Posted on 01/09/2013 1:57:52 PM PST by fishtank
Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Exciting research from the summer of 2012 described DNA variation in the protein coding regions of the human genome linked to population growth. One of the investigation's conclusions was that the human genome began to rapidly diversify not more than 5,000 years ago.1,2 This observation closely agrees with a biblical timeline of post-flood human diversification. Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis.3
Differences in human DNA can be characterized across populations and ethnic groups using a variety of techniques. One of the most informative genetic technologies in this regard is the analysis of rare DNA variation in the protein coding regions of the genome. Variability in these regions is less frequent than the more numerous genetic differences that occur in the non-coding regulatory regions. Researchers can statistically combine this information with demographic data derived from population growth across the world to generate time scales related to human genetic diversification.4
What makes this type of research unique is that evolutionary scientists typically incorporate hypothetical deep time scales taken from the authority of paleontologists or other similar deep-time scenarios to calibrate models of genetic change over time. Demographics-based studies using observed world population dynamics do not rely on this bias and are therefore more accurate and realistic.
In a 2012 Science report, geneticists analyzed DNA sequences of 15,585 protein-coding gene regions in the human genome for 1,351 European Americans and 1,088 African Americans for rare DNA variation.1,2 This new study accessed rare coding variation in 15,336 genes from over 6,500 humans—almost three times the amount of data compared to the first study.3 A separate group of researchers performed the new study.
The Nature results convey a second spectacular confirmation of the amazingly biblical conclusions from the first study. These scientists confirmed that the human genome began to rapidly diversify not more than 5,000 years ago. In addition, they found significant levels of variation to be associated with degradation of the human genome, not forward evolutionary progress. This fits closely with research performed by Cornell University geneticist John Sanford who demonstrated through biologically realistic population genetic modeling that genomes actually devolve over time in a process called genetic entropy.5
According to the Bible, the pre-flood world population was reduced to Noah's three sons and their wives, creating a genetic bottleneck from which all humans descended. Immediately following the global flood event, we would expect to see a rapid diversification continuing up to the present. According to Scripture, this began not more than 5,000 years ago. We would also expect the human genome to devolve or degrade as it accumulates irreversible genetic errors over time. Now, two secular research papers confirm these biblical predictions.
References
Tomkins, J. 2012. Human DNA Variation Linked to Biblical Event Timeline. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org July 23, 2012, accessed December 31, 2012. Tennessen, J. et al. 2012. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 337 (6090): 64-69.
Fu, W, et al. Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants. Nature. Published online before print, July 13, 2012.
Keinan, A and A. Clark. 2012. Recent Explosive Human Population Growth Has Resulted in an Excess of Rare Genetic Variants. Science. 336 (6082): 740-743. Sanford, J. C. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, 3rd ed. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
* Dr. Tomkins is a Research Associate and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.
Article posted on January 9, 2013.
What it does indicate is that time means nothing to God--whether it's 1000 years or a single day. It's all the same to Him.
Yes, I think he meant most recent common ancestor, not oldest.
I am sorry, but I read that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.... Interesting now isn't it that Methuselah only live 969 years, not quite a day with the LORD. Peter does in fact tell us how God keeps time, why else would God have Peter write down this tid bit of information given the 'days' of creation which is the subject of IIPeter 3?????
Merely a reflection of your comments.
YOUR reflection most certainly not based upon the evidence!!!!
I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, so that if there is one falsehood in the Bible, then it can all be thrown out. As my field of work is accounting and finance, and I have had to do much research into many things, I have a mind that requires proof to believe in a theory. There are so many holes in theory of evolution, that it fails. It is a 'religion' by itself, as it is purely on 'faith' that people believe in it! Creation science As far as evidence of the Bible in the story of creation, please check these links:
These are two links to creation science TV shows that appear on the Miracle Channel in Canada. I have not had the time to look into other, similar websites all over the world, but there are many!
The words “is as” do not mean “is.”
