Today’s New Reason To Believe

Previously Posted on March 13th, 2008 by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

Three New Studies Support Biblical Account of Humanity’s Creation

What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the state of Kentucky? Horse racing? Wildcat basketball? The Louisville Slugger? Bluegrass music? What about burgoo?

Though most people probably haven’t heard about this spicy stew, it’s as much a part of the traditions of the Bluegrass State as the Kentucky Derby. Burgoo consists of a mixture of meats (beef, chicken, pork, mutton, and game animals, if available) and vegetables cooked (and re-cooked) in a large kettle over an open flame until all the flavors meld together. No two Burgoo recipes are the same. The preparation and consumption of Burgoo serves as a center piece for social gatherings. At times the entire community contributes the ingredients to make a large pot of stew.

Molecular anthropologists have recently concocted a burgoo of their own consisting of discoveries that turn the heat up on the support for the Out-of-Africa hypothesis of human origins, and with it, the biblical account of humanity’s beginnings.*

Out of Africa Hypothesis

In a nutshell, this model (also called the replacement model) maintains that modern humans evolved recently (about 100,000 years ago) in East Africa from a small hominid population and then migrated around the world to replace pre-existing hominids. Proponents believe that Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus are evolutionary side branches and dead ends.

Relative Proportion of Harmful Mutations in European and African Populations

One recent study, carried out by an international team, examined genetic variation in fifteen African American and twenty European Americans. These workers characterized genetic variability by examining single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and categorizing the DNA sequence differences as benign, possibly damaging, and probably damaging.

They noted that African Americans harbor a greater degree of SNP diversity than European Americans. Interestingly, European descendents have a greater proportion of harmful variations than people with an African ancestry.

These results find explanation if humanity arose in East Africa from a small population, and recently migrated into Europe through a genetic bottleneck. Bottlenecks result when a population drops to low levels and then recovers its numbers, or if a small subpopulation becomes separated from the main group and then later grows in size.

Genetic and Copy-Number Variation

Another study characterized the genetic variability of twenty-nine populations from around the world by monitoring 525,910 SNPs and 396 copy-number differences.

Again, the patterns of genetic variability noted in these two studies for people groups from around the world fit with the predictions of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis.

A third recently reported study focused on about 650,000 SNPs found in the genomes of 938 people representing 51 populations from around the world. The SNP data clustered into a number of groups displaying a geographical relationship that indicates an African origin of humanity and subsequent spread around the world.

Overwhelming Evidence for the Out-of-Africa Hypothesis

These three new research reports can be thrown into a large simmering kettle of studies that support the Out-of-Africa model. (For a detailed discussion of the myriad evidences in favor of the Out-of-Africa Hypothesis see the book Who Was Adam? Collectively, the consensus that emerges from this work indicates that humanity originated recently (about 100,000 years ago) from East Africa (near the location theologians ascribed to the Garden of Eden) from a small population. Amazingly, studies using mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA markers trace humanity’s origin back to a single man and woman. These studies also indicate that humanity’s migration around the world began at or near the Middle East.

Though often presented and discussed within the context of the evolutionary paradigm, this model has profound biblical implications. In some respects, the Out-of-Africa hypothesis appears to be the biblical model awkwardly forced into the evolutionary framework, like an incorrect puzzle piece. If humanity’s genesis happened in the way described in Scripture, the genetic diversity patterns observed among people groups around the world would be very similar to those discovered by anthropologists. It looks as if Adam and Eve really existed, giving rise to all humanity.

Next week I will describe another study using DNA extracted from ancient head lice that also lends credence to the biblical account of humanity’s origin. I decided it would be best not to describe this work for now. I didn’t want to ruin anybody’s appetite.

---

___________________________________

*These studies made science news headlines when first published. I discussed the scientific and biblical implications of this research on the February 22, 2008 edition of our new podcast, RTB’s Science News Flash. This podcast offers a unique Christian perspective on headline-grabbing discoveries. A free subscription to this podcast is available through iTunes.

Previously Posted July 2nd, 2008 by Jeff Zweerink

I travel frequently for work and pleasure. Whether loading up the minivan for a vacation or packing bags to fly to a speaking event, I work hard to avoid carrying unnecessary baggage. I also apply this principle to my apologetics work at Reasons To Believe.

