Several years ago, studies of human mitochondrial DNA from around the world discovered something that surprised geneticists. They discovered, to their surprise, that the results showed living humans are descended from a single woman. From an evolutionary perspective, this should not be the case. Humans should be descended from whole populations that, at minimum, would be in the thousands. According to the evolutionary idea of universal common descent, populations were involved, not individuals. Therefore, from their perspective, it is impossible for there to have been a first woman. However, there was one group of people that was claiming that all human beings are descended from a single woman all along,
Bible-believing Christians, and particularly young-earth creationists, have been continuing to preach this despite the claims about universal common descent. The response from creationists is that this supports the Biblical account; it is what we have been saying for centuries based on the Bible. It is only the atheistic mentality of having to explain it by 100% naturalistic means regardless of the evidence, without God even being allowed to be considered as a possible explanation, that produced the claim to the contrary.
So, we have one very important question before us. What does the evidence really say? Either the evidence points to humans being descended from a single first woman about 6,000 years ago, or from one woman who was one of a population of thousands, about 150,000 years ago, but only her mitochondrial DNA line survives.
What is mitochondrial DNA?
Mitochondrial DNA is the small amount of genetic material found inside mitochondria. These organelles are often called the "powerhouses" of cells because they generate most of the cell's energy (ATP) through cellular respiration. Unlike the vast majority of DNA, which sits in the cell's nucleus, mitochondrial DNA resides in the mitochondria themselves. It is a small, circular molecule that in humans contains about 16,569 base pairs, compared to the roughly 3 billion base pairs in nuclear DNA. Human mitochondrial DNA contains only 37 genes, encoding 13 proteins involved in energy production, plus the RNA molecules needed to make those proteins inside the mitochondria. Mitochondrial DNA is exclusively inherited from mother to offspring, making it useful for tracing maternal ancestry.
What does the Bible say about our mitochondrial DNA?
Now, the Bible does not specifically mention mitochondrial DNA; however, it does describe things about female ancestry that make clear predictions about what we could expect from studying human mitochondrial DNA. According to the Bible, God created a single woman, named Eve. It then goes on to indicate that only Noah’s daughters-in-law, Mrs. Shem, Mrs. Ham, and Mrs. Japheth, had any children after the Flood. This means that the Bible would predict that we should find all human mitochondrial DNA pointing back to a single woman who lived about 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, because of Noah’s three daughters-in-law, we would find a nice three-way split in the data. It becomes really interesting when you actually look at the data.
What does the data say about our mitochondrial DNA?
[mitochondrial DNA,jpg]
The first thing that is clearly indicated by studying our mitochondrial DNA is that it shows that we are all descended from a single woman, and not a population of women. Evolutionists have sarcastically referred to her as mitochondrial Eve, but they have an absolute fit with any implication that this supports the Biblical concept of Eve. One of the things that their reaction shows is that they cannot accept the possibility that maybe this is indeed the Biblical Eve, regardless of what the evidence actually indicates. All they did was turn around and interpret the data within their atheistic evolutionary framework.
However, there are three unmistakable distinct nodes in the mitochondrial DNA data. Furthermore, these three nodes are in a straight line with each other. This fits perfectly with what the Biblical account predicts we should find. It is not what we really expect if universal common descent evolution had any truth to it. Not only should we not find the three nodes, but all human beings should not be descended from a single woman. If the idea of universal common descent evolution had even the slightest bit of truth, neither of these results could exist. They simply are not what is to be expected.
Evolutionary response #1 - Last common maternal ancestor.
Not letting a good piece of evidence get in their way, evolutionists have an initial memorized and repeated response to attack anybody who dares to suggest that mitochondrial Eve could actually be the first woman and the Biblical Eve. They will quickly respond, with a definite attitude, that she is just a last common maternal ancestor, not the first woman, and not even the only woman alive at the time. Now, of course, they cannot explain the reason for the bottleneck beyond inventing an untestable just-so story.
Response to Evolutionary response #1 - Not necessarily Eve herself.
