Renowned genetics expert claims to have found proof on Adam and Eve existence

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: Frocharocha

These "Scientists" already have their conclusion and are trying to find evidence for it. That's the opposite of what should be done.

So they're not allowed to look for evidence outside of the bible, is that what your saying? Darwin drew his conclusion over 200 years ago, yet there are people still trying to find evidence for it so what's the difference?

I'm not saying that. You also got something else wrong.

Yes Darwin made had some hypotheses but Scientists are not "trying" to find evidence for it.

Scientists are just making discoveries. Some support Darwin and some do not.

Some discoveries support his conclusion of Natural Selection while others don't agree with him like the building blocks of life. Darwin thought that the building blocks of life were the cells, but now we know it's DNA.

Ok, fair enough on Darwin. But since know or at least think we know it's DNA why is it that our own DNA can be found in trees, rice, animals, plants, and fungi. So the question is which one did we come from?

The Scientific Theory is that we had a common ancestor.

I used the parents and cousins example, but I think I can give you a better example on "which one we came from."

First if we look at your DNA, let's say you share 95% of your DNA with your father. You will share 85% with your uncle and 70% with your grandfather. We can conclude that you most likely came from your father, while your uncle is your distant relative and your grandfather is even a more distant relative.

We share more DNA with apes and much less with trees. There is actually a chart that shows you our common ancestry with our DNA.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Frocharocha

Unfortunately none of those prove that we came from apes. Hell our own DNA can be found in trees, rice, animals, plants, and fungi. So the question is which one did we come from?

It's not that we find "our own" DNA in trees, rice, etc. It's that we share DNA because we had a common ancestor. An example I could give is that you share more DNA with your parents than with your cousins and even less with me and less with trees.

But there is human DNA in trees right? Where did that come from?

No, you are looking at it in the wrong way.

Trees don't have human DNA and we don't have tree DNA.

We have a similitude in a portion of our DNA with trees. We had a common ancestor, in this case you can go back to simple cells.

a reply to: danielsil18

Or simply limitations on Earthly DNA...

You can't suggest I share 95% DNA with a chimp and 80% with my grandfather and explain it away as that's how our ancestry works...
It dispels the whole distance thing using mathematical logic.

But I guess there is no funding in "limitations".

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Wrong, the 80% was just an example.

a reply to: danielsil18

So who is this common ancestor, and how far back does it go?

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
No, there is DNA that both humans and tree's share...Where did it come from?

To hypothesize what that may be, well when you consider the proverbial soup that we had to navigate through to find ourselves were we are, it's anybodies guess.


But I'd say it's on the single/multi-cell organism level were most/all of the Tree/Human DNA relation comes from; cyanobacteria (prokaryotes) kinda dictated the battleground somewhat with their unique poison (O2), the ones that weren't wiped out went and hid (extremophiles) .


(edit) saw you covered this in the time it took me to reply, my bad.

Maybe Extremophiles & Cyanobacteria are our most ancient ancestors

originally posted by: cosmic66
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
No, there is DNA that both humans and tree's share...Where did it come from?

According to this we do:

A Human and a grain of rice may not, at first glance, look like cousins. And yet we share a quarter of our genes with that fine plant. The genes we share with rice—or rhinos or reef coral—are among the most striking signs of our common heritage.

Source

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: danielsil18

So who is this common ancestor, and how far back does it go?

The theory goes to simple cells. You can google common ancestor chart to see charts that give you a better idea.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
I didn't suggest otherwise. I said No to you saying "But there is human DNA in trees right? Where did that come from?"
Thus why I suggested where it came from ..

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: danielsil18

So who is this common ancestor, and how far back does it go?

The theory goes to simple cells. You can google common ancestor chart to see charts that give you a better idea.

I've seen it before, but I'm gonna take another look, it's been awhile since I was baffled.

originally posted by: Frocharocha

Renowned genetics expert proves existence of Adam and Eve through DNA research

My first issue with this is referring to her as a RENOWNED genetics expert. I don't doubt her qualifications as a legitimate Molecular Geneticist, she received her Doctorate from an accredited institution. With that said, renowned is a massive stretch because I can't find a single paper she has authored or a citation for anything she has written being used as a source for anyone else's research. That's red flag number one.

It's not often when Church and science complement each other. This was achieved recently when a highly respected genetics expert confirmed the existence of Adam and Eve—the first man and woman God created—through an extensive DNA research.

Dr. Georgia Purdom, a molecular geneticist from Answers in Genesis, has just released a documentary entitled "The Genetics of Adam and Eve," explaining her findings about the couple's DNA, backing it up with solid scientific support.

Red flag number 2 is that she is not publishing this work for peer review. She is selling a DVD and her first presentation was given at the Twin Cities Creation Association, not to any group of scientists in related fields. She gave this presentation in April 2014 and this is only popping up now, 15 months later.

