In March of 2013,
scientists claimed that they had found genetic material in the DNA
of Albert Perry, a deceased African American man from South Carolina
that traces the human lineage back further than previously thought based study
of the DNA sample. According to an article by New Scientist that
covered in depth the new genetic discovery, scientists already believed
that the Y-chromosome, a gene that determines male gender, based on the study
of thousands of submitted DNA samples, was able to trace the human race back to
a common male ancestor just like the mitochondrial gene was used to trace the
human race back to a common female ancestor and not only trace humanity back to
a common ancestor, but even the possible origins of modern man.
Evolutionists had already believed that based on fossil evidence, the
origin of modern humans was traced back to 195,000 years, but the new genetic
discovery is now said to trace the origin of modern man even further back than
that: to roughly 340,000 years.
According to a Fox
News science article, the means for determining the age of humanity was
based on how many mutations separate the Y-chromosomes and in the case of
Perry, who was not yet identified at the time, his chromosomes
had "more than any seen to date." [1]
The Y
chromosome also stood out from thousands of other submitted
samples because geneticists were not able to place it upon the already
established genetic Adam line according to New Scientist.
New Scientist, an outlet closer to the primary source
of the news about the genetic discovery, stated that the
distinctness in Albert Perry's chromosomes simply showed that at some
point in our genetic history "his male lineage separated from all
others..." [2]
The article went on to
explain, as has been the concession by the scientific community in fairly
recent times, that so-called archaic and modern human groups already co-existed
and were already interbreeding with one another:
"Perry's Y
chromosome split from the rest of humanity long before our species
appeared. What are the implications?
One possibility is that
Perry's Y chromosome may have been inherited from an archaic human population
that has since gone extinct. If that's the case then...anatomically
modern humans interbred with an ancient African human. There is
supporting evidence for this scenario. In 2011, researchers examined
human fossils from a Nigerian site called Iwo Eleru.
The fossils showed a
strange mix of ancient and modern features, which also suggested interbreeding
between modern and archaic humans." [3]
If humanity had
descended from more than one lineage, the ability for an interracial couple to
produce viable offspring might not be nearly as likely as it would be if all
the different ethnic groups had descended from a single lineage. There
would just be too many genetic barriers. But descent from a single
lineage as recorded in the first four chapters of Genesis (Gen.
1-5) would have enabled the rise and formation of the different ethnic
groups and physical traits present throughout humanity. It would also
explain how so-called archaic and modern humans would have also been able to interbreed.
Any divergence from that
line would have been result of a forced scattering of men and isolation of
different groups of people at some point in history which the book of Genesis
also records. (Gen. 10:1-11:9) If such a forced dispersion did take
place, then it should be no surprise to adherent to scripture that our DNA
might display genetic evidence of descent from a bloodline that diverged from a
primary lineage.
What Albert Perry's DNA
tells us is that at some point in our genetic history, there emerged
lineages, by way of dispersion and isolation, which had become removed from the
main ancestral line as has been the case with other living creatures such dogs,
cats, various forms of birds, and so forth. All of mankind is still descended
from "one blood". (Acts 17:26) Science, the science that can be
tested and observed that is, still continues to vindicate the testimony of the
inspired Word of God.
As to what shade of
skin Adam and Eve possessed, no one will ever know in this life time and it
doesn't matter. Throughout Christendom, we have been confronted
with various forms of imagery depicting biblical figures, be they
Adam and Eve, Moses, Elijah, the Apostles, or even Christ Himself, but what
must be remembered that when we look at these images, we are only looking at
what the artist behind those images imagined these figures to be when they
walked upon this earth. Those images that are portrayed, cherished,
revered, and worshipped, are not the actual people themselves and as far as anyone
should be concerned, do not look anywhere near what the makers of those images
imagined them to look.
When we make the mistake
of thinking that a so-called picture or portrait of Jesus is actually Jesus, we
fall into the act of worshipping a Jesus made in the image of what the artist
may have thought He looked like rather than Christ for who He is and presents
Himself to us and furthermore, the faith we claim to identify with and
embrace becomes a faith warped into an image not intended by the
God who is the true author and finisher of it. (Heb. 12:2)
In every case where this
is done, no matter what culture it takes place in, it has caused needless
division within the body of professing followers of Christ when there needs to
be unity in the Lord we profess to follow as was desired by our God in the
first place (Jn. 17:21-23, Gal. 3:28 ) who created us to be equal and
is representative of every tribe, nation, kindred, tongue, and color and whose
standards are applied to everyone the same way (Ex. 12:49, Num. 15:16,
Eph. 4:4-5) and whose promises all who are in Christ are partakers in.
End Notes:
1.
Fox News, "Don't call him 'Adam': South Carolina man's genes help date
first man," Fox News, March 6, 2013
2. Colin Barras,
"The faither of all men is 340,000 years old," New Scientist, March
6, 2013
3. Ibid
Scripture references:
1. Genesis 1-5
2. Genesis
10:1-11:9
3. Acts 17:26
4. Hebrews 12:2
5. John 17:21-23,
Galatians 3:8
6. Exodus 12:49,
Numbers 15:16
No comments:
Post a Comment