Do Humans and Chimps Share a Common Ancestor?

...This documentary, titled "The Genetics of Adam and Eve," displays the validity of the creation story by examining the genetics of all people. Its creator, Dr. Georgia Purdom, a geneticist who has published papers in various scientific journals including the Journal of Neuroscience, recently spoke to Christian News Network about the project.

"A historical Adam and Eve and original sin are the foundation of the Gospel," said Purdom. "The bad news, sin and death, begins in Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve sinned."

"One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson," added Purdom. "He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago."

Purdom said Jeanson's work debunks claims made by evolutionists that devolved creatures that eventually became humans were alive 100,000 years ago. She also discusses the notion of humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor.

"In addition, genetics clearly show that humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor. There are many, many differences in their DNA that completely undermine the possibility of shared ancestry only a few million years ago," said Purdom, who believes the documentary will help Christians to better defend the Bible...

See also the links below:

•     Common ancestor of humans & Chimps?( for Chinese version 人類和猿猴來自一個共同的祖先？)

Update on Mitochondrial DNA( mt DNA) EVE from Nova...

•     Adam was late for his first date?
• ...
  

      The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario. 

     Creationists expect both similarities and differences, and that is exactly what we find. The fact that many humans, chimps, and other creatures share genes should be no surprise to the Christian. The differences are significant. Many in the evolutionary world like to discuss the similarities while brushing the differences aside. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play.
  
  Please consider the implications of the worldviews that are in conflict regarding the origin of mankind. The Bible teaches that man was uniquely formed and made in the image of God (Genesis 1 and 2). The Lord directly fashioned the first man Adam from dust and the first woman Eve from Adam’s side. He was intimately involved from the beginning and is still intimately involved. Keep in mind that the Lord Jesus Christ stepped into history to become a man—not a chimp—and now offers the free gift of salvation to those who receive Him.



???



???

• 
  

Update on Mitochondrial DNA( mt DNA) EVE from Nova

Dear friends:

    Since my last post of the article link related to Adam
was late for his first date Eve, I've googled more about
 related topics;from this following link, we see the
estimate age of the first Eve has been updated.
yet the margin for error is so big.

 ( we see the estimate is almost like speculations with such a gigantic margin of error)

With that kind of margin of the error, the first Adam surely would be able to meet 

the first Eve. Besides, there are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. 
Furthermore, the so called forerunner of human species Neanderthas couldn't contribute to the gene pool of any modern humans. Isn't that interesting?

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

... That was back in 1987. Since then, researchers have updated the estimate to 120,000 to 150,000 years ago. However, the margin for error for this estimate and the previous one are significant—when all of the variables are taken into account, the current range is more like 50,000 to 500,000.

Moreover, the researchers determined that the common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens lived as long as 500,000 years ago, well before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of modern humans. This suggests (though it does not prove) that Neanderthals went extinct without contributing to the gene pool of any modern humans….

Final note

---

There are many variables that can affect the mutation rate of mtDNA, including even the possibility that mtDNA is not always inherited strictly through maternal lines. In fact, recent studies show that paternal mtDNA can on rare occasions enter an egg during fertilization and alter the maternal mtDNA through recombination. Such recombination would drastically affect the mutation rate and throw off date estimates.


Not surprisingly, there is currently a heated debate over the value of "mitochondrial Eve"—especially between history-hunting geneticists and some fossil-finding paleoanthropologists...

Adam was late for his first date?

http://whomadegod.org/2009/10/the-mystery-of-the-spare-rib/
Please click the above link for the whole article.

The mystery of the spare rib October 22, 2009

‘Early man was late for first date’, ran the headline in the London Times newspaper: ‘Women were the complete article long before men, a new study has shown … The result overturns the biblical description of women being created from a spare rib left over from a man’.

The reporter has got his Chinese take-away mixed up with his book of Genesis, but I will pass over that. What is important is that the Bible’s account of man’s origin is again under fire.

Why? If science has established so convincingly that man evolved from ape-like ancestors, and Adam and Eve have been consigned to the trash-can of mythology, why should anyone bother to attack the Bible’s version of events?

The answer, surprisingly, is that man’s evolution is far from proven. The whole theory of evolution is, in fact, under attack. From creationists? No, from serious scientific thinkers.

Implausible

One problem for evolution is that its ‘proofs’ are often implausible. Let us return to the study in The Times.

Differences in mitochondrial DNA from various parts of the world allow an age to be worked out for the single female from whom all women appear to have descended. The geneticists’ Eve turns out to be 143,000 years old, 84,000 years older than Adam!

The researchers infer that during the 84,000 years between ‘Eve’ and ‘Adam’, females were fully human but males were not. Or, to put it differently, a race of sub-human males lived for 84,000 years who left no trace of their existence in the human genome, at the same time as their females did leave such a trace! (The genome is the total pool of genetic information in a species.)

Assumptions

This conclusion is contrary to common sense. In scientific jargon, it is intrinsically implausible. Normally, when this sort of problem arises, scientists re-examine their methods and assumptions. But with this kind of research it is impossible to check the assumptions.

The first assumption is that human DNA undergoes genetic mutations at a particular rate. Once a mutation frequency has been assumed, the mutational differences observed can be ‘translated’ into a number of generations since our first parent(s) were alive.

But the mutation rate in human DNA has seldom been measured. What measurements there are, suggest a much larger mutation rate than is normally assumed.

Mutation rates can be measured in species, like the fruit-fly, where large numbers of generations can be bred over a short period of time. But scientists know that the rates can vary greatly between species (and even between different chromosomal sites within a species).

More usually, the supposed evolutionary time-scale itself is used to estimate mutation rates, creating a completely circular argument. The fact is that the ‘ages’ calculated for our first parents are wholly speculative.

More assumptions

What if the researchers have guessed their mutation rates correctly? They next assume that these rates have not changed over tens of thousands of years. This is almost certainly wrong.

No one really knows why mutations occur in a natural population. Artificially, mutations can be induced by chemicals and radiation. Natural mutations can, therefore, be caused by background radiation from cosmic rays or natural radioactivity.

Some genetic mutations occur spontaneously, without any external cause, when ‘mistakes’ are made during DNA replication. But the fact that mutations are rare shows that living cells possess efficient repair mechanisms.

Perhaps, therefore, the problem lies in a failure of these mechanisms. Furthermore, many mutations are ‘weeded out’ because they reduce viability. No one really knows the mutation rates that would apply to humans over vast periods of time.

A final unjustified assumption is that mutation rates are the same for nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA. There is evidence that this is not the case. It might be true if mutations are caused by external agencies like background radiation, and if repair mechanisms are identical in the two types of DNA. But these are big ‘ifs’.

Biblical account

The unlikely conclusion reached by the study stands in stark contrast to the straightforward and rational claim made in Genesis. According to the Bible’s account, the whole human race arose from a single pair, Adam and Eve, the first humans.

Ironically, before studies like the one discussed were possible, the idea of a first man and woman was ridiculed by evolutionists. They thought that mankind evolved as a large population and that there were no unique parents of the human race.

Now, at least, they must accept that the existence of a ‘first man’ and a ‘first woman’ is consistent with their own research. But they still maintain that their ‘Adam and Eve’ were preceded by a race of sub-human creatures which evolved into modern man. What evidence do they have? Precious little, is the answer....