Male and Female He Created Them - Can We Prove It?

Did God create them male and female? Was there really a single man and a single woman who together produced the human race? Can we tell this from our DNA? We are going to take a look at the Biblical truth from Genesis 1:27-28a: ²⁷ “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it’. (NIV)”

Do the “facts” in the Bible ring true? Are the statements made by the Biblical authors foreknowledge and facts of scientific truths? A group called Eternal Productions produced a book listing 101 scientific facts claimed to be reported first in the pages of the Bible. This book chronicles examples of Biblical words of knowledge about some seemingly accepted scientific facts. The book is entitled “101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge,” and enumerates the Biblical facts with a reference to the appropriate verses and a short explanation and justification for the “fact” in light of the referenced verse.

There are several websites that give a counterpoint to each of the 101 Facts, showing how they either are not true science, how Eternal Productions has twisted the Bible or true science to fit their point, or how the Bible was not the first reference to the specific scientific fact being discussed. One is RationalWiki and a second is a now defunct blog entitled Science and the Bible Archive.

So today we will look at Eternal Productions Scientific Fact number 37. Here is how it reads in 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge. “God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam).”

Now the “Science and the Bible Archive” rebuttal goes like this: “Science does not identify an ‘Adam’ in the Biblical sense of the word, and does not say that there was anyone like ‘Adam’ who was created by a God, of course…. but the logic of evolution it certainly does accord with the idea of humanity ultimately have common ancestors in Africa, a suggestion put forward in a number of Creation stories – not just the Biblical one. Hence, we find that the Bible on this occasion is at best not making a unique claim.”

RationalWiki states its disclaimer like this: “Acts 17:26 says ‘And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;’ Genesis 5 is here (a reference to the genealogy of Adam). But what the research shows is that one strain of male DNA became dominant. Looking further into the research, we find that rates of mutation in DNA indicate the originator of the strain lived about 60,000 years ago, yet creationists claim the earth is 10,000 years old. Even worse for their argument, that 60,000 number is too small, according to some scientists, as the H. sapiens exodus from Africa took place over 100,000 years ago.”

So the rebuttals state two main objections: 1) that the suggestion of common ancestors is not unique to the Bible, and 2) that the DNA strain mentioned was dominate but not necessarily from one man. It is also mentioned that Creationists claim the age of the earth is about 10,000 years old, not old enough for what the scientific record shows. On this third point, not all Creationists are “young Earth” directed and many believe that the Earth is millions of years old, just as most secular scientists. We will ignore this argument in our current discussion.

Lets examine the two main points. They both say the same thing but in different ways, that the concept of “Adam” as the father of all is not supported but common ancestors are indeed possible and compatible with evolution.

---

---

The hypothesis that humans have a single origin (mono-genesis) was published in Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man in 1871. It was later supported, in the 1980s, by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA samples combined with evidence from the physical anthropology of primitive specimens. In one study of DNA it was observed that more than 90% of all males not native to Africa descended in a direct male line from the first bearer of a specific type of DNA, haplogroup F. Haplogroup F originated some 45,000 years ago, either in North Africa or in South Asia. In human genetics, haplogroup F is a very common Y-chromosome haplogroup spanning all the continents.

What this means is that more than 90% of all males have a single common ancestor, the first bearer of haplogroup F. Could this be “Adam?” Maybe, but it is only a 90% coverage. If Adam was the sole forefather of all men, then shouldn’t all men have this DNA type? Now we have a lot to learn yet about DNA and there could still be more to this story but for now, there does not appear to be enough evidence to confirm (or deny) that we all came from a single man.

But the arguments don’t say anything about “Eve.” Could we all have come from a single woman? There seems to be more evidence in support of that hypothesis. We will look at that next time.

Read more at God’s Chemistry Set

Source: