Scientific evidence that people are not descended from a single male ancestor

Please see this page's "Discussion" page! — Bruce (talk)

See also:-

• Biblical evidence that people are not descended from a single male ancestor
• Contesting the Scientific View of Human Origins

Archeological evidence for an ancient and widespread human population

• Bro Mike Pearson presents archeological evidence for "vast cultures across the world at the same time as Adam and Eve" (late neolithic age) in The Fourth Conversation online here. He argues that the archeological evidence is against early Christadelphian writers who hypothesised that a "pre-Adamic" race may have been destroyed prior to the creation of Adam.

Very ancient fossils indicate ancient human origins

• Bro Wilfred Lambert on the archaelogical/paleontological record:

Taking the days of the first account as literal twenty-four hour periods means that the universe arose (according to the traditional rendering of Gen. 1:1–2) no earlier than c. 5000 BC, if not a thousand years later. Study of geology over some centuries now has shown evidence of a succession of different eras represented by layers of rock giving evidence of the development of the earth over millions of years. While man in this sequence is a relatively recent arrival, the new dating techniques of the current century – radiocarbon, thermoluminescence, and dendrochronology – certainly make a date of even 5000 BC much too late for the origin of man. Hence, sceptics argue, Genesis is proved wrong.

— Creation | A Tribute to Wilfred Lambert
(As of April 2024, it is down the page at https://wilfred.endeavourmagazine.org/ )

See material contesting the fossil record in a general way moved to the Discussion page

Antiquity of the human race

• Christadelphian blogger Dr Ken Gilmore gives a more general treatment of "new evidence on the antiquity of the human race" here.

• Evidence of Australian aboriginal settlements up to 50,000 years ago keeps turning up. (Original paper in Nature here.)

See an argument that scientific evidence cannot be trusted moved to the Discussion page

Our cells are living history books

• Genetic studies show that a detectable percentage of modern human genomes is inherited from Neanderthals and Denisovans. Read about this in Mike Pearson's book The Fourth Conversation here.

• There is "too much in the human genome to have arisen from two people living 6-10 thousand years ago" - and too many bacteria, parasites etc in human bodies! See Ken Gilmore's post here.

• For (much) more detail:
  • Bro Ken Gilmore is blogging on Graeme Finlay's book Human Evolution: Genes, Genealogies and Phylogenies at Evolutionary Creationism: A Christadelphian Perspective.

TODO
Old links, broken. Try here for fixes: https://biologos.org/articles/does-genetics-point-to-a-single-primal-couple

• • Also Biologist Dennis Venema has a series of blog posts at Eve, and Human Population Genetics: Defining the Issues. These posts "... explore the genetic evidence that indicates humans became a separate species as a substantial population, rather than descending uniquely from an ancestral pair."
    • A link to an objection by biologist Dr Richard Buggs can be found on Venema's Biologos blog page.
    • Responses by Dennis Venema are there too.
  • Scholarly article: Hobolth, A. et al. Incomplete lineage sorting patterns among human, chimpanzee, and orangutan suggest recent orangutan speciation and widespread selection, Genome Res. 2011 Mar; 21(3): 349–356 accessible here. This study of human, chimpanzee and orangutan genomes concludes that "the ancestral species of human and chimpanzees never experienced a severe population bottleneck".

---

See also Biblical evidence that people are not descended from a single male ancestor

— Bruce (talk)