't appear foolish.
Dear Ryan:
You are trying to argue the wrong thing. It is an element of the faith that we had an original pair of parents. It matters not if science can prove it. Science is incomplete. Because these studies show a trace to a male and female at different time periods does not prove a thing. It only show that the state of science at this moment has determined these findings.
At one time scientific findings said that the world was flat and that the sun revolves around the earth.
I am sure that our genetic pool today stems from many people, of course. But this does not mean there were not an original pair. There is a contradiction in the material your posted. It says that "Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago". So which is it, we cannot be descended from a single individual or not?
In addition, the "one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago" does not mean that there was not a previous male earlier on. It only means that the trace goes back to that individual. This male is the most recent common ancestor, nothing more. Obviously if the original female ancestor was 140,000 years ago, there must have been a man somewhere
.
Science cannot make up its mind. Some say this female was 140,000 years ago, others say it was 170,000 years ago, others 215,000 years ago. New research (1997) shows that mtDNA mutates at a much faster rate than either Ingman or Cann (who proposed the 100,000s year theory) were aware. SB Hedges presented new calculations based on this information in his article in Science magazine. Based on the new information Hedges calculations showed Mitochondrial Eve lived not 170,000 years ago, but approximately 6,000 years ago.
Many years ago I read an article that suggested that science had found an original pair of parents in Africa. Perhaps science has changed its mind. Science is not exact and changes all the time as new theories and evidence is uncovered.
To put it bluntly, science has no idea.
It is a waste of time to argue science. To do so is to imply that science has all the answers and that science is definitive. It does not, and is not. Because science has not discovered our original parents does not mean that they do not exist, anymore than because science had not discovered germs in the 17th Century means that germs do not exist. In fact, when germs were first proposed it was considered scientific heresy.
We need to stop thinking that science has all the answers and that if science does not prove something that it does not exist. Any scientist who has this attitude is not thinking like a true scientist.
The answer to anyone who says science has not proven an Adam and Eve is, "Not yet, but that does not mean it won't. And it is not important anyway."
God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary
Footer Notes: This forum is for general questions on the faith. See specific Topic Forums below:
Spiritual Warfare, demons, the occult go to our Spiritul Warfare Q&S Forum.
Liturgy Questions go to our Liturgy and Liturgical Law Q&A Forum
Liturgy of the Hours (Divine Office) Questions go to our Divine Office Q&A Forum
Defenfing the Faith Questions go to our Defending the Faith Q&A Forum
Church History Questions go to our Church History Q&A Forum