Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a website run by the National Geographic. The goal of the research is to find the human migration routes out of Africa through the use of DNA misalignments and tweaks which happen randomly in the male Y chromosome.
The male Y chromosome is passed identically from father to son the vast majority of the time. Sometimes, however, a genetic mutation occurs and a misalignment or random change occurs. These changes then get passed down onto their male children, and so on. This is a very plausible means of tracking human migration routes through the histories because it takes into account simple genetic facts and more importantly provides a window into the paths that ancient humans took migrating out of Africa. It even proves that humans migrated out of Africa because a marker found in someone in the middle east is also found in both Europeans and Asians and Native Americans, but not found in people in Africa, just as how subsequent waves throughout Africa gives different markers from Europeans and Asians.
Samples were taken from remote villages all over the world who have little access to the outside world and little outflow/inflow. This is important because it means that any markers that are unique will likely be found in places where settlements were made and a population stayed behind. They also reduce the potential for "cross pollenation".
So, if we have this genetic evidence that humans migrated out of Africa roughly 60,000 years ago in three big waves, how do anti-evolutionists refute this and how do people who literally take the Bible at face value respond?
I'm simply curious and hope this doesn't spawn a flame war. My intentions are purely out of curiosity.
I bet to differ. I did a search for Genographic Project and only came up with this thread in this forum. It's been discussed in other forums for different reasons, not to solicit opinions from creationists.
I'm just curious. And since I'm new to this subforum, please do tell where these "million" threads are.
This is the first thread on this topic that I have heard of.
Esker, the creationists aren't answering because they can't defend their position. Maybe the rest of us understand the topic well enough that no comment is necessary.
Perhaps Kdbrich will have something say.
Hi. My first question would be, how can they take DNA from living people, and come to the solid conclusion that others migrated 60,000 years ago?
Honestly, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to this topic, although it's interesting. But, it's kind of like how scientists say dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. I just don't buy it. And, just as we cannot prove the creation story of the Bible because we weren't around at that time, neither can people prove the dinosaurs were around millions of years ago.
Hi. My first question would be, how can they take DNA from living people, and come to the solid conclusion that others migrated 60,000 years ago?
Honestly, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to this topic, although it's interesting. But, it's kind of like how scientists say dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. I just don't buy it. And, just as we cannot prove the creation story of the Bible because we weren't around at that time, neither can people prove the dinosaurs were around millions of years ago.
So is there proof yet, or are they still looking?
Good questions mzjamiedawn. It is awesome that you admit to not knowing a lot about genetics. I know some basics, not many details, but enough to understand the concept of the research.
It goes like this at a basic level. Imagine you have a baby boy. That boy has two chromosomes, like everyone else - XY. For females it's XX.
That Y chromosome is not carried by women in their eggs. It's impossible to do so - women only carry XX chromosomes and thus their eggs, which are produced at birth (a woman is born with her lifetime supply of eggs for future children when she is born).
Therefore, the Y chromosome in your baby boy is the exact same Y chromosome as the father of the child. It had to have come from him. And every Y chromosome the man produces in his sperm is identical to his own.
There are, however, times when the genetic code has slight flaws, or a 1/1000000 chance that there is a flip in the sequence. For geeks like me this is akin to a data message in a computer getting a random corruption in its datastream. This genetic random happenstance has happened in recent memory so there is proof that this natural event occurs.
So, imagine your baby boy is one of these individuals with a random change in their sequence. What happens when he grows up and has children of his own? He cannot make the "original" sequence again - he has an altered sequence. Therefore he has to pass it down to his children, and on through the generations, until another random event happens.
With this in mind, it is natural to postulate that if humanity migrated out of Africa then there will be these markers along the way. The research team came in with only a theory and a hunch, and without any preconceptions, showed that, for example, European men carry the same markers as those men found in Africa, plus others which happened along the way. Those same markers are not found in African men, who developed different markers along the way. So, thinking about it, there is a flow of humans and their traits.
They even went into Africa to find the "original" tribe which should have very different markers from everyone else, according to their theory. This was especially difficult given the very diverse genetic makeup of Africans. But they found it - the San bushmen tribe.
Just looking at some San bushmen reveals startling genetic diversity among the villagers. Many have different eye colors, some have high cheekbones found in Asians, whereas others have the strong facial features of Europeans, and others are more "African". This particular tribe hasn't had many people come in to "pollute" the genetic makeup so it's reasonable to conclude that this tribe is one of the original ones to have some descendents move out.
It is an interesting twist in using genetics as a way to do what paleontology could not do.
Hi. My first question would be, how can they take DNA from living people, and come to the solid conclusion that others migrated 60,000 years ago?
Honestly, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to this topic, although it's interesting. But, it's kind of like how scientists say dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. I just don't buy it. And, just as we cannot prove the creation story of the Bible because we weren't around at that time, neither can people prove the dinosaurs were around millions of years ago.
So is there proof yet, or are they still looking?
Well if you do not believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago considering all the solid proof that they in fact did, I would hardly expect you to believe anything that conflicts with your already preset beliefs, regardless of how much proof there is. The OP provided a link regarding mankind's migration out of Africa...Lots of information there if you investigate it.
I believe I have my first response from a good friend of mine whose opinion I take seriously. However, she doesn't quite fit the bill of taking the bible literally, as she is a liberal Catholic.
She basically ascribes to the belief that the Bible is mostly a set of stories which mostly evolved from old myth and then written partially in code to protect themselves and partially in the manner and form that ancient peoples liked and could identify with. She has no doubt that God created the world over a set of ages and was kind of like a scientist. He laid the foundation for evolution and let it cruise for a while until He decided to do something interesting and made us. You know Carl Sagan's "History of the Earth compressed into a year" poster? Well, she believes ancient people didn't have the technology to really understand how old the Earth was, but it is the same idea and it was to convey the world is a whole heckuva lot older than us.
She is a scientist and wholly ascribes to the belief that God is like the architect of architects and even though is omnipotent and omniprescient, would prefer to let things take their course. As for why she believes that ... I think there's many other threads which discuss this.
So ... that's my first answer. Anyone else to put their ideas forth?
Remember this is NOT a flame war. I am NOT here to disprove anyone. In MY own efforts in becoming more understanding and tolerant of people who are religious I am simply asking for opinions. PLEASE keep it respectful!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
