Biblical Genetics

[ydoaPs]

Is there a way to get a quantitative prediction out of a literal reading of the Old Testament. The Young Earth Creationists hold that the OT is literally true. The human race started with two individuals roughly 6000 years ago. 4000 years ago, the resulting population was culled to a family of 8. That family of 8 gave rise to everyone alive now.

 

Is there a way to see quantitatively how much genetic variation this would allow? If so, how would one go about doing it? I'd like to see how it compares to the observed variation.

[Arete]

Yes there is - using a estimate of mutation rate and generation time, one can estimate the time to most recent common ancestor, given the observed genetic variation of a population:

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/quick.html

http://www.genetics.org/content/158/2/897.full.pdf

 

 

It's been done for humans both with the Y chromosome (approx 99 - 148,000 years to the most recent common ancestor): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/562

and mitochondial DNA (approx 192 - 307,000 years to the most recent common ancestor): http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract

 

While confidence intervals are wide, and ongoing research is refining our estimates, the observed genetic variation in humans clearly refutes an origin of humans in the last 10K years.

 

Edit: correction to date with more recent studies.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Arete

[Robittybob1]

As I said to my pastor 20 + years ago "if the Christians believe in Adam and Eve they are the biggest believers in evolution. For even the evolutionists don't need such a high rate of mutation as you would need." [Well words to that effect. It was such a long time ago.]

So the story has problems. Yet I find the most recent common ancestor ideas rather fascinating too, in that there was a genetic Adam and Eve, even though they were not husband and wife.

[ydoaPs]

Yes there is - using a estimate of mutation rate and generation time, one can estimate the time to most recent common ancestor, given the observed genetic variation of a population:

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/ftdna/quick.html

http://www.genetics.org/content/158/2/897.full.pdf

 

 

It's been done for humans both with the Y chromosome (approx 99 - 148,000 years to the most recent common ancestor): http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/562

and mitochondial DNA (approx 192 - 307,000 years to the most recent common ancestor): http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract

 

While confidence intervals are wide, and ongoing research is refining our estimates, the observed genetic variation in humans clearly refutes an origin of humans in the last 10K years.

 

Edit: correction to date with more recent studies.

So, basically, just do that backwards?

[Arete]

Yet I find the most recent common ancestor ideas rather fascinating too, in that there was a genetic Adam and Eve, even though they were not husband and wife.

 

It's a common misconception that "mitochondrial eve" and "y-chromosome adam" were actual people. The terms are more concepts rather than references to actual individuals as they are references to the time point at which the particular genetic components (i.e. the mtDNA and the Y chromosome) coalesce back to a single allele. More than one individual could carry this allele, and it's quite possible (probable) that it represents a population bottleneck, rather than the origin of Homo sapiens.

 

 

So, basically, just do that backwards?

 

 

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your initial question - yes, you could generate an estimate of the observed variation assuming a 6,000 year old origin using similar methods and compare it to the observed variation, but the above cited studies should already tell you what the result of that undertaking would be.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Arete

[MonDie]

Yes there is - using a estimate of mutation rate and generation time,

 

Don't forget that they lived to be hundreds of years old!

 

As I said to my pastor 20 + years ago "if the Christians believe in Adam and Eve they are the biggest believers in evolution. For even the evolutionists don't need such a high rate of mutation as you would need." [Well words to that effect. It was such a long time ago.]

So the story has problems. Yet I find the most recent common ancestor ideas rather fascinating too, in that there was a genetic Adam and Eve, even though they were not husband and wife.

 

They don't deny mutation; they deny beneficial mutation, emphasizing that most mutations are neutral. If so, then no gene should have 5+ functional copies.

[Robittybob1]

Is there a way to get a quantitative prediction out of a literal reading of the Old Testament. The Young Earth Creationists hold that the OT is literally true. The human race started with two individuals roughly 6000 years ago. 4000 years ago, the resulting population was culled to a family of 8. That family of 8 gave rise to everyone alive now.

 

Is there a way to see quantitatively how much genetic variation this would allow? If so, how would one go about doing it? I'd like to see how it compares to the observed variation.

What would the mutation rate have to be to get this effect in reality? Is it even possible baring living near Chernobyl?

[swansont]

One would have to be able to account for 59 alleles of the HLA-B gene

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16456786

[MonDie]

One would have to be able to account for 59 alleles of the HLA-B gene

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16456786

 

I was going to suggest genes in the major histocompatibility complex, except I don't know how the associated peptides differ functionally.

 

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/HLA-B

"The HLA-B gene has many possible variations, allowing each person's immune system to react to a wide range of foreign invaders. Hundreds of versions (alleles) of the HLA-B gene are known, each of which is given a particular number (such as HLA-B27)."

Mmmm, this looks like a good intro to the MHC. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27156/