They are right in that mitochondrial Eve may not have been Eve herself. She would have been the last common female ancestor of Noah's three daughters-in- law. Now, from a Biblical perspective, mitochondrial Eve could have been Eve herself, but she also could have been one of her daughters or granddaughters. Even if this is the case, Biblical creation still naturally explains the genetic bottleneck. The genetic bottleneck was caused by the Genesis Flood itself.
Evolutionary response #2 – She lived 150–200 thousand years ago.
At this point, evolutionists will say: We got you here! The scientific consensus, based on the molecular clock, places Mitochondrial Eve at around 150,000–200,000 years ago. Your model says she lived only about 6,000 years ago, so you're wrong on this most critical point: when she lived. She could not possibly have been the Biblical Eve because she lived more than 20 times further in the past than when the Bible says; as a result, your entire model is false.
Response to Evolutionary response #2 - Dates not based on empirical data
What is always left out of this claim is the basis for the 150,000–200,000-year figure. It is quite likely that most people who cite this figure do not have a clue as to how it is derived, nor do they even care. It is simply a figure that they recite and claim authority for, and it allows them to simply dismiss any alternative dates. The simple fact of the matter is that the 150,000–200,000 year figure is not based on any actual measurement of mutation rates. It is based on what they call the substitution rate, but not even this is empirically measured. This consensus date and the so-called substitution rate are derived by comparing our mitochondrial DNA to that of a chimpanzee and calculating the rate and subsequently the date based on the presupposition that we had a common ancestor with chimpanzees about 6,000,000 years ago.
In other words, this date is not derived by looking at direct objective data on the rate of change in mitochondrial DNA. It is based solely on the presupposition of universal common descent evolution and estimates of when we would have had a common ancestor with chimpanzees. In other words, they are attacking the Biblical date, based on a date derived 100% on the presupposition that the Biblical account is wrong. It is ultimately circular reasoning, because it is not based on any objective evidence, but 100% on the presupposition of universal common descent. The simple fact is that you cannot prove something to be wrong based on calculations that assume that it is wrong.
A critical part of this claim is that of scientific consensus. Completely left out of the claim is any reference to what is the basis for claiming scientific consensus. On what basis is it decided. For example, it is a safe bet that not one young earth creationist was even asked. This would make it like claiming to have unanimous consent of guilt in a jury, when all dissenting votes have been removed and replaced by alternates that agree with the guilty verdict. Referring to scientific consensus in a discussion about a scientific topic is nothing but an appeal to authority, and not a real argument.
Direct empirical calculations of mitochondrial DNA mutation rates are made by comparing multiple generations. What they are based on, and published in mainstream papers, is the comparison between parent and child and even grandparents and great-grandparents when possible. When these rates are compared to the differences among human mitochondrial DNA, they result in an estimated age for mitochondrial Eve of about 6,500 years, which is right in line with the age for the Biblical Eve. Before you go jumping on the extra 500 years, the 6,000-year figure is just an approximation. There are ways in which the Biblical age could have a few hundred extra years, and the calculation could be a little high as a result of assuming constant mutation rates. In other words, we are dealing with estimates, not absolute, year-perfect calculations.
Evolutionary response #3 – The three main migrations out of Africa
Evolutionists will respond to the Three-Way Split by claiming that standard population genetics explains it as part of the Out of Africa model. The three primary mitochondrial haplogroups labeled L, M, and N are officially associated with three main migrations out of Africa. We acknowledge the fact that they have invented an explanation for the Three-Way Split. It does not, however, disprove the fact that the data is exactly what we should expect from the biblical account. Can they explain the Three-Way Split by way of the Out of Africa model? Yes. Is the Three-Way Split a natural fit to be an Out of Africa model? No. Does the Out of Africa model predict a Three-Way Split? No. In fact, it could have easily absorbed any pattern that was produced.
Response to Evolutionary response #3 - Problems with three main migrations out of Africa.
