Need Help Understanding Genetics and Arguments for Mankind's Age

[EccentricM]

So, I've been doing research of late to adress the claims that the human genome "proves humans are older than 6000 years".  Something about the genome being mapped is literally like "reading a family tree" and it factually tells us how many humans have existed before us and how long ago?

 

Though this is thrown around a lot by many people who oppose Genesis, I've not actually come across any scientific infomation or explantion which actually explains "how" that is so. So before I can attempt to fight a claim, I first need to "understand" the claim, and what it's based of off. 

 

The best understanding I came to was something along the lines of; genes are replicated as they are passed down, with slight changes or mutations. On this basis, it is thought that the age of a species can be calculated by the number of changes or mutations in the genes carried in its DNA. The more different the DNA in the ancestral fossil to modern humans, the older it must be. I literally can't find anything else on the subject which gets close to the line of reasoning I was presented with for the claim of the genome proving we're older than 6000 years.

 

 

Is anyone here familiar with this line of reasoning, or genetics in general?

 

 

With my limited understanding, I researched the genome and came across the fact that we gave far less genes than evolutionist scientists expected us to have (which was estimated to be above 142,000, but to this day appears to be only to be between 25,000 to 19,000 genes). With this find, I argued that the genome does not prove we are older than 6000 years, but the opposite. My logic, is that this can be used to prove humans have not been around as long as evolutionists claim, or we'd have a far larger accumulation of genes (akin to species which have many more genes than us, and have been around for longer).

 

However, before I put this "in print", I want to make sure that I understand this right, and that I'm not mistaking one thing for another or making an invalid argumentation against the initial claim I'm trying to debunk.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by EccentricM

[Dages]

We have to account the method of reproduction (large mammals have less generations).

I don't know much about this field though. I'd rather stay in the Bible field because we are second to none.

 

That's a interesting topic though, I'll read it with attention.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Dages

[Dustparticle]

Believe me, stick to the Bible. It make since. Getting deep into Genetics and DNAs draws  people away from the Bible. When the Bible says Adam and Even were made about 6,000 years ago around Turkey, then stick with it. It make since.

[EccentricM]

52 minutes ago, Dustparticle said:

Believe me, stick to the Bible. It make since. Getting deep into Genetics and DNAs draws  people away from the Bible. When the Bible says Adam and Even were made about 6,000 years ago around Turkey, then stick with it. It make since.

I'm researching for a book I'm writing, where I'm collecting enough evidence which fits into the paradigm of the Genesis account.

[Dustparticle]

32 minutes ago, EccentricM said:

I'm researching for a book I'm writing, where I'm collecting enough evidence which fits into the paradigm of the Genesis account.

Evidence from the world can be misleading. Take for instance the world basically said that we descended  from Africa. This is base upon of believing that we came from apes. I went to a person  who knows  little about DNA and she did not know about this.

[EccentricM]

10 minutes ago, Dustparticle said:

Take for instance the world basically said that we descended  from Africa. This is base upon of believing that we came from apes

Well, it's just the skewing of facts to fit a framework you see (this is the point of my book). There is nothing wrong with the theory of Africa, in fact, it closely resembles the scriptures in that all the children of Noah are from the Near East (right outside of Africa). Though they say that theory is outdated now in the evolution community and other places have been suggested based on updated infomation (including the Middle East).

The points I wish to make, is not to deny real science of secularism, but rather, to point it how it can also fit a Biblical framework.

 

Often, arguments are not black and white, but somewhere a middle ground can be found, between the two extremes of which is "the actual truth". We believe in God's word to be this truth of course. As a result, there should be "patterns" in secular history and science which is akin to the Bible's frame, and of course, there are, just that they are made to fit into "their" understanding of the world, which affects calculation, and so on.

The ultimate point though, even the theory of evolution as taught in textbooks and schools, lines up very well with our understanding of the Genesis account, the only difference being the assumed dates of certain events (such as man's arrival), and the belief of macroevolution. But in all other ways, the research of athiests, who condemn the Bible, unknowingly support it with their findings, if one has the eye to spot it.

