Bill Basener (a participant here) co-authored a paper with John Sanford. He was given the honor of delivering a KEYNOTE ADDRESS at an international SECULAR biology conference. A video of his presentation is available in a link inside my write up of his presentation below. He alluded to some of the helpful input from his critics at TheSkepticalZone in his talk:
http://crev.info/2018/07/keynote-speech-falsifies-darwinism/
John Sanford is sort of the “Papa John” of creationist genetics. It is customary for the leader of a research group to be listed as the last author in a publication. That convention is seen in a variety of papers and books such as Rupe & Sanford; Basener & Sanford; Carter, Lee & Sanford; Montanyez, Fernandez, Marks & Sanford; and let’s not forget the Legendary High Velocity Team of Klein, Wolf, Wu & Sanford that permanently ensured the infusion of intelligently designed genes into a sizable fraction of Genetically Modified Organisms on planet Earth.
And perhaps one day in the distant future there will be a paper, “Cordova & Sanford”! 🙂
Below is a link of a paper from Papa John’s team about Adam and Eve which will be presented this week, July 29,2018 – August 1, 2018 at the 8th International Conference on Creationism
http://www.creationicc.org/2018_papers/15%20carter%20Y%20chromosome%20final.pdf
The existence of a literal Adam and Eve is hotly debated, even within the Christian body. Now that many full-length human Y (chrY) and mitochondrial (chrM) chromosome sequences have been sequenced and made publicly available, it may be possible to bring clarity to this question. We have used these data to comprehensively analyze the historical changes in these two chromosomes, starting with the sequences of people alive today, and working backwards to the ancestral sequence of the family groups to which they belong. The analyses of the chrY and chrM histories were done separately and in parallel. Remarkably, both analyses gave very similar results. First, the pattern displayed in both datasets supports a massive expansion of the human lineage, with multiple new branches forming from closely related individuals. Second, for both chromosomes, the mutation rate along each branch has not been the same through time. Third, both phylogenetic trees display a starburst pattern that centers around specific historical individuals, nearly all of whom lived in the Middle East. Fourth, we can know with a very high degree of confidence the actual sequences of the historical individuals that gave rise to each branch in both family trees. Fifth, within a reasonable margin of error we can approximate the sequence of Y chromosome Adam/Noah and Mitochondrial Eve. Sixth, given a few reasonable assumptions, we can estimate the time to Y Chromosome Adam/Noah and Mitochondrial Eve. Both individuals lived less than 10,000 years ago, which is most consistent with a biblical timeframe. Lastly, recurrent mutations are extremely common, and many of them are associated with epigenetic CpG sites, meaning mutation accumulation is not free of environmental influence and many mutations may have accumulated in different lineages in parallel. The genetic evidence strongly suggests that Y Chromosome Adam/Noah and Mitochondrial Eve were not just real people, they were the progenitors of us all. In this light, there is every reason to believe that they were the Adam/Noah and Eve of the Bible.
NOTE: Paul Nelson’s family was instrumental in the founding of the International Conference on Creationism which meets every 5 years. Paul is one of the few ID proponents openly associated with YEC. Nelson gave the 2013 ICC Keynote Address on Orphan Genes.
Because denisovans and neandertals are not descended from mitochondrial Eve despite having the ability to mate with us and a claim to being human given evolutionary criteria.
I thought that was clear.
peace
If we start with evolutionary assumptions It would mean that Eve would had to have lived hundreds of thousands of years before modern human behavior existed or that she was not the ancestor of all existing humans.
either way it would be highly problematic for the bible.
peace
That’s why I said “single female ancestor” instead of “single ancestor”.
First, they didn’t live at the same time. Second, that’s one surviving lineage of mitochondria and one surviving lineage of Y chromosomes, not one surviving lineage of humans. mt-Eve and Y-Adam were members of large populations living at different times, and you have inherited various parts of your genome from many different members of those populations, not just two.
You might as well use that as your sig.
Exactly. But that isn’t what the quote is saying; it’s claiming that everyone comes from Adam and from no other male ancestors. At the very best, it’s ambiguous, which leads us back to your assumption both that what the bible says is always true and that you are interpreting it correctly.
