Does our understanding of DNA add argument to the theory of evolution?

Question

The little I have learnt about our understanding of DNA completely bolsters the evolution argument, for example I am a genealogist and have been interested in seeing my DNA profile to see where my origins are from. I know that we have a mitochondrial DNA passed down the maternal side of the family to both boys and girls (but only carried on through the female line) and useful for testing the general relatedness of individuals to one another; and Y chromosome DNA passed from father to son in a distinctive pattern, and used to work out the level of relatedness through a common male ancestor. DNA testing can also be used in comparison with sample groups to determine a connection with a specific ethnic group.

Does the above contradict the theory of Adam & Eve that it would be impossible to have these two important chromosomes male and female lines if we were all descended from one person namely a male named Adam.

It is also been proven through DNA that everyone outside of Africa is descended from a few hundred people that are believed to have left the African continent around 70,000 years ago which is arguably the cradle of human evolution.

We have also come to understand that through DNA coding how closely linked we are to all life on earth which gives strength to the evolutionary tree and because we are closely linked to other primates we have a common ancestor around 20 million years ago and both of us have a common ancestor with other mammals around 60 million years ago and so on. This can be seen in the alphabetical coding.

I find it amazing and wondrous the more we find out about our origins through science.

Answer 1

Precisely.



Even if we had no fossil record whatsoever, DNA evidence would be enough to demonstrate the accuracy of evolutionary theory.

Answer 2

New DNA discoveries over the last 50 years have of course provided additional evidence.

The additional evidence can be used by Creationists and Evolutionist alike to provide additional evidence to their theories.



One of my favourite videos on DNA can be found here:

http://wehi.edu.au/education/wehitv/body_code_drew_berry_2003/



When I research DNA and the Genetic Code, for every bit of evidence I see for evolution, I see about four times as much for creation. So taking the evidence in totality, there is an 80% to 20% balance in favour of a Creator/Designer for DNA.



The DNA argument about Eve / Mitochondrial Eve does lend support to both ideas that we are all related to one Mother, Adam's wife Eve or M.E. Eve. However I don't see why there should automatically be the argument proposed about the male line. It seems that the results reflect the nature of DNA, and hence the male line is more difficult to prove.



Think about it, if Eve's offspring had different dads, as proposed, the half siblings would marry and so the DNA contains information from both dads anyhow.



The point about time scales is not proof, but inference. Whether it was 6,000 or 230,000 years ago, both dates are inferred, and both within the bounds of possibility, genetically speaking.



The argument about DNA coding and mammals around 60mya is week hypothesis.

Most mammals would have similar coding because they are land dwellers, air beathers etc. The coding for similar taxa would have similar code due to similar functions, and has nothing to do with relatedness. There is no other evidence to corroborate Darwin's tree of life, & Fossils certainly don't.



"origins through science" - That's a contradiction. Science is about testing by repeated observation in the present. Origins is about unobservable one off events in the distant past.

ie. Natural History or Religious History !



God's word says he is the author and creator of life - what does DNA and the Genetic code say? - a loud YES.

Answer 3

The things that were suddenly explained when we discovered DNA, reach futher than many realize.



Firstly, darwin predicted a naturalistic mechanism of inherited traits down generations, that was not a perfect system, so errors could occur and be selected for by nature.



DNA was that thing, which darwin predicted, but never lived long enough to see.



Also, for many centuries, maybe even millenia, humans have realised there is a part of them, their essence which they want to exist beyond their own death.



This became known as the soul, and was considered supernatural, it made you who/what