Mitochondrial Eve and biblical Eve are looking good: criticism of young age is premature
by Carl Wieland
6 July 2006
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicates that all women have
descended from a single woman, called mitochondrial Eve. This does not prove
that she was the only woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it. High
mutation rates indicate that this ancestor lived at about the time of the
biblical Eve as well.
A critic has tried to discredit this creationist case.
However, he has nothing more than special pleading to explain away data that
contradict his materialist paradigm. And he misrepresents the logic of the
case—creationists have always used this as evidence consistent with the Bible,
while he misrepresents them as using it as proof.
Creationists have enthusiastically welcomed the
‘mitochondrial Eve’ hypothesis (i.e. that all modern humans can be traced back
to one woman) because it clearly supports biblical history and contradicts
evolutionary scenarios. A few years ago I reviewed the status of mitochondrial
Eve research, showing that the identification of mitochondrial Eve with
biblical Eve was becoming stronger as more evidence on measured mutation rates
accumulated.1
Artist’s impression of a eukaryote cell, showing organelles,
including mitochondria that contain DNA
I explained how the mitochondrial Eve findings were in line
with biblically based expectations. While not proving the biblical Eve, they
were consistent with her reality, and were not predicted by evolutionary
theory. However, the dates assigned to mitochondrial Eve had been said by
evolutionists to rule out the biblical Eve.
But these dates were based upon ‘molecular clock’
assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain
evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago. When these
assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results
indicated that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ was ticking at a much faster
rate than evolutionists believed possible.2 That is, it directly ‘challenges’ the
evolutionary long-age claim. If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived
6,000 to 6,500 years ago, right in the ballpark for the true ‘mother of all
living’ (Genesis 3:20).
In addition, I explained that these real-time findings also
seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA, which argues (erroneously)
that Neandertals are not true humans.3
Evolutionary counterattack
Not surprisingly, the evolutionary community didn’t allow
this empirical support for the biblical record to stand uncontested. A recent
article by one Alec MacAndrew published on the web has responded to what he
calls ‘Challenges to the view of a 175,000 year date for matrilineal MRCA’.
Interestingly, he referred to two challenges in his attempt to refute the
possibility that mitochondrial Eve is indeed biblical Eve.4
His first ‘point’ is irrelevant
In many ways, MacAndrew’s critique of my article appears to
have been written more for its ‘effect’ on the average reader, trying to make
creationists appear ill-informed or worse.
For one thing, by the end of the snow-storm (snow job?) of
ostensibly technical information, MacAndrew says:
‘They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent
the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor [MRCA] which does
not point to the only female human ancestor.’
So the average reader will likely apply that to my article,
which MacAndrew’s article purports to critique. Perhaps MacAndrew hopes that
they would have forgotten that my article explained this very carefully. I
said:
‘Evolutionists do not claim, nor can it be fairly stated,
that this evidence proves that there was only one woman alive at any point in
the past.’1
It is easy to verify that I spent several paragraphs
explaining this further. So MacAndrew himself has either not understood my
article very well or has deliberately misrepresented it. This impinges on his
credibility right from the start.
Another polemical tool (propagandistic) is the way MacAndrew
says:
‘… the estimate of 150,000 to 200,000 years for matrilineal
MRCA was called into question not by one challenge (as Carl Wieland suggests)
but by two challenges.’
Implication: Because Carl Wieland hasn’t discussed both
‘challenges’, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. This argument is absurd
on the face of it—a second challenge makes life even harder for the
evolutionist, but there is not always a need to strengthen a strong argument
even further. One is not obliged to play all one’s aces if one will do! But a
careful reader would see that the first of his two challenges (in fact it is
naïve to talk of just two, anyway—where should we stop?) is totally irrelevant
to the single argument I presented in my paper, which, in a nutshell, is as
follows:
Christians who believe in the biblical chronology do not
need to be intimidated by alleged ‘absolute dates’ given to mitochondrial Eve
because the dates are based on calibrations given by evolutionary assumptions.