Edited April 3, 2021 by EccentricM

[Dustparticle]

22 minutes ago, EccentricM said:

Well, it's just the skewing of facts to fit a framework you see (this is the point of my book). There is nothing wrong with the theory of Africa, in fact, it closely resembles the scriptures in that all the children of Noah are from the Near East (right outside of Africa). Though they say that theory is outdated now in the evolution community and other places have been suggested based on updated infomation (including the Middle East).

The points I wish to make, is not to deny real science of secularism, but rather, to point it how it can also fit a Biblical framework.

 

Often, arguments are not black and white, but somewhere a middle ground can be found, between the two extremes of which is "the actual truth". We believe in God's word to be this truth of course. As a result, there should be "patterns" in secular history and science which is akin to the Bible's frame, and of course, there are, just that they are made to fit into "their" understanding of the world, which affects calculation, and so on.

The ultimate point though, even the theory of evolution as taught in textbooks and schools, lines up very well with our understanding of the Genesis account, the only difference being the assumed dates of certain events (such as man's arrival), and the belief of macroevolution. But in all other ways, the research of athiests, who condemn the Bible, unknowingly support it with their findings, if one has the eye to spot it.

I just leave Africa out of this. We talking some 800 miles or so miles what Darwin taught and what the Bible taught.

[EccentricM]

14 minutes ago, Dustparticle said:

I just leave Africa out of this. We talking some 800 miles or so miles what Darwin taught and what the Bible taught.

What does the Bible teach?

 

We don't know, even Biblically, where the Garden of Eden was, or where Adam and Eve, and his later children up to Noah resided. We only know where they ended up, and that was due to the ark sailing across the global deluge.

I reason that, these findings/reasonings, echo truths, but are just skewed into an athiest model. But as for the idea of Africa or anywhere else suggested by secularism, I see no issue, as anywhere on the planet could have been Eden and the first humans before the flood.

 

Even if it's post Bable, Egypt was one of the very first advanced civilisations in the scriptures, which is in Africa also. The people in the field merely have bits and pieces of a larger mosaic, but I am confident it can be pieced together to the Biblical picture.

Edited April 3, 2021 by EccentricM

[New World Explorer]

5 hours ago, EccentricM said:

However, before I put this "in print", I want to make sure that I understand this right, and that I'm not mistaking one thing for another or making an invalid argumentation against the initial claim I'm trying to debunk.

 

There is more and more "of credible (read misleading)" information flooding mankind coming directly and indirectly, from theory of evolution promoted by Satan to discredit Jehovah's beautiful creation.

Take for example this one: Traces of mystery ancient humans found lurking in our genomes

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24031992-600-traces-of-mystery-ancient-humans-found-lurking-in-our-genomes/#ixzz6r0FIpP5U

 

Personally I think the project is very time consuming. Have fun with  Denisovans!  LOL https://www.newscientist.com/definition/denisovans/

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

I'm researching for a book I'm writing

Is this gonna end up like the video game you were designing 

[EccentricM]

6 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Is this gonna end up like the video game you were designing 

Well the game was always a fun concept with no actual hope of ever being published 😄

 

But I hope not. I reeeaally want to actually publish as least "one" work in my life, as people are always saying I should as I'm wasting my potential by not, lol. Though this has been in the works for.. a long time, with a "back and forth ethic", I do want to actually get it done one day, lol.

[EccentricM]

24 minutes ago, New World Explorer said:

Personally I think the project is very time consuming. Have fun with  Denisovans

Already adressed. I argue all "near human hominids" are either just extinict ethicities of man, and not "sub species" (because they could breed with us, and we have what they call "neatherthal" DNA today in us..  and just means they were men, because anything other than a pure identical species cannot produce children), or picked out fossils with no proven relations to us and are just shoved into their fictional timeline of "human evolution" (not based on actual evidence of transitional forms).

