A Young Human Race

[stephen]

A YOUNG HUMAN RACE

New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race [Excerpts]
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

In 2008, an extensive international effort was begun to sequence in unprecedented detail over 1,000 representative human genomes from around the world. The results of three preliminary pilot projects were published in October 2010--one of which uncovered a result that points to a youthful age for the human race.

In this pilot project, researchers examined in great detail the DNA base sequences from two families, including the mother, father, and child of each. A summary of the results appeared in Science, which stated that based on the data, "offspring inherit about 60 mutations that arose in their parents."1

In large measure, the research for the "1000 Genomes Project" is aimed at pinpointing exactly which mutations cause which diseases. Knowing the number of new mutations that arise with each generation can assist with tracking the new diseases that they may cause.

The measurement of close to 60 new mutations occurring within the reproductive cells of each generation is less than a prior estimate of 100.2 This figure can help answer key questions. For example, does this number of mutations provide enough "fuel" for change to have innovated modern humanity from primate ancestors? Also, can the potentially harmful effects of this rate of mutation accumulation be somehow reversed before too many incorrect DNA bases compromise humanity's survival?

The study of mutations that have no, or almost no, effect has presented a longstanding problem for evolutionary biology. Since these near-neutral mutations produce such tiny effects in cells, they do not appreciably affect any trait that is expressed in the organism.3 Therefore, these mutations are undetectable by any imagined natural process and simply add up over the generations.

[The Population Genetics Modeling Program Software] Mendel's Accountant can simulate, with unprecedented biological accuracy, the result of this accumulation. Assuming a population size of 2,000 individuals, assuming that each mother has six children, and using the rate of 60 mutations per generation in the algorithms, the simulation shows the extinction of the human race after only 350 generations. This also assumes that natural selection would have been effective at removing the least fit from the population every generation.

If this result is anywhere close to correct -- that humanity's genetic mutations would have led to extinction within 350 generations -- how could that possibly fit within evolution's long ages? But if the total age of the world is about 6,000 years,4 as is consistent with biblical history, then mankind has been here for fewer than 300 generations.5 Thus, the latest and most accurate research into human genetics confirms a straightforward reading of the biblical account of origins and human history.

References

1. Pennisi, E. 2010. 1000 Genomes Project Gives New Map of Genetic Diversity. Science. 330 (6004): 574-575.

2. Kondrashov, A. S. 2003. Direct estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation. 21 (1): 12-27.

3. Vardiman, L. 2008. The "Fatal Flaws" of Darwinian Theory. Acts & Facts. 37 (7): 6.

4. Beechick, R. 2001. Chronology for everybody. Journal of Creation. 15 (3): 67- 73.

5. In reality, the number of generations since creation is smaller, since the average generation time among pre-Flood peoples was 117 years, not 20. Factoring this in yields about 231 generations from creation to 2010 A.D.

New Genomes Project Data Indicate a Young Human Race

 

[Tusk Barnes]

Stephen,

Have you looked into any of these references and how or if they apply to Brian Thomas' article? Have you looked into Brian Thomas at all?

He's not an accredited scientist with a PhD by any means. It even says so on the ICR website, "Mr. Thomas is Science writer at the Institute for Creation Research." The ICR is also not a scientific establishment. His Bachelors in Biology and Masters in Biotechnology really just shows that how low the standards of education in this country are, since few of his articles show any actual understanding of biology. Instead, he shows that he thinks he understands science so long as it agrees with the scope of Christianity. Mr. Thomas has exercised brilliant quote mining skills (And in some cases "Quote making skills) to write this article, but let's just stay focused on the References he provided and what they actually have to say.

Source 1: I've read this article of Elizabeth Pennisi's in Science Magazine, and Thomas's use and analysis of it is more or less spot on, right up until...

[Pennisi's] figure can help answer key questions. For example, does this number of mutations provide enough "fuel" for change to have innovated modern humanity from primate ancestors? Also, can the potentially harmful effects of this rate of mutation accumulation be somehow reversed before too many incorrect DNA bases compromise humanity's survival?

Where is Thomas getting these questions from? Pinnsi's article makes no mention of "fuel" for change, nor any attempt to address whether humans have had enough time to evolve. It also makes no mention of this mutating DNA threatening the survival of humanity. Nothing in the Science Magazine article even comes close to possibly having any data beneficial to answering these questions.