I officially debuted on RTB’s weekly webcast, Creation Update, on August 5th, 2005. I discussed the possibility of liquid water on Mars. In particular, radioisotope measurements on a set of Martian meteorites demonstrated that the temperature of the rock out of which the meteorites formed never exceeded 0^oC (32sup>oF) over the last four billion years.

I looked at such evidence as confirmation that Earth was designed as the only planet that ever sustained large liquid water oceans. After all, life depends on liquid water. Thus, if no other planet ever had oceans, no other planet would have ever supported life.

Had I maintained an apologetic argument that Earth is designed as the only planet that contained liquid water oceans, a number of discoveries over the past couple of years would have challenged my position. At least two different lines of evidence now indicate that Mars sustained large bodies of liquid water on its surface sometime in the past. Furthermore, Jupiter’s moon Europa contains a large sub-surface liquid ocean under its outer ice crust.

However, as I reread various creation passages, I realized that the Bible seems to imply that Earth is not the only planet with water oceans. Consider the first two verses of Genesis:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (NASB) [emphasis added]

Before any explicit intervention by God in Earth’s formation, the author of Genesis describes it as covered with a liquid water ocean. The rest of Genesis 1 describes some of the miraculous work God performs to transform Earth from a structureless, dark, and empty body into a planet with diverse habitats teeming with life. It is rational to conclude that strictly natural processes can produce planets that contain substantial liquid water. In fact, that may be the starting condition of most Earth-sized planets.

I am not saying that Earth does not exhibit design. I am simply noting that one of my original ideas of how that design would be displayed was incorrect. Careful reading of Scripture helped me formulate a more accurate picture of how scientists would find Earth designed to support life. For example, further research into the water environment of Mars recently demonstrated that the salt content was far too high to permit life to originate or even exist on Mars. In other words, large liquid water oceans are not sufficient for life. The oceans must exhibit additional fine-tuning. Fuz will discuss this result further in tomorrow’s TNRTB.

By carefully studying the words of the Bible and the record of nature, I was able to put away an unnecessary piece of apologetics baggage. Perhaps it is helpful to recall past examples of unneeded arguments that hindered the church’s witness:

1. The Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth.
2. The Bible says that Earth is at the center of the universe.
3. The Bible says that the characteristics of species never change.
4. The Bible says that the Earth and the universe must be no more than 10,000 years old.

An apologist builds a body of evidence to support his position. However, any position is much easier to support if it carries no unnecessary weight.

by Jeff Zweerink

Isaac Newton’s most highly regarded scientific publication is his three-volume work Principia. In it, he powerfully demonstrated that the motions of the heavens operated according to the same natural laws that governed motion on Earth. Specifically, he formulated the universal law of gravitation, which describes the attractive force between any objects with mass.

Despite its successes, Newton’s description of gravity did not match certain astronomical measurements. The most prominent discrepancy concerned the orbit of Mercury around the Sun. Each of the planets revolves around the Sun in an elliptical manner with the Sun at one focus. Perihelion is the location on a planet’s orbit closest to the Sun. According to Newton’s theory, assuming that only one planet and the Sun exist, the perihelion is fixed. Under more realistic scenarios (for example, more planets in the system), the perihelion location moves around the Sun. Astronomers measured this “perihelion advance” for Mercury. The measured value did not match the predicted value from Newtonian gravity.

In his general theory of relativity (first published in 1916) Albert Einstein outlined a test that showed how his theory properly accounted for the perihelion advance of Mercury. However, he was not alone in developing models to explain this observation. Another model, the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation, also explained Mercury’s behavior with one requirement—the Sun must demonstrate an oblateness (flattening) caused by a rapidly rotating core. In other words, a rapidly spinning core causes the Sun’s equator to bulge much the same way squeezing a rubber ball on opposite sides does. Earlier measurements seemed to confirm the required solar oblateness although there was no way to determine the rotation of the Sun’s core.

Recent work by a team of U.S. scientistsconfirm the solar oblateness detected by previous measurements. However, the oblateness arises from magnetic features on the Sun—not from a rapidly spinning core. Thus, it seems that general relativity provided the correct description of solar system dynamics all along.

Coupled with numerous other tests, general relativity ranks as one of the most examined—and most successful—theories known. Such results demonstrate that RTB’s creation model, which incorporates general relativity, rests on firm scientific footing.