Those first 2 chapters of Genesis always tripped me up until about 2 years ago. I use to tell peeps, how can I understand the Old Testament, when I can’t even get past that point. It wasn’t taught in my circles. Then I came across a TV program early one morning, and a man was teaching it the way I could finally comprehend it. It all began to make sense. All those unanswered questions I had were being answered. I can no longer see his program on TV now, because my antenna got bent on the roof from a big storm, but he’s on a small webpage on the net and I let it loop 24/7. The 6th day creation were all the races, and the 8th day creation was “eth ha Adam” (sp.?) where the pure bloodline of Christ Jesus/Yahushua ha Mashiach/Yeshua would come through, and that when Adam was put to sleep, it wasn’t a rib taken to make Eve, it was actually a Helix curve (sp.?) which is the DNA. I was totally amazed at how it all became clear then. Even that apple tree story didn’t make sense, and that man opened my eyes to the truth on that too. Adam and Eve were actually seduced - wholly beguiled in a sexual way by the serpent, that old dragon. That’s why there’s enmity between her seed and satans seed. Cain is satans offspring, and Abel was Adams. I was like (WOW!!!) ... this is the true WORD being taught now. Sorry for the length, I just get so excited about finally understanding it, and I didn’t even get into that Noahs ark theory about how many fleshes were really on board, because from what I gathered in my new learning experience is that it was more than just Noahs family. I can’t remember the passage of scripture, but when it said something about 7 or 8 of every other flesh, it wasn’t talking about animals. Those were other peeps of races on board ... smiles ... still learning and loving every WORD of it.
La Brea woman found in the Los Angeles tar pits has been construed from various lines of evidence to have ended up there from 9-10 thousand years ago.
It’s generally thought, also from various lines of evidence, that the migration of what became the North and South American aborigines took place appx 70,000 years ago, which essentially cut them off from other human populations at least until Leif Ericson sailed to northeastern North America nearly 500 years before Columbus.
Thus, prior to that, people on this side of the world had at least 70,000 years of DNA evolution exlusive of humans anywhere else. Thus it would seem rather foolish to set-up a case for exclusive DNA data in Africa and Eurasia limiting its peculiarity to merely the last 5,000 years.
That's really not a reasonable statement... Clovis points span Europe and America... As does pyramid technology and astronomical knowledge. Sumerian writing has been found at (or around) Chichen Itza... The only known source of copper large enough to drive the European Bronze Age has to be the mines in the Eastern Great Lakes area.
While the linkage is not always there, the evidence is clear - There has always been trade between Europe/Asia and the Americas. The knowledge of 'what was beyond the sea' seems to be a recent aberration.
And yet Methuselah lived 969 years not quite a 'day' with the LORD!!!... Peter was not given this instruction in how God measures time to play mind games. Notice how Peter instructs... IIPeter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,
that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Your argument and disagreement is not with me it is with the WORD and what exactly is being instructed.
Given then that the days of creation equal a thousand years each, and we are not told if Genesis 1:26 took place on the first day of the thousand years, then God rested the seventh day, before He formed the 'tiller of the ground', on the eighth day.
It really is not nearly as difficult to comprehend as so many make it. I remember in 'history' classes there being hunters and gathers long before 'farming' became a method of survival. History agrees with what God had both Moses and Peter put down on animal and plant products.
But again, I think my real pet peeve re this article is this seeming exclusivity of Old World DNA.
I'm an Old Testament fundamendalist, but also a science buff who sees no conflict between the two.
Maybe I'm missing something in the article, but I don't think so. It seems like an attempt to reinforce the idea that the Earth is actually some 6,000 years old when unification in all lines of physical science clearly indicate it is much, much older.
That said though, Gerald Schroeder in his The Science Of God demonstrates some nifty math based on relativity theory that actually brings both ages into close conformity.
I have no, none argument with what the Bible actually, literally states. There is not even a hint or suggestion this earth is young. However, the time wherein each soul/spirit intellect was placed in a flesh vessel is relatively young.
These flesh bodies are a temporary vessel to house the soul/spirit intellect through this flesh journey. Which Christ said was the first requirement to 'see' the kingdom of God. (John 3 where somebody decided to claim a 'born again' doctrine.)
I do not doubt 'genetics' demonstrate what they demonstrate. But given these flesh bodies will return to the dust from whence they were formed, ultimately Judgment Day is not about the linkage or lineage passed through genetics. One of the primary hallmarks of conservatism is individual responsibility, and that won't fly if 'genetics' become the excuse card for an immoral society.
I do not know how it is that a particular 'soul spirit intellect' was selected to be place in the womb at fertilization. I am curious how 'families' are linked by the Creator.
I am not disagreeing with the Word--I am disagreeing with your interpretation of it.
The original Hebrew in Genesis indicates the days are 24-hours days, just like we experience today. The Hebrew makes this abundantly clear where English may not be quite so clear.