By the way, what do you mean by “necessarily”? Do you think it’s possible that you have only a single great great grandfather? Do you come from Kentucky?
But how is that relevant to what we’re talking about?
If we determine that mitochondrial eve and Y chromosomal adam were contemporaries living in the same place and that all of humanity are descended from them, I would venture to say most folks would conclude that there some plausible connection to the Adam and Eve of the Bible.
peace
If you don’t see the relevance you don’t understand what the paper is about
peace
😉
ever hear of pedigree collapse?
peace
where does it say that exactly ??
I don’t see any ambiguity at all. It’s simply silent about the presence or absence of other ancestors.
That is because the presences or absence of other ancestors is irrelevant to the claim that is being made.
It was you who introduced the idea of exclusivity. I would venture to guess that is because you are unconsciously mired in the outdated notion that genetic isolation is what defines species.
peace
Great Scott!
Great Time-Traveling Eve! She moves forward in time, she moves backwards in time.
😉
If A&E truly came from the population of “others”, mitochondrial eve was simply a non-human ancestor of biblical Eve. What’s the problem?
Yeah, I’ll bet (they’d be wrong). Tell me, why do you so desperately need mitochondrial eve to be the same person as biblical Eve? I don’t understand.
I don’t see a problem with that as I’ve said repeatedly
Once again what is important is that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve not the exact details of their creation.
However until recently it was a distinct possibility that we would discover there was no way that an individual couple was the common ancestor for all humanity.
Or as we just discussed it was possible that we would have to conclude that our last common ancestor was not in any real sense human.
either of these would have been presented real problems for the bible.
Peace
I don’t need that. That is the argument of the paper AFAICT.
I only need it to be possible that Eve literally existed.
Mitochondrial eve demonstrates empirically once and for all that a literal Adam and Eve are possible.
peace
A more charitable person would then go on to explain to me what the paper was about and what the relevance was.
That would be quite an extreme case, of a sort known only among European royalty and the residents of isolated mountain hollars. I doubt you’re European royalty, which is why I asked about Kentucky.
Well,
My username is Fifth Monarchy Man so there is that
peace
We have been discussing this for several days now if you still don’t get it I doubt I can be of any help.
I will be happy to answer any specific questions you have about why humanity needs Adam as our covenant head for the gospel to work or why it was necessary that Christ was born a human being rather than a neanderthal or denisovan.
peace
Since we have discovered that there was no way an individual couple was the common ancestor for all humanity, you must admit that the bible has a real problem. First, we have not found mt-Eve and Y-Adam to be a couple. In fact they are separated by many thousands of years. Second, they are not the common ancestors of all humanity. They are the common ancestors of mitochondria and Y chromosomes, and so are not the common ancestors; they are among the common ancestors. Finally, we have no knowledge that they were modern humans.
That’s just you talking trash. How Christian of you.
Neither of those questions is relevant to the matter under discussion. I will also point out that these necessities are irrelevant to the evidence; again, “I need that to be true” is not valid argument.
peace
are you even paying attention?????
1) have you read the paper???
2) even if mt-Eve and Y-Adam were not a couple mt-Eve’s parents were as couple as were the parents of Y-Adam
You have got to be kidding me, are you still hung up on exclusivity????
No knowledge at present that they were modern is not remotely the same thing as knowledge that they weren’t modern.
peace
then you have no idea what is under discussion
peace
Jesus was certainly prone to talk trash when it was appropriate.
It really depended on the attitude of his dialogue partner.
peace
Again it’s not an argument it’s merely an answer to Corneel’s direct question.
It’s things like that that make me think you are not really that interested in what is relevant to the discussion.
peace
Blaming the victim and as a bonus point comparing yourself to Jesus. How very, very Christian of you.
If it’s an answer to Corneel’s question, then why is it in a response to me?
I was not comparing myself to Jesus. I was trying to act like him. That is what Christians do
quote:
A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.
(Luk 6:40)
end quote:
peace
It was not in response to you.
It was in response to him.
He asked why I needed it to be so—- and I told him
peace
John Harshman,
How about hitting the reset.
