Re: Genealogical Gaps?

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 17:06:03 EST


Doesn't Dick's solution accomplish the same result as yours in terms
of the genetics? The descendants of a miraculously created neolithic
Adam and Eve interbreed with an already existing humanity. The
genetics of his solution look the same as the genetics of yours. You
preserve the unity of the whole race and he doesn't. He has a
neolithic Adam, you don't. Theologically, I'm partial to your
solution. Being honest with the details of Genesis, I'm partial to
his solution. (Of course, by theologically, I mean taking all that
the Bible teaches into account--not some readily discardable human

Do you admit that the details of your solution comes from the Bible
alone? (I'm not saying that this is bad!) I.e. there is no real
scientific evidence for your scenario--it is just the case that your
scenario is consistent with the scientifically.

Finally, remind me of the Ayala quote with respect to the date
indicated by the MHC data (a link to a previous post is fine). My
recollection is that he estimates the "bottleneck" to be a population
of around 10,000. I don't really remember what he said about the date.


On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:07 AM, <>
<> wrote:

> Terry Gray wrote:
> >>>Doesn't the MHC data rule out any single individual (or pair)
> bottleneck--including your very ancient Adam? As I understand it
> some of the polymorphisms go back to chimps.<<<
> Which is precisely why one could KNOW 10 years ago that the mtDNA
> Eve was NOT the genetic history of the world and why I have
> remained a multiregionalist in the face of strong wind blowing the
> other way for quite sometime (maybe Templeton will finally change
> things I still haven't heard any response to my post where those
> ooA folks are--eerily silent on this issue).
> I have puzzled about this problem for a long, long time. It is
> not just a problem for me, it is a problem for all views which hold
> to the specialness of mankind. The lack of a bottleneck is worse
> than you paint it. I have posted a quotation from Ayala here from
> time to time that says that a bottleneck is ruled out for the past
> 30 million years. Thus, mtDNA Eve is fictional nonsense. She is
> NOT the mother of all humans merely 100kyr ago. So is any view
> which holds to a more recent Adam and Eve. And, so would my view be
> if a solution can’t be found.
> Typically the responses are like this:
> The YEC view says “The Bible is true regardless of what I or
> science observes, thus genetics be damned full speed ahead.”
> The ID view says “God used similar genetic systems from other
> animals and miraculously created man”
> The TE view generally says: “The Bible teaches only theology all
> else is accommodated science to the culture of the day—in other
> words, nonsense”
> The atheist says: “The whole thing is false.”
> None of those are satisfactory to me although the one that actually
> fits the facts is the last one. Thus, one must either explain this
> or go to the last one. The only-theology solution is not
> satisfactory to me for reasons recently outlined on this list.
> In order to explain this, one must talk about the origin of man in
> my view. Many may not know the odd way I solve our connection with
> the chimps. I have God miraculously fix up a stillborn ape who had
> a chromosomal fusion (we have less chromosomes than the chimps due
> to two chimp chromosomes fusing together.) The would be no female
> for him, thus necessitating the rib surgery. Thus, A&E are born.
> This explains the close pseudogene and chromosomal structure
> problem. We share some amazing (but useless) pseudogenes with the
> chimps and I can't figure out why God would do the equivalent of
> what an auto designer would be doing if he welded a broken
> transmission to the roof of the car. Yeah, it is designed,.....
> but....kind of weird. Thus there must be a real connection between
> us and the apes.
> The chromosomal fusion could have been naturalistic but I hold to
> the miraculous because that is what the bible says. This type of
> fusion/fission evolution is common among the mammals. Equiids of
> all types have different chromosome numbers. Przewalsky’s horse,
> the horse you see painted on upper Paleolithic caves was found
> living in Asia. It has two more chromosomes than the modern horse,
> yet they are able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The
> reason is that the two chromosomes on Przewalsky’s horse align with
> the unbroken one of the Horse. This fact is important in
> explaining the lack of a bottleneck which genetics clearly shows
> (although most Christians ignore this evidence for no bottleneck in
> their rush to believe mtDNA Eve.) One thing is certain. Placing
> Adam and Eve nearer our time only worsens the problem with many
> other genetic systems, making us have to have hypermutating gene
> systems to get the variability seen in modern humans in some
> nuclear genes. It solves nothing.
> Here is how I have figured out how to solve it. The flood is
> anthropologically universal, but not biologically universal. The
> Nephilim, existed before and after the flood. We interbred with
> them after the flood. It is the only way to work the problem I
> have seen. The alternative is to believe in a bottleneck without
> any evidence (a YEC response). We can claim God created Adam 100kyr
> ago miraculously but gave our genes the illusion of an age they
> don’t have (a OEC view that rivals the YEC apparent age argument).
> We can claim theology is all there is (which is a claim that can
> be made by any religion in the world with scientific nonsense in
> its teaching and is a quite ad hoc answer). We can claim it is all
> false. Or, we can let the data speak and go where I go—which seems
> to be where no man has gone before or wants to go. :-) So from
> Capt. Kirk, this is my answer.
> This year I have made 6 trips across the arctic ocean so I have
> been very jet-lagged. One of the benefits of living a jetlagged
> life is that one wakes at 2-4 am and gets to lie in bed thinking a
> lot (which may be dangerous). Last night I think I came up with an
> interesting variation on the dynastic line idea for the
> genealogies. So, here is a new (I think) variation on the dynastic
> explanation of the genealogies.
> Lets say you have a lineage like this. The numbers are birth year,
> date of being a father and death:
> Joe 1,20,60
> Samuel 20,45,50
> William 45, 70,105
> John 70,100,140
> Sanjay 100, 120,150
> George 120, 145, 180
> Terry 145, 160, 170 (playboy, died of a disease)
> Samuel 160, 185, 225
> Dick 185, 205, 238
> Now, as the genealogy became longer, memory became tougher so,
> originally a memnonic was developed and the genealogy listed as:
> Joe 1,20,60
> The Samuels 20, 45,225
> Dick 185, 205, 238
> Then it was forgotten that Samuels is a group of people:
> Joe 1,20,60
> Samuel 20, 45,225
> Dick 185, 205, 238
> The genealogy would be true but abbreviated. And would give the
> false impression that Sam lived 205 years. And, such a view would
> not make things untrue. As I said earlier, the Day in 1888 that
> William Henry Morton fathered George Washington Morton was the day
> he also fathered me (not that he knew it). It would also not
> require dynastic interpretation of people’s names. The people are
> real people not dynasties.

Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Tue Feb 28 17:07:12 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 17:07:12 EST