Source 2: After reading Alexey Kondrashov's article, I must say, I have no idea where Thomas found the estimate of 100. He's not even quote mining here, he's just making up numbers. In reality, Kondrashov states...

I estimate per nucleotide rates of spontaneous mutations of different kinds in humans directly from the data on per locus mutation rates and on sequences of de novo nonsense nucleotide substitutions, deletions, insertions, and complex events at eight loci causing autosomal dominant diseases and 12 loci causing X-linked diseases. The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8×10⁻⁸ per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53.

Curious how Thomas managed to leave that little tid-bit out. I wonder if he's thinking scientifically, or if he's got an agenda, instead.

Source 3: Here, Thomas is citing the Director of Research of the ICR, which is like one blind man trusting another blind man's description of how anything looks. It also reeks of brown-nosing. Larry Vardiman's PhD is in Atmospheric Science, which means he has basically nothing reliable or credible to say about biology or genetics.

Scientists spend their entire lives verifying the claims of their colleagues by attempting to prove them incorrect, looking for exceptions, looking for flaws in theories. The "scientists" at the ICR have devoted their lives to verifying the claims of the Bible by simply agreeing with it and with one another. Evolution has no known exceptions yet, and scientists understand it's a theory, but it's a theory with no yet known exceptions. It's also incredibly important to realize that if evolution ever is proved wrong, it does not make creationism correct. It simply means we don't know again.

I thought this was funny when I read it...

The study of mutations that have no, or almost no, effect has presented a longstanding problem for evolutionary biology. Since these near-neutral mutations produce such tiny effects in cells, they do not appreciably affect any trait that is expressed in the organism.

What is he talking about? This is absolutely not a longstanding problem for evolutionary biology. These mutations are exactly what evolution is founded upon. This is exactly what evolution says happens. Small changes over time. Some mutations are dominant. Some are recessive. Some benefit. Some harm. Some have no affect. If a mutation is harmful, an organism will cope or it will die. If a mutation is too harmful to adapt, the life will not survive, and the trait will die off. If the mutation is beneficial, it will give the organism an advantage and the trait will survive.

Source 4: Thomas' use of this source is just as laughable as the previous one, because the author simply uses his conclusion as his premise. He basically says, "If the Earth is 6000 years old, then of course the Earth is 6000 years old, and here is the proof."

It's cyclical and founded upon an unverified apriori assumption, to prove itself true.

Footnote 5:

In reality, the number of generations since creation is smaller, since the average generation time among pre-Flood peoples was 117 years, not 20. Factoring this in yields about 231 generations from creation to 2010 A.D.

OK, the global flood did not happen. Any scientist will tell you so. There is absolutely no evidence supporting the notion that the Earth was covered with water, leastwise not 3000-5000 years ago. So his claim of "Reality" is ridiculous. He is again making the unverified apriori assumption that the Bible is factual, and so therefore his statements about it are factual.




You're certainly entitled to believe everything you want to, and you're allowed to listen to anyone you wish, but if a man is known to be unreliable or incredible, then it would be foolish to rely on him or give him credit.

 

[stephen]

Stephen,

Have you looked into any of these references and how or if they apply to Brian Thomas' article? Have you looked into Brian Thomas at all?

I have not looked into any of the references given in the article.

The writer appears to be facing the same way that I face in the matter of Christian faith.

I do not mind how far a person is behind me, or how far a person may be in front of me. As long as we are looking the same way and lifting up the same Person we can share and have fellowship.

I see you have given the article some thought and expressed your own opinion. Thats ok

 

[Tusk Barnes]

I like your style, Stephen. Keep up the good work.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Wow have I seen this article posted in a lot of places.

[The Population Genetics Modeling Program Software] Mendel's Accountant can simulate, with unprecedented biological accuracy, the result of this accumulation.

Mendel's Accountant has been demonstrated as complete baloney, by the way, as it must assume a small population size and artificially limits the number of accumulated beneficial mutations at 1788.

Assuming a population size of 2,000 individuals, assuming that each mother has six children, and using the rate of 60 mutations per generation in the algorithms, the simulation shows the extinction of the human race after only 350 generations.

So I can start with a population of around 2,000 rabbits, assume each mother has six offspring that survive (4-12 is average), with a similar mutation rate (they are placental mammals after all) and have all my rabbits go extinct in under 400 generations? You may want to clue rabbits in that they should all be dead by now.




Lurker