Do you have any comments at all on the paper???
peace
Provided that biblical Eve was part of a breeding population, as you claim to be willing to accept, there is nothing to suggest that she did not literally exist (ahem, from a genetic point of view that is). Mitochondrial eve has nothing to do with this person, except for being a namesake. Let go of the poor woman.
Never heard any trying to act like Jesus by talking shit when someone asks you a question.
We live in strange times.
fith,
Have you become Christian?
Wonder how the literal Adam and Eve separated by thousands of years procreated resulting in the literal Cain and Abel.
Don’t be silly filth, that extant mitochondria would coalesce into a single female in the past is a direct consequence of the way mitochondria are inherited. It has to be the case whether there was an actual Eve or not.
This is like saying that the Sun rising proves, once and for all, that “God” said “let there be light.”
But that isn’t the post we’re talking about here. You appear to have lost sight of the immediate thread.
All speculations are allowed… the evidence is meager… if any at all…but what is new in the evolutionary…whatever… ?
Been there, done that. The methods are incompletely explained, and what is explained is a slapdash replacement for the standard methods. The conclusions do not in the main follow from the data and analyses but from special pleading to force a fit to their literal-Genesis model. And they are in fact supposing that there was a literal couple, Adam and Eve, who are the originally created first couple, the exclusive ancestors of all humans (including, incidentally, Denisovans and Neandertals). It’s not worth anyone’s attention.
Was jesus also prone to make a fool of himself?
Timeless time travel!
Done??? Well…what do you mean by “done that”? Have you “done” one experiment to prove your speculations? I ‘done’ that…
You are correct.
The reason is that you mistook my offer to answer questions about why Christians need certain things to be true as and argument for some reason.
It was not meant to be any such thing.
But when you acted as if it was I assumed were referring to that earlier discussion.
It can get pretty repetitive when you make those sorts of unwarranted charges over and over.
anyway I apologize for the mistake and once again point out that I was not using “I need it to be true” as an argument.
peace
If I were you, I would forget the okapi embarrassment…
Please point me to where that is made explicit in the paper.
Thanks in advance.
peace
The paper presents evidence that there is no reason to assume they were separated by thousands of years.
peace
The discussion about Denisovans and Neandertals was my doing, I was trying to show you how coalescent theory does not explain a single recent Mitochondrial eve for all humanity.
The paper is much more noncommittal about those groups
here is money the quote if you are interested.
quote;
Lenski’s LTEE (Tenaillon et al. 2016) tells us there is a real possibility that mutator strains can emerge when sub-populations are cut off from the outside and restricted in size. We suspect the differences occurred early on in post-Flood human history and were driven by a drastically small population moving into new areas and remaining small. This may help to explain why a few scattered individuals and rare groups have highly divergent haplotypes. The same concept might explain the ancient and highly divergent Homo populations such as Neanderthals, Denisovans, H. erectus, H. floresiensis, and Homo naledi (we do not have DNA sequences for all of these yet, but see Wood 2012). It should be noted that the genomes of ancient Egyptians were much more similar to those of Eurasia than sub-Saharan Africa. Substantial mixing across the Sahara has occurred, but probably not until after the rise of Islam(Schuenemann et al. 2017). In a similar way, the first people in Eurasia
(apparently, Neanderthals and Denisovans) were different from those that came later. There is additional evidence that the most ancient people in southern and southeastern Africa were different from the people living there today, with the ancient genomes corresponding to the isolated and more divergent Khoi-San peoples instead of the dominant Bantus (Schlebusch et al. 2017; Skogland et al.2017). Thus, DNA can reveal interesting historical demographic shifts, but it is as if the marginal populations (e.g., Neanderthals and Denisovans, and to a much lesser extent other isolated modern populations) experienced elevated mutation rates. This is another area for further research.
end quote;
Then why the hell are you commenting for days on a thread specifically dedicated to it????
peace
Thought it didn’t matter?
Relax Fifth . John can waste his time in anyway he chooses. Why would you need scientific justification anyway for your beliefs?
Holy crap! Now the appearance of mutator bacterial strains in a culture medium means that homonids were mutators? Amazing! Could creationists be any more stupid?
Of course you were:
J-Mac,
If I were jesus, I would forget the fig tree embarrassment
Sure, why not.
Please don’t take it as a challenge.