There is a serious problem with the claim that the Three-Way Split is a result of three main migrations out of Africa. That is, it should not have produced a three-way split. On the contrary, it should have produced a four-way split, with the fourth being the group that remained in Africa. Furthermore, there is no reason why any evolutionary model will produce a nice, neat three-way split. For example, there is no reason why one of the splits would not have branched off from one of the other splits. Finally, there is no reason why three migrations would produce a nice three-way split at all, unless all three migrations were individual families, consisting of one husband and wife couple and their kids; we would not get this pattern. If you had just one other woman having kids, unless they happen to be sisters, you would not have any nice, neat split. In fact, any migrating group with a population that was large enough to be viable would have multiple mitochondrial lines in it. From any evolutionary model, the pattern does not make any real sense. You have to artificially explain it away.
The point is that we have a clear three-way split here, in a nice, neat line. This is exactly what you would expect if you had three women surviving a disaster and having kids afterwards to repopulate the earth, who are themselves descended from one original woman. It is exactly the pattern predicted by the Bible, and as usual evolutionists have to try to explain it away, and their explanation is insufficient to eliminate what is a Biblical prediction of the results.
Which model explains the data naturally and the best?
So, the question before us is which model explains the data naturally and the best? We have to look at the data as it is and not necessarily the way that we want it to be. This is not a question of whether or not you can invent a way to explain the evidence by a given model, but what model not only explains it naturally but does the best job of doing so. Now you do not have to accept that model if your worldview requires rejecting it regardless of the evidence; just don't claim that what you are doing is science.
So, what does the data itself actually indicate? The first thing is that human mitochondrial DNA all points back to a single woman. Direct measurement of the mutation rate indicates that she lived about 6,500 years ago. Furthermore, there is a clear three-way split that suggests three branches, suggesting three other women that produced a split in the line. So which one of these two models best fits this evidence? Also, one thing we need to keep in mind is that scientifically testing a model involves its ability to accurately predict future results.
Let's first look at the evolutionary model. Starting from the evolutionary model, we should not expect our mitochondrial DNA to point to a single woman. There should be thousands of women alive at any given time. There should be multiple independent branches; they cannot be connected. To reconcile the evolutionary model with the data, they need to imagine a genetic bottleneck that wiped out all but one line of mitochondrial DNA. They could not accept the date calculated from the direct measurement of mutation rates, so instead they assumed common ancestry with chimpanzees and calculated a “substitution” rate and a date they could accept of 150,000 years. Finally, there is no reason to expect a three-way split at all, let alone three in a nice, neat line. It would make more sense to expect one of the branches splitting off one of the other African lines, rather than lining up perfectly with the other two splits.
The Biblical account, on the other hand, not only clearly predicts the three-way split, but also the fact that they would form such a neat arrangement. The date for this mitochondrial ancestor, when calculated from direct mutation rate measurements, comes to just 6,500 years, which is right around the Biblical time frame of about 6,000 years. All of these elements are a natural fit to the data.
So which model explains the data naturally and the best? The answer is clearly the Biblical model. Note this is not a “just believing it on faith” response, but it is clearly the way that the evidence naturally points. The Biblical account not only predicts the results, but even naturally it explains the one genetic bottleneck that is necessary. This comes right out of taking what the Biblical text says happened and predicting what pattern should be shown by our mitochondrial DNA. The evolutionary model, on the other hand, actually got the results wrong as to what it predicted we should find. They just invented just-so stories to explain the evidence away, while artificially inflating the age of Mitochondrial Eve by assuming universal common descent and acting like there was nothing wrong. It is clear that the Biblical creation model fits the data best, while not requiring any assumption that it is right.
Conclusion
The simple fact of the matter is that the mitochondrial DNA data clearly and naturally fits the Biblical account of creation. It does so without making any assumptions; it simply uses what the Bible says to determine what our mitochondrial DNA should look like. The simple fact of the matter is that the data fits perfectly with the Biblical account. Meanwhile, evolutionists have to use evolutionary assumptions and just- so-stories to even pretend that the data fits their model. What we have here is a clear example of a case where the data clearly fits the Biblical account, but it is summarily rejected in favor of convoluted evolutionary back-bending and force-fitting rather than following the evidence where it clearly leads.