You see, they calculate "x,y,z" species is an ancient sub-species ancestor based on the "assumption" that they "must be" pre homo-sapien forms, and so they calculate their readings and dating by the framework of how long it's assumed for a species to transmorph into another. But when you take away that premise and go by radiocarbon dating (which is very limited by itself anyway) alone... the ages become a lot younger on these men they have found. The asserted ages are multipled by other pieces of data, many of which are based in assumptions without actual tangible proof.

I have many quotes of people in the field admitting these things word for word, including one I have a personal conversation with years ago.

Edited April 3, 2021 by EccentricM

[Dustparticle]

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

What does the Bible teach?

 

We don't know, even Biblically, where the Garden of Eden was, or where Adam and Eve, and his later children up to Noah resided. We only know where they ended up, and that was due to the ark sailing across the global deluge.

I reason that, these findings/reasonings, echo truths, but are just skewed into an athiest model. But as for the idea of Africa or anywhere else suggested by secularism, I see no issue, as anywhere on the planet could have been Eden and the first humans before the flood.

 

Even if it's post Bable, Egypt was one of the very first advanced civilisations in the scriptures, which is in Africa also. The people in the field merely have bits and pieces of a larger mosaic, but I am confident it can be pieced together to the Biblical picture.

I did some research on this. The Middle East had the first highly advanced structures, the were Noah’s Ark and Tower of Babel, also we must not forget Genesis the 5th chpt too. All of them is our ancestors and they were not near Africa as we know today. Plus, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are not near Africa too. Plus, the Assyrian Civilization were known as being one the first ones existed. It is in the Bible. Nineveh, Calah, Accad, Calneh, Erech, Resen,  Shinar. Genesis 10:10-12

[Vinnie]

Something to consider: the study of genetics is still in it's infancy.  

 

When you ask Google: How many geneticists are there in the world?

As of the 2015 examination, there are 1,594 clinical geneticists, 333 clinical biochemical geneticists, 770 clinical cytogeneticists, 685 clinical molecular, 49 clinical biochemical and molecular (examination only offered 1 year), and 63 medical biochemical geneticist.   

 

In this day and age, they are still determining how large the complete human Gnome is.

https://www.veritasgenetics.com/our-thinking/whole-story/#:~:text=A Real Human Genome is,dissimilar to each of us.” 

 

 

Can any line of thinking to use the human gnome to determine how old we are be based on accurate knowledge or evolutionary ideas and  guesswork? 

 

The warning is found in 1 Corinthians 1:20,21 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this system of things? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not get to know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing.

 

Try as you might, you will not be able to come to logical conclusions of Godly things based on worldly thinking. 

 

 

[Brandon]

2 hours ago, EccentricM said:

we have what they call "neatherthal" DNA

I wonder if the human-angel hybrid people who died in the flood left skeletal DNA

[EccentricM]

46 minutes ago, Brandon said:

I wonder if the human-angel hybrid people who died in the flood left skeletal DNA

Possible as well. I did consider that, if it wasn't for the fact that we have that DNA in us today (at least for neadethals), which should not be possible as the nephilim apparently couldn't have children and all died in the flood (and it's doubtful Noah's kids married nephilim women/daughters of... frightful).  Though.. if there are other remains which are "hybrids" in their DNA, but have no relation to us at all in our modern genes/left overs, then.. possibly.

Edited April 3, 2021 by EccentricM

[New World Explorer]

12 minutes ago, EccentricM said:

Though.. if there are other remains which are "hybrids" in their DNA

That would explain my "donut" DNA LOL 

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

the nephilim apparently couldn't have children

Does it say that in genesis?

[EccentricM]

5 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Does it say that in genesis?

I was wondering the same thing 😄

[Katty]

If I understand you correctly, this topic is somewhat covered in the Reasoning book, under the subheading, Dates. 
The information in the reasoning book might be somewhat old, but it does open a very fundamental question:
How reliable are the measuring tools that anthropologists use to determine the age of the human species?
There's no way to get an honest answer: there's money, reputation, and credibility at stake here. 