"One of the biggest debates in evangelical Christianity today is whether Adam and Eve were real people. Sadly, many theologians and scientists say that genetics has disproven the existence of an original couple specially created by God. As a consequence, many have begun to redefine sin and salvation," her documentary reads.

"But the Bible's language is clear that Adam and Eve were real people. Their historical existence and fall into sin are foundational to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In addition, the science of genetics—including human and chimp comparisons, mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA, and human genetic variation—confirms and is consistent with the fact that all humans have descended from an original couple specifically created by God as described in Genesis," it added.

This statement shows that her entire premises bases its foundation concretely in confirmation bias and not science.

In an interview with Christian News Network, Purdom stressed that the historical existence of Adam and Eve is very important in people's understanding of the Gospel.

But it has nothing at all to do with science, nor does she, as yet without buying her DVD, explain the genetics involved in this discovery.

"One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson," she shared. "He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago."

Yet she gives such a varied time frame, if the data were so good and it was only a few thousand years ago, the date range should be much more specific.

Their findings contradict what evolutionists have long been telling people—that there is no God who created mankind since people simply evolved from monkeys.

As you point out, shes got a PhD in Molecular Genetics but mistakes the actual science as understood by 95% of members of the National Academy of Sciences? Okkkkkkkkk

"This female ancestor could not have lived 100,000 or more years ago as the evolutionists claim," she said.

Why not? Are we just to take her word for it with no explanation? The science indicating that Mt Eve lived in the time frame ascribed is solid and has stood up to anyone who has attempted to dispute it, which she doesn't actually do by writing a paper contradicting is and presenting it for publication.

"In addition, genetics clearly shows that human and chimps do not share a common ancestor. There are many, many differences in their DNA that completely undermine the possibility of shared ancestry only a few million years ago."

A complete fallacy explicitly for the rubes. She doesn't explain why all other geneticists disagree with her or why she is correct. She makes a statement and leaves it at that. Not Science.

Purdom highlighted the need for Christians to be aware of this new scientific development so that they will be able to give a more substantial defence of the Bible, beginning with Genesis.

So the entire point of her documentary is to better defend scripture, not perform exemplary science?

"Christians should be aware of the scientific proof for creation because Genesis is the most hotly debated book among evangelical Christians," she said. "We need to show people that science supports and confirms the history presented in Genesis."

If this is what people need to be aware of then she needs to show the science and not expect people to just take her word for it. That's how science works and she knows it. Which is likely why she isn't sharing her "data" with anyone or publishing it at all.
I'm still trying to find the actual "documentary" but I have found this video where she discusses it. She starts just after 4:45 into the video.

a reply to: Frocharocha

en.wikipedia.org...

This goes into the 7 haplogroups and their common Eve so to say.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: danielsil18

So who is this common ancestor, and how far back does it go?

The theory goes to simple cells. You can google common ancestor chart to see charts that give you a better idea.

I've seen it before, but I'm gonna take another look, it's been awhile since I was baffled.

Don't own a mirror?

Ain't the only ass in the room, hun, let's not make it a contest.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: danielsil18

So who is this common ancestor, and how far back does it go?

The theory goes to simple cells. You can google common ancestor chart to see charts that give you a better idea.

I've seen it before, but I'm gonna take another look, it's been awhile since I was baffled.

Don't own a mirror?

Ain't the only ass in the room, hun, let's not make it a contest.

Get a life dude, while your at it go kiss a monkey and tell me if it feels the same as your girl's.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: danielsil18

So who is this common ancestor, and how far back does it go?

The theory goes to simple cells. You can google common ancestor chart to see charts that give you a better idea.

I've seen it before, but I'm gonna take another look, it's been awhile since I was baffled.

Don't own a mirror?

Ain't the only ass in the room, hun, let's not make it a contest.

Get a life dude, while your at it go kiss a monkey and tell me if it feels the same as your girl's.

And people wonder why the aliens haven't been back to feed their pets.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You gonna post anything relevant to the thread or are you just gonna stalk me all day?

She uses more religious terminology than scientific, so it's not credible.

a reply to: Frocharocha

Someone did try. They probably still are but in secret

io9.com...

www.icr.org...

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: TzarChasm

You gonna post anything relevant to the thread or are you just gonna stalk me all day?

Do you know what "stalk" and "all day" mean? It appears you do not. But you are correct insofar as being off topic. I just wanted to make it clear that your username is false advertisement.

Here is that "baffling" chart of common ancestry. I'm sure you know how to use Google in the event that your education requires furthering. Our exchange ends here. Thanks for playing.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Given the source, I'm calling BS.

So in other words since it came from a christian site it's garbage right?

Correct; nuff said.