RE: [asa] (amoeba) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Tue Sep 02 2008 - 16:42:10 EDT

Bethany said: "I guess you can trace back mitochondrial DNA through women, back to "one" about 150,000 years ago. "

I still don't understand that, because according to evolution, every animal has a mother. Why couldn't you trace the mother back to a single cell amoeba?

...Bernie

________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Bethany Sollereder
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 7:51 AM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: Merv; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

David,
Certainly it seems like a lot of people are accepting the federal headship model, which is a step forward from YEC, but still I think a misstep. Too much concordism, not enough science. And as George said above, there are good reasons to at least question the purpose and 'accuracy' of the genealogies.
Another way around it is to find a mitochondrial Eve or a Y chromosome Adam. I guess you can trace back mitochondrial DNA through women, back to "one" about 150,000 years ago. The issue is that a similar process with men and the Y chromosome only goes back about 50,000 years. So unless your biological Adam and Eve lived 100,000 years apart, you end up with a bit of a problem.

Bethany
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:19 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
So in your educational / seminary travels, are evangelical / orthodox protestant scholars starting to accept these various models as alternatives that preserve essential orthodoxy?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 2 16:42:33 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 02 2008 - 16:42:33 EDT