Thursday, 27 June 2013

godandscience IX

Its back with what surely just from the title will prove to be the most easily falsifiable article on godandscience.org. In this post we will look at something that theists clearly hide well away and that is the aptly titled article Out of Africa or Out of Eden: Does Science Contradict the Bible?

The article starts off with this gem of information:
"Numerous genetic studies over the last few decades have shown that human genetic diversity is greatest within African populations, leading scientists to proclaim that modern human populations originated in Africa"
Sure, DNA evidence and all the fossil evidence that shows humans evolved from distant ancestors in Africa. However they then are very honest about something they say at the end of the paragraph that is:
"Can we stretch the biblical creation narrative to place Eden in Africa or is it possible that the science is wrong? Alternatively, is the Bible just wrong about where humans originated?"
There you have it, if we can prove that Eden is not in Africa then the bible is wrong. Or if we can show that Eden is in Africa which matches with the evolutionary science then evolution is right and the bible is wrong about the creation story. Or am I reading this the wrong way? Or do we have to prove every bit of science for evolution to be wrong for the bible to be right? But evolution is not wrong so the bible must be wrong.

The author then considers the question "Is Eden in Africa?' And the author come to the conclusion that there is no possible way from biblical texts that Eden could be anywhere else than in the Mesopotamian Region. So lets assume that Eden exists and that it is not in Africa for a moment, this then means the bible is incorrect as humans clearly evolved out of Africa. Well if you are not a science denier that is.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/clocking-the-human-exodus-out-of.html
So what scientific aerobics will the authors attempt to explain that the Eden hypothesis is correct.

They then go on to explain why the genetic diversity is not as common in people originating in Mesopotamia compared to Africa. They say the reason for this is that in Mesopotamia there is no geographic isolation and as such the DNA diversity is less. Whereas in Africa there is geographic isolation and so genetic diversity is diverse. I see a problem with this, as this theory is based on DNA data which is getting very badly scientific explanations. If there is a biologist reading this please help me out, but what I learnt was that the more diversity the better for a group of people. That means if there is more genetic diversity then there are more different groups interbreeding. This makes sense if humans originated in Africa as there would have been separate pockets of development before the final exodus out of Africa by certain groups (not all). Then these smaller groups would have been able to have a smaller diversity outside of Africa.

The authors then go on to say that Mesopotamia has the second highest diversity after Africans which makes sense when you look at the out of Africa human evolution. The authors counter this by saying that:
"it is entirely possible that modern humans originated in the Middle East, but lost much of their genetic diversity through subsequent migrations and replacement."
But this argument makes no sense as explained above.

Below I give you the full conclusion to the article, because I cannot make this stuff up.
"New genetic analysis of human population groups shows that peoples of the Middle East represent the second most genetically diverse group among world-wide populations. A hypothesis is proposed that modern humans originated in the garden of Eden, in or near Mesopotamia, through the direct creation of God, and subsequently migrated world-wide, first into Africa, then Asia and Europe, and eventually the Americas and Polynesia. Subsequent back migrations diluted the genetic diversity of this founder population, making them appear to be less ancient than the Africans. The hypothesis can potentially be tested by carefully examining more Middle Eastern populations in more detail to attempt to reconstruct the original founder population."
If this author actually read what he wrote, he would realise from the conclusion that he has drawn that the genetic diversity should be more in the Middle East due to back migration of Africans. However this is not the case, so we can say the creation story is rubbish.

This means according to the authors premise. The Bible is wrong about where humans (Gods chosen creatures) originated.