Again--Peter is making the equivalence in terms of how God's patience works. Not making physical equivalence. That is why the "as" is part of that phrase. It's a simile.
I don't mean to discredit your argument, but rather, it is that single statement of yours which caused me to rise.
I'm an Old Testament fundamendalist, but also a science buff who sees no conflict between the two.
I am close to you in this, though I do see conflict (it is my nature) - Whether it is in the interpretation of the Word, or in the assumptions of science, such conflicts will eventually be resolved - Albeit that they will predictably be resolved with the Word having been correct all the way along.
I am a cynic though, and I have spent my life looking at what others seem to ignore - That being the errata generated by any line of thought... It is unfortunate that the acolytes of both science and religion do not spend more time on the things that disprove their pet theories, because that which disproves is what shows falsehood - Even if it is a lowly bowl with Sumerian engravings found in-situ in South/Central America, or glyphs showing humans and dinosaurs together... Such things cannot be ignored because they don't fit the accepted theory... Rather, they don't fit because the accepted theory can't be true... These things deny it that ability.
Maybe I'm missing something in the article, but I don't think so. It seems like an attempt to reinforce the idea that the Earth is actually some 6,000 years old when unification in all lines of physical science clearly indicate it is much, much older.
That presupposes that scientific measurement is without flaw. Tell me what happens if one suggests that time itself is not a constant, but rather follows the predictable 'rate of decay' that all other things are subjected to? What happens to ALL scientific measurement if that one simple flaw was allowed to propagate?
That said though, Gerald Schroeder in his The Science Of God demonstrates some nifty math based on relativity theory that actually brings both ages into close conformity.
Thanks for that - I will look it up.
Do you remember the link?.
I found this and it does make sense especially explaining the sacrifices. I have yet to search for the stuff about the rib
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/sherry/cain.htm
Just as one example, we know that the Sun and planets contain elements heavier than Carbon that could not have been fused within the energy of solar confines. Therefore these must have been manufactured in events leading up to supernova generation in at least one, and probably two generations of more massive, earlier, preexisting stars, starting say...at least 7-10 billion years ago. There seems no other explanation consistent with what we know about nuclear phyics, which, although incomplete, is nonetheless substantial in that we have used this same nuclear energy in various ways.
I do not find this at all in conflict with Genesis however. On the contrary it only serves to strengthen my belief in God all the more.
... And prehistoric giant dragonflies could not have flown (mechanically impossible). Yet, there they are...
Again, subjecting your example to degrading time (rather than constant time) would not only substantially decrease the timeline you mention, but would also effect the suppositions wrt the work involved in making those elements (time has it's portion in the measurement of work)... Since time is 'worth more' the further back you go (and exponentially so the closer you get to the 'beginning' of the graph), perhaps the calculations of the requirement to produce them are in error.
And it would also help to explain why giant dragonflies had wings which would otherwise be useless - Again, the work involved would have 'fuller' time the further back one goes - A second would still be a second, but would allow more within it... more work, as it were.
And it does nothing to 'near time' calculations, making current calculations wrt nuclear physics as accurate as they are (for today), as the measurement of time we use as constant is accurate today.
It isn't something I am welded to - But it does offer a field wherein another consistent explanation is possible - Again, it is the errata that matter. Your example is a good case in point, as are the dragonflies I present. Without the math working consistently for BOTH, the math is not correct, and we are left with suppositions like 'massive earlier existing stars' and 'air so heavy that these dragonflies could fly, but which would cause all life otherwise to cease (to include the dragonfly itself)... Or the wings of these beasts must have only been for mating ritual'.
My point is that the math remains inelegant. Ignoring the math, or extrapolating something on the edge of feasibility to allow and account for the errors is every bit as inelegant. Somewhere, somehow, the math has to work, and work perfectly. Until that is found, no theory can be proven, as no theory can be said to be accurately measured. Therein, as always, is the point where we find science's hubris.
yes ... http://www.shepherdschapel.com/index.htm
I just click “site one” for Windows Media.
The broadcast will eventually repeat itself after so many hours in case you miss something said. I take many notes and each week the broadcast is updated from week to week I believe. Then on weekends they have archaeology studies, and also a Doctor who talks about the health laws and what to eat and such. They have many channels through satellite, but I don’t have cable or satellite TV. I just have my little old rusty roof antenna, yet I was so thankful to find them on the internet ... smiles ... and hopes this helps. I could probably find that list I printed too for what stations they broadcast on somewhere if needed. Let me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.