In fact, some measured mutation rates have given dates, using similar
assumptions, consistent with the biblical chronology.
A careful reader would see that the first of MacAndrew’s two
challenges is all about the cross-linking, which, if confirmed, would lengthen
the dates anyway, so it has nothing to do with the argument in my paper.
MacAndrew writes:
‘Note that if recombination does occur, the matrilineal MRCA
of humans would be older than the current estimate of 150,000 to 200,000 years’
[emphasis in original].
And in any case, as MacAndrew admits, it is at present
unconfirmed:
‘At the moment this question has not been settled. The bulk
of the opinion is that recombination does not occur, but there has also been
some further evidence for it.’
So why even mention it? Presumably, it serves his apparent
purpose of adding to the length and ‘scientific impact’ of his paper, despite
its being irrelevant.
His response point is special pleading
The second ‘challenge’ (in fact there was, as he indicates,
more than one set of results leading to the same sort of challenging
conclusion, if one wants to be as nitpicky as he was in his critique) is the
one to which my article referred. MacAndrew puts it this way:
‘There have been two papers that have measured unexpectedly
high short term mutational rates in the control region of the mitochondrial
DNA. The control region is a part of the mitochondrial DNA that does not code
for proteins. The normally accepted rate is one mutation every 300 to 600
generations (6,000 to 12,000 years) and this is calibrated, as Wieland
correctly says, by counting mutations in great ape and human mitochondria and
regressing back to the age of their divergence as determined by fossils dated
by radiometric dating.’
It is very significant that MacAndrew admits, both
explicitly and implicitly, that the ‘normally accepted’ mutation rate is calibrated
by evolutionary assumptions.
This is especially apparent by his misleading claim about
‘counting mutations’. They are counting no such thing, since they haven’t, in
this case, seen DNA mutate (change). Rather, the differences are merely assumed
to be mutations, on the basis of their belief that humans and apes have in fact
descended from a common ancestor. This reminds me of the recent faux pas by the
aggressively antitheistic Richard Dawkins:
‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been
observed while it’s happening.’5
Hence, any conclusions on the date of mitochondrial Eve
based on such long-age evolutionary assumptions, regardless of any other
‘challenge’ to the long-age scenario from observations, are at best only
circular.
Misunderstanding the logic
MacAndrew writes:
‘No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et
al. study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years.’
This is an obvious straw man, presumably erected for
polemical effect. Not only did I not imply it, but no-one in their right mind
would expect an evolution-dominated science establishment to accept a date for
the MRCA of 6,500 years, no matter what the data. Instead, they would be
motivated to search diligently for alternative hypotheses and submodels to
explain the data which is outside the paradigm. They can always propose/massage
auxiliary hypotheses to protect the core one (in the evolutionists’ case,
naturalism), as philosopher of science Imre Lakatos showed.6 This is
normal—creationists do the same in similar circumstances, but let’s be straight
about what actually happens in the real world.
There is no reason at
all why mitochondrial Eve could not be the biblical Eve.
The sorts of explanations MacAndrew offers for the results
that contradict his paradigm at face value are of course possible, but are at
best tentative. And he could, in any case, only strongly criticize my article
based on these explanations if I was taking an evidentialist approach—i.e.
saying that it is the mtDNA data which prove that Eve lived at that time. But
in fact I take an openly presuppositional approach—my paradigmatic axioms are
‘on the table’ when I say:
‘Since, for example, the creationist’s (true) Eve lived only
a few thousand years ago, the mutational substitutions in mtDNA must have
happened at a much faster rate than assumed by evolutionists to date.’1
In my article I then present evidence which is consistent
with that presupposition. MacAndrew’s ‘explanations’ are essentially of a
defensive nature, to try to show why the data presented in the several papers
which found high mutational rates does not, at face value, support his axioms.