Anyway, here's the link to that topic:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989220#h=4

 

And here's a quote that I find relevant. Might give you a starting point
 

Quote

The dating methods used by scientists are built on assumptions that can be useful but that often lead to very contradictory results. So, dates given by them are constantly being revised.

A report in New Scientist of March 18, 1982, reads: “‘I am staggered to believe that as little as a year ago I made the statements that I made.’ So said Richard Leakey, before the elegant audience of a Royal Institution evening discourse last Friday. He had come to reveal that the conventional wisdom, which he had so recently espoused in his BBC television series The Making of Mankind, was ‘probably wrong in a number of crucial areas.’ In particular, he now sees man’s oldest ancestor as being considerably younger than the 15-20 million years he plumped for on television.”—P. 695.

From time to time, new methods of dating are developed. How reliable are these? Regarding one known as thermoluminescence, The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says: “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.” Also, Science (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.

Popular Science (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”

It should be noted, however, that scientists believe that the age of the earth itself is much greater than the age of man. The Bible does not disagree with that.

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Katty

[EccentricM]

@Katty Yeah I got stuff like that covered. The external dating methods are an easy one to handle. It's purely the genome research I need help understanding and if my counter to it is valid.

Edited April 5, 2021 by EccentricM

[Katty]

6 hours ago, EccentricM said:

@Katty Yeah I got stuff like that covered. The external dating methods are an easy one to handle. It's purely the genome research I need help understanding and if my counter to it is valid.

There I can't help you. I doubt many people here could tbh. 
The problem is, I wonder how much the experts even really know and how much they're just speculating. 
I also fail to see how the amount of genes in the genome either proves or disproves creation or evolution. Whatever scientists speculate could be the result of evolution could just as easily have been designed to those very same specifications. It just seems like a dead end to me, but I could be speaking in ignorance here.
 

[EccentricM]

@Brandon Thought I'd post here a little preview in a part from my book I not long added in on the topic of Neaderthals and Denisovans being Nephilim, if the notion interests you.

 

Quote

There is of course, a notion of an alternative explanation on the fossils of the “near-human hominoids”, and this notion being that these are the remains of the biblical “Nephilim” from Genesis 6:4. If one is unfamiliar with the tale of the Nephilim, an abbreviated version is simply this; fallen angels were said to materialise on Earth to have sex with human women in the attempt to rule humanity and steal the world from God. The women who were bedded by the fallen angels birthed hybrid children who were known as “the mighty men of fame”, the “Nephilim”, who were said to be influential in the increasing violence and lawlessness of humanity in that time, in turn resulting in God in bringing the global flood to put an end to it all, and preventing an unnatural demonic hybrid race taking over his world before throwing the fallen angels responsible into” the prison” or “bondage of tartarus”.

For the atheist, understandably it would be a very absurd and fictional notion to try and apply to the remains of the Neanderthals and Denisovans. Nevertheless, it’s a notion that I think bares exploration and consideration, for one has to admit, the biblical account of the human race sharing the planet with a “not quite so human race” who later go extinct, does appear to at least ‘echo’ the notions of the evolutionary paradigm quite a bit.  

 

The first and most obvious thing we must consider, is the appearance of the Nephilim. The Bible, through both the meaning of the word “Nephilim”, which can mean “giant person”, as well as the reference to the “giant Nephilim” in Numbers 13:33, tells us that at the very least, the Neadtherthals were not Nephilim, for the Neadertherhals were in fact, smaller than the average human, quite the opposite of the notion of a giant. However, it is noticeable that Denisovans were a fair bit larger than both Homo-Sapiens and Neaderthals.  Thus, we have a precedent to proceed into the exploration of the idea of the Denisovans being Nephilim.

 

There are of course two large points of contention to be addressed. Firstly, whether the Nephilim themselves were capable of having children, and secondly, if God would allow any of the children of the Nephilim to survive his deluge of judgement. 

