2. Scientific Revelations in the Bible (3)

When evolution became mainstream science by the middle of the twentieth century, it was widely assumed that humans descended from a single evolutionary lineage: not that we are the result of multiple human evolutions. The consensus is that lower life forms evolved to become man, and one stream of decent flowed forward from that point. Paleo-anthropologists and geneticists speak of “Mother Eve.” More accurately scientists should speak of “Mother Eve” and “Father Adam” because obviously you need a male and female to have descendents.[7] It is worth noting that this concept of a common male and female ancestor for all human beings is entirely consistent with the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.[8]

But it is even more complicated. As explained earlier,[9] by analyzing the DNA of people from all around the world we can learn about their genetic differences and through statistical analysis of the differences between their DNA, trace back their ancestors. Numerous studies[10] have been done since the end of the 1980s, and these lead to three conclusions:

• Genetically all humans are much more alike than one would expect from Darwinian theory, which suggests a young age of the species.
• Tracing mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) through females, one learns that all women descend from one female ancestor (“biological Eve”) who lived an estimated 100,000 years ago.
• Tracing the Y-chromosome, studies show that all men descend from one male ancestor (“biological Adam”) who lived between 37,000 and 49,000 years ago.

Various studies reach different conclusions as to the exact age of “biological Eve” and “biological Adam,” but they all agree: the common male ancestor is significantly younger than the common female ancestor. How can this difference in age between “biological Adam” and “biological Eve” be explained? How can “Eve” be 50,000 years older than “Adam”? Evolutionary science does not seem to have an answer to this well documented conundrum. Likely most believe that more study and research will ultimately reveal an answer.

However, there is a good explanation for this, which actually confirms facts about Biblical Noah. The genetic observation that the common male ancestor of modern man is much younger than the common female ancestor is perfectly explained by the flood account of Noah. Genesis 9:18-19 teaches there were only eight flood survivors who repopulated the earth: Noah, his three sons, his wife and his three daughters-in-law. Noah and his sons were the only surviving males, all related and shared the Y-chromosome DNA. So if genetics traces back the male Y-chromosome DNA, the found common ancestor for all males would be Noah. This situation is different for the four surviving females. They were not related to each other, thus, their common ancestor mtDNA will not be found at the flood, but much earlier. It is very likely to assume that their common ancestor (female) mtDNA would go back all the way to the first woman, “biological Eve.” So, “biological Eve” is the same as “Genesis’ Eve”, but Genesis would point to Noah as “biological Adam.”

Once again modern scientific observations cannot be explained by evolutionary models, but confirms the Biblical accounts of creation, the flood, and Noah and the Ark story.

Adam and Eve Probably Never Met

It is a rewarding and educational to read the following article with the above mentioned title. It is an excerpt from a press release and publication in Nature Genetics (emphasis added): [11]

“In an international collaborative effort, Peter Underhill of Stanford University and colleagues have carried out a study of human Y-chromosome variation, by far the most comprehensive and informative ever conducted. Whereas it confirms the 'out-of-Africa' origin of modern humans, it suggests that our most recent common paternal ancestor ('Y-chromosome Adam') would have been about 84,000 years younger than our maternal one ('Mitochondrial Eve'). ………Fossil records have suggested that Homo Sapiens of the sapiens variety, to which all of us belong, first appeared in Africa . or South-West Asia, about 150,000 years ago, a time when the current brain size is also thought to have been fixed. It is thought that they later left Africa . for Asia and Europe where the earliest fossils of our kind are about 50,000 years old. This out-of-Africa. hypothesis was confirmed by studies of mitochondrial DNA, a peculiar part of our genome that comes exclusively from the mother. Based on these studies, our most recent common ancestor is thought to be a woman who lived in Africa . about 143,000 years ago. Through a detailed analysis of the paternal lineage of more than 1,000 men from 22 different geographic areas, researchers propose that our most recent common ancestor was a man who lived in Africa . around 59,000 years ago. How can these studies be reconciled? How could Adam and Eve have ever begotten us if they never met?

Paleontology has always had a problem with dates. However, the thoroughness of the current study as well as 13 years of mitochondrial DNA analysis indicate that fallible interpretations cannot explain the whole discrepancy with the Book of Genesis.”

This scientific publication corroborates our earlier discussion of genetic dating of our common ancestors. The article mentions a somewhat earlier date for “biological Eve” or “mitochondrial Eve,” 150,000 years, not the earlier-mentioned 100,000 years (which indicates data from different studies).  Even so, the numbers are in the same order of magnitude. Estimating age based on DNA remains a mere statistical “best guess,” consequently disparity in dates is to be expected. Their conclusions are interesting, in that, as usual, they are slanted to an evolutionary view:

• “Biological Adam” (the article calls him “Y-chromosome Adam”) is much younger that “biological Eve” (she is “mitochondrial Eve”). That is consistent with the other studies and confirms that this fact is well documented and corroborated.
• Subsequently the article concludes (and even mentions in the title): Therefore he could have never met her. That is correct, of course. We’ve also reached that conclusion, and that is the evidence for the flood.
• The article asks, “How could Adam and Eve have begotten us if they never met?” Does this indicate a “discrepancy with the Book of Genesis?”  That attempt to discredit the Bible is false, and not even logical. First, if “biological Adam” and “biological Eve” never met, how is it possible that we even exist? Evolutionary theory assumes the existence of “a first couple.” If “biological Eve” lived long ages before “biological Adam,” how can evolution explain how Eve got children? Secondly, the Biblical flood resolves any so called discrepancy. The Bible has an answer, evolution has not.