Explaining away contrary evidence
One of MacAndrew’s possible explanations is ‘Statistical
variation in small samples’. But he admits that pooling the data still gives a
date which is five times younger than that based on evolutionary assumptions.
He talks of needing to consider whether mtDNA ‘does in fact mutate at a fixed
rate’. Agreed. But that would simultaneously render vulnerable any argument for
long ages based on mitochondrial substitutions, and so would tend to neutralize
opposition to the possibility of mitochondrial Eve being the biblical Eve. The
same criterion of assessment needs to be applied to the rest of his list of
‘possible explanations’, which are subsequently delivered as more or less the
assured results of ‘subsequent research’.
Also, it is no surprise to hear him say that RFLP7 analysis
is ‘not appropriate’ compared to ‘whole genome sequencing’. If RFLP had not
delivered results that were antiparadigm, would it have been regarded as
inappropriate? The Ingman et al. results fit the paradigm, so they are ‘by
definition’ appropriate.
Bottom line: I do not find in his paper any independent
yardstick by which one could say that they were more appropriate, apart from
consistency with the paradigmatically derived longer dates.8
Note also my comments in the original paper emphasizing the
need to be aware of special pleading to ‘explain away’ the results I
highlighted. Special pleading does not mean that one is necessarily wrong, of
course, but it helps open a reader’s philosophical eyes to be aware of it. And
I do not think that the ‘burden of proof’ I referred to has in fact been
adequately met in the MacAndrew article, despite his bold attempt to paper over
the deficiencies with a suitably wordy ‘barrage’.
Conclusion
In short, I think MacAndrew is very premature and
overconfident when he says that ‘subsequent research has largely resolved’ the
challenge presented to long-age dates for ‘mitochondrial Eve’. Note also that
prior to the 6.5-ka challenge, creationist literature was still suggesting that
mitochondrial Eve could well be the biblical Eve. Creationists were not bluffed
or intimidated by the apparent ‘certainty’ of the long dates because of the
tenuous foundation upon which they were erected. The 6.5–ka challenge is really
a way of saying ‘See? How can you deny the Word of God based upon something
which could be overturned so easily by a set of observations?’
But we would recognize all along (and have often stated)
that no calculated date (even one that supports a biblical conclusion) is free
of non-provable assumptions and hence cannot be used to ‘prove’ the Bible. All
that MacAndrew has really done is highlighted this fact, that there are
assumptions involved in the 6.5–ka calculations.
If I were an objective outside observer (if there can ever
be such a thing), I would think it reasonable to conclude that it is futile to
attach much definitive significance to any of the ‘dates’ derived from such
calculations, because of the obvious problems and uncertainties. Thus, there is
no reason at all why mitochondrial Eve could not be the biblical Eve, which was
my article's main message.
References
- Wieland, C., A shrinking date for Eve, Journal of Creation 12 (1):1–3, 1998. Return to text
- Loewe, L. and Scherer, S., Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12 (11):422–423, 1997.
- Lubenow, M.L., Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: an evaluation, Journal of Creation 12 (1):87–97, 1998.
- MacAndrew, A., Misconceptions around mitochondrial Eve: a critique of Carl Wieland's AiG article on mitochondrial Eve, <www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm>, 9 February 2005.
- ’Battle over evolution’, Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins on Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network; <www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins>.
- Wieland, C., If you are truly scientists [response to critic], 7 February 2003.
- Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism
- That does not, of course, preclude the possibility that there may be one, but his paper did not provide it.
Addendum: Some related papers published subsequently
Carter, R., Taking a crack at the Neandertal mitochondrial
genome; 16 September 2008. A more detailed version of this paper appeared in
the Journal of Creation: The Neandertal mitochondrial genome does not support
evolution. The molecular clock concept and its problems were also discussed in
relation to the Out of Africa theory of human origins: The Neutral Model of
evolution and recent African origins.