Homo Sapiens: origin Africa or Eden?
In my previous blog article (Evolution is fun) we talked about the basic scientific idea behind evolution and why the theories must not be 'injected' into the Biblical account. Theories made up from a naturalistic viewpoint (as is traditionally the case with an atheist point of view) must also be separated from science, a domain Christians must not let hijack by atheists as has happened for far too long. Further on, unlike the atheistic interpretations of the data of evolution, we are interested in the scientific data as it is. Besides all this, we are also interested in the question how we can understand creation in view of evolution. But we first try to understand a little more about what the evolution concept of the human species is really about. We have to talk about Homo Sapiens, and a little bit about the Neanderthal as well.
Scientific theory locates our ancestry in Africa. An African origin of mankind may appear to be contradicting with Christian faith, given that the garden of Eden leads us to what is now Iraq - not Africa. But are we talking about the same thing here? Given what we saw in the former blog, it is clearly justified to argue that the scientific outlook may not be the point where the Bible starts talking about Adam & Eve.
Summary of the blog post
Evidence for the African origin of the human species has been strongly fortified by the scientific study of genetics since about the 1990s, when the Human Genome Project (HGP) delivered data confirming a timing way beyond those 10,000 Biblical years.
What is the data telling us exactly? The fact is, that the most varied DNA in humans is found on the African continent, while DNA in humans becomes less and less varied the more we look away from that continent. The theory that makes sense of this data shows us a historical trace of how the human species spread out all over the world, starting from Africa as the country of origin. This theory explains the facts in a very straightforward way. (Check my original blog for this data coloured on a world map). Accepting that this theory explains the data very well does not mean you have to agree with it as THE ultimate theory. But it is a good theory.
In a Biblical context, the appearance of the human being on earth has traditionally been linked with the Biblical genealogy, in the shape of the family tree of Adam and Eve as we find it described in the Old Testament, as well as repeated, in a shortened and stylized form, in the gospels (Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3). So for one thing, it is interesting that the Out of Africa model basically brings us back to the Genesis 1 idea that mankind originated from 1 common ancestor. At the same time it is clear that our African ancestor still comes with some 200,000 years attached to his original appearance - you are not going to get rid of that huge time span any time soon.
Our ancestor was, from a scientific viewpoint, a woman. We must imagine a woman at some point in time (200,000 years ago in evolution theory interpretation), who disposed of the particular DNA which was the source of the DNA in all of us today. Scientists call this woman - to no one's surprise - the mitochondrial Eve, even though this is just a wink to our common Christian tradition. It could be seen as an indirect acknowledgment that both religion and science came to the same conclusion at this point - as if we reached a stage in history where even scientists would no longer compare this species to 'apes' whatsoever.
We should remember how scientific data has been used to our own peril just as well - for instance, how it has targeted people for 'race preference' reasons, and also especially the Jews - all of it with alleged 'scientific evidence' for these monstruosities. Think about it: with science as argument, the Germans hit ruthlessly on the very people whose thoughts about us, created beings, claimed oneness of human nature - created out of one man/woman. Today, this very same science detected an equivalent argument against these monstruosities only since the 1990s, that is some 3500 or more ears after the Jews formulated this vision on human oneness, and 35 years after the Holocaust. Now, finally, the emergence of sophisticated DNA analysis could confirm the similarity of all human beings.
Side note. The link above will bring you to the original, full posting on my own blog. All comments there are welcome - don't worry about those comments being lost because I never delete comments no matter how critical - unless they would defy all the rules of decent communication. If you comment in this group, that is of course fine, although I may not respond myself. I do not cross-post the entire article in the group because if I do some corrections later on, I do not want to do the update in 5 different places.