 

Of the former, some Christians reason that the Nephilim were sterile because they were unnaturally born through evil means and being the freakish hybrid offspring of demons, were perhaps deformed or somehow genetically flawed. Others reason that the Nephilim were merely “too big” to be able to mate with human women. Through these reasons it is strongly argued that Denisovans cannot be the Nephilim, for their DNA is present within us today. Of course, the bible neither states they were too big that they were unable to have sex with women, nor does it explicitly say they were sterile, so this is not a point I can bring forward as contestment against the notion of the Denisovans being Nephilim.. 

 

If it should be the fact that these fossils ‘were’ biblical Nephilim, then it would mean we are all the descendents of Nephilim, be that through Noah being the child of a Nephilim, his children if his wife were a Nephilim woman, or if his sons married Nephilim women. For biblically, we are all the offspring of Noah’s children and their wives. 

 

Of course this notion is still questionable in the latter point; would God allow such a thing to happen? It is reasoned the flood was brought to wipe clean the Earth of demonic Nephilim control (being that, the fallen angels could keep having sex with as many natural human women as they wished to continually spawn their corrupted offspring).  Thus it would appear to be strong reasoning that neither Noah, his wife, sons, or their wives were Nephilim, for the Bible appears to imply them to be a large part of the problem of the evil spreading all over the Earth and the corruption of humanity in general at the time. A Nephilim was quite both literally and figuratively a “devil child”. Of course, Jehovah is a God of forgiveness toward the repentant, and does not judge anyone based off of their ancestors, but upon their individuality, thus it could be reasoned a Nephilim may have been introduced into Noah’s family, and merely it was the “evil” God wished to remove from the Earth, Nephilim or no. But then again, perhaps all of the Nephilim were evil, and as such all would have died in the flood waters, in such a case, Denisovans would not be the Nephilim. 

 

Harkening back to the mention of Numbers 13:33, some argue this scripture as proof of post flood Nephilim, for it reads; “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them" (New International Version Bible). Yet, it should be noted, in the verse before it, Numbers 13:32, that this was a “bad report” from which is translation of the Hebrew term; “dibbah”, but a more accurate rendition is “lying report”, of which is why it was said God struck down those ones for their lies. 

 

Upon the basis that the report of their being Nephilim survivors of the flood  being a lie which God punished the lying spies for, we could additionally reason, the Denisovans are not Nephilim. Of course, it may be possible that they were merely struck down for their lies in general, as opposed to it being in relation to the statement Nephilim in itself. 

 

Thus, to conclude the thoughts on whether Denisovans are Nephilim or merely just an extinct ethnicity of humankind like the Neaderthal, is… ambiguous at best, but based upon biblical implications, I would personally lean toward “no”. However, it’s always something that can be left on the backburner for future considerations should game changing data ever present itself in the future. It’s never wise to be dogmatic on topics which are uncertain.

 

 

[Shawnster]

On 4/3/2021 at 9:40 AM, EccentricM said:

. On this basis, it is thought that the age of a species can be calculated by the number of changes or mutations in the genes carried in its DNA. 

Wouldn't this require knowing what the initial genome looked like?  How does one count the number of changes when one doesn't know where to start? 

 

Let's say I hand you a mixed up Rubik's cube or a shuffled deck of cards.  You might know how many changes it takes to get the cube solved or the deck back in numeric order by suit, but why assume that was how the cube or deck was when I found it? Maybe that's a bad illustration because Rubik's Cubes and card decks are sold in "solved" order, but I think you can see my point. How can I tell you how many changes were made when I dont know the initial start order? 

 

 

[M.J.]

On 4/5/2021 at 8:50 PM, EccentricM said:

If one is unfamiliar with the tale of the Nephilim

Tale?

 

 

On 4/5/2021 at 8:50 PM, EccentricM said:

Harkening back to the mention of Numbers 13:33, some argue this scripture as proof of post flood Nephilim,

This is actually debunked in our literature.