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

Now, i edited the title because these claims are just astronomical and should be taken with the grain of salt. Because you will need a lot of proofs for something like that. Anyway, to the news:

Source

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

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.

"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.

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.

"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."

Now you can see a big flaw here which can get a lot of debate. They actually say the old and wrong information regarding that the humans came from the monkeys. Again, chimps and humans share a common ancestor, according to science of course. Anyone graduated in genetics should know that, but i can give a discount if we remember the point of the article.

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

Keep moving....

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

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.

"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."

What do you think about that?

a reply to: Frocharocha

Never mind

"...a common ancestor."

That somehow birthed not only an ape, but also a human...

Fantastic.

& this is more believable than Young Earth Creationism how?



Both "theories" are absolute piss.

Given the source, I'm calling BS.

There are species which have members of it,
with a DNA variance of more than 4%, but they
can still mate.

Humans are only have about a 1% difference from
chimpanzees (both standard and bonnobo).

Reference:

www.scientificamerican.com...

As a result it's entirely feasible to say that humans
ARE the '3rd chimpanzee' in many ways, which
one of my favorite authors Dr. Jared Diamond
discusses in this book:

en.wikipedia.org...

That's my humorous feedback.

Kev

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
"...a common ancestor."

That somehow birthed not only an ape, but also a human...

Fantastic.

& this is more believable than Young Earth Creationism how?



Both "theories" are absolute piss.

Like the first celphone gave rise to Android, Ipod, Ipad (the list goes on) the same could be applied when we talk about evolution.

A very old ancestor who was able to survive gave rise to multiple creatures, those creatures gave rise to other multiple creatures and one of these creatures were humans.

It's not that hard to accept. Changes in our lifes don't happen in a single day. Samething can apply to Earth and life.

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? So if it was a non-christian writer posting this on a non-christian website you would bite then huh? Probably not though, after all this is just impossible ant it?

originally posted by: Frocharocha

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
"...a common ancestor."

That somehow birthed not only an ape, but also a human...

Fantastic.

& this is more believable than Young Earth Creationism how?



Both "theories" are absolute piss.

Like the first celphone gave rise to Android, Ipod, Ipad (the list goes on) the same could be applied when we talk about evolution.

A very old ancestor who was able to survive gave rise to multiple creatures, those creatures gave rise to other multiple creatures and one of these creatures were humans.

It's not that hard to accept. Changes in our lifes don't happen in a single day. Samething can apply to Earth and life.

The difference is, we have been able to see the android evolve into the Ipod or Ipad and therefore we can say it is a fact. But you can't do the same with humans now can you?

a reply to: Frocharocha

None of those phone changes happened without intelligent interference.

You say gave rise...

You mean birthed...

We had to have come from the womb of these creatures...
As did apes...
But we cannot mate...
All from the same common ancestor...
And what we have to go on is some shared DNA...


Which leads me to believe that this DNA link actually comes from the limitations of specific genetic traits on Earth rather than any relation to these animals.

Which in turn guides me to the belief that yes, much like the android, there was interference in this "evolution"...
Genetic engineering is by far the most reliable and realistic creation story.



But if people want to believe in flesh and blood transformers, good for them.

By Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer is a monthly columnist for Scientific American, a popular science magazine with wide respect and a history of over 150 years. Shermer is also the founding publisher and a frequent contributor to Skeptic magazine.

My tour ended with an interview with Georgia Purdom, an accommodating and bright woman (Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University) who explained that the worldview you hold (biblical versus secular) determines how you interpret the data. I countered by pointing out that Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, is a born-again evangelical Christian who fully accepts evolution. In his book The Language of God (Free Press, 2007), Collins describes ancient repetitive elements (AREs) in DNA that arise from “jumping genes” that copy and insert themselves in other locations in the genome, usually without any function. When you align sections of human and mouse genomes, the AREs are in the same location. “Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in these precise positions to confuse and mislead us,” he asserts, “the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable.”

Collins is wrong, Purdom stated, because “he does not accept the biblical history in Genesis, so he’s beginning with his ideas about what happened in the past rather than what God said happened in the past, so he’s interpreting that data in light of that starting point.”

www.michaelshermer.com...-728

a reply to: Frocharocha

I don't take "Creationist Scientists" seriously because that's an oxymoron.

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

It says that Dr. Georgia Purdom was Christian after listening to Ken Ham at the age of 8 or 9. She believes in a young Earth.

Anyways, she should make a Scientific Journal. I would love to see how it's seen by real Biologists.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You can't compare phones with living beings because phones are not biological and can't reproduce.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Frocharocha

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
"...a common ancestor."

That somehow birthed not only an ape, but also a human...

Fantastic.

& this is more believable than Young Earth Creationism how?



Both "theories" are absolute piss.

Like the first celphone gave rise to Android, Ipod, Ipad (the list goes on) the same could be applied when we talk about evolution.

A very old ancestor who was able to survive gave rise to multiple creatures, those creatures gave rise to other multiple creatures and one of these creatures were humans.

It's not that hard to accept. Changes in our lifes don't happen in a single day. Samething can apply to Earth and life.

The difference is, we have be able to see the android evolve into the Ipod or Ipad and therefore we can say it is a fact. But you can't do the same with humans now can you?

Life works in different ways than technology. Since we made those things with our hands, it just really depends on whoever is working with them. But it's not different to compare evolution of life with evolution of technology.

Let' s pick than an example much more old, in this case; weapons. Probably you haven't witness the evoluion of weaponry, mostly because it passed trough a lot of chances indeed, and these changes took a really long time, there were so many weapons made that some of them are barely know, belvied to not exist and even unique.

If you don't believe that our ancestor first created weapons using sticks and rocks. Fine, let's pick an example everybody know is real:

At first we had axes, they were of closed range and could give the user problems.

Since axes did not cut properly, we made swords. But hey, they still were a problem since they didn't cut well and were closed ranged.
Hundreds of years laters people created the spears, long range, less danger to the user. But very feel penetration.

Then we got bows! Bow were very useful tools, whomever the time it takes to reload it's not worth it's penetration.

And finally we got fire weapons after thousands of years of weaponry evolution and development. Of course, most of these weapons also became much better trough the millenia, but this is just a better example.

It pretty much sums that changes like these takes time. Since life is biological and "probably" worked on it´s own, it would take a lot of time.

a reply to: Frocharocha

It never ceases to amaze me how "intelligent" people can still be so incredibly ignorant.

I want to see the documentary. The article doesn't help my curiosity. If anyone finds or before me please let me know.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You can't compare phones with living beings because phones are not biological and can't reproduce.

I didn't compare them...

In fact the first thing I did was dispel the evolutionary theory comparison by saying "none of those phone changes could have happened without intelligent interference".

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Frocharocha

It never ceases to amaze me how "intelligent" people can still be so incredibly ignorant.

Me too.

Believing in a God? Maybe.

But, believing the bible and Jesus story?

we need to consider the source.
something stinks with it.

"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."

www.scientificamerican.com...

The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition and provides a clearer view of how we are connected: chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent.

double post

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

My mistake.

But for anyone else, we can't compare cars, buildings, watches or painting with living beings.