General note about the current evolution vs creation series of blogs, to clarify my own position and attitude on this sensitive topic. On the one hand, I do reject an attitude that throws aside all 'new' insights based on the claim "I stick to the Bible" (which includes an accusation that I do not). But I also oppose the attitude of pretending or suggesting to be "more advanced in Christian thought" than others (as the acceptance of evolution could easily be labeled). My criteria for appreciating my Christian brothers and sisters - and anyone else - is not based on any "amount of insight" but rather on their - your - being a genuine person.
Link to the original, complete blog article (open to debate).
Scientific theory locates our ancestry in Africa. An African origin of mankind may appear to be contradicting with Christian faith, given that the garden of Eden leads us to what is now Iraq - not Africa. But are we talking about the same thing here? Given what we saw in the former blog, it is clearly justified to argue that the scientific outlook may not be the point where the Bible starts talking about Adam & Eve.
Summary of the blog post
Evidence for the African origin of the human species has been strongly fortified by the scientific study of genetics since about the 1990s, when the Human Genome Project (HGP) delivered data confirming a timing way beyond those 10,000 Biblical years.
What is the data telling us exactly? The fact is, that the most varied DNA in humans is found on the African continent, while DNA in humans becomes less and less varied the more we look away from that continent. The theory that makes sense of this data shows us a historical trace of how the human species spread out all over the world, starting from Africa as the country of origin. This theory explains the facts in a very straightforward way. (Check my original blog for this data coloured on a world map). Accepting that this theory explains the data very well does not mean you have to agree with it as THE ultimate theory. But it is a good theory.
In a Biblical context, the appearance of the human being on earth has traditionally been linked with the Biblical genealogy, in the shape of the family tree of Adam and Eve as we find it described in the Old Testament, as well as repeated, in a shortened and stylized form, in the gospels (Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3). So for one thing, it is interesting that the Out of Africa model basically brings us back to the Genesis 1 idea that mankind originated from 1 common ancestor. At the same time it is clear that our African ancestor still comes with some 200,000 years attached to his original appearance - you are not going to get rid of that huge time span any time soon.
Our ancestor was, from a scientific viewpoint, a woman. We must imagine a woman at some point in time (200,000 years ago in evolution theory interpretation), who disposed of the particular DNA which was the source of the DNA in all of us today. Scientists call this woman - to no one's surprise - the mitochondrial Eve, even though this is just a wink to our common Christian tradition. It could be seen as an indirect acknowledgment that both religion and science came to the same conclusion at this point - as if we reached a stage in history where even scientists would no longer compare this species to 'apes' whatsoever.
We should remember how scientific data has been used to our own peril just as well - for instance, how it has targeted people for 'race preference' reasons, and also especially the Jews - all of it with alleged 'scientific evidence' for these monstruosities. Think about it: with science as argument, the Germans hit ruthlessly on the very people whose thoughts about us, created beings, claimed oneness of human nature - created out of one man/woman. Today, this very same science detected an equivalent argument against these monstruosities only since the 1990s, that is some 3500 or more ears after the Jews formulated this vision on human oneness, and 35 years after the Holocaust. Now, finally, the emergence of sophisticated DNA analysis could confirm the similarity of all human beings.
Side note. The link above will bring you to the original, full posting on my own blog. All comments there are welcome - don't worry about those comments being lost because I never delete comments no matter how critical - unless they would defy all the rules of decent communication. If you comment in this group, that is of course fine, although I may not respond myself. I do not cross-post the entire article in the group because if I do some corrections later on, I do not want to do the update in 5 different places.
General note about the current evolution vs creation series of blogs, to clarify my own position and attitude on this sensitive topic. On the one hand, I do reject an attitude that throws aside all 'new' insights based on the claim "I stick to the Bible" (which includes an accusation that I do not). But I also oppose the attitude of pretending or suggesting to be "more advanced in Christian thought" than others (as the acceptance of evolution could easily be labeled). My criteria for appreciating my Christian brothers and sisters - and anyone else - is not based on any "amount of insight" but rather on their - your - being a genuine person.
Link to the original, complete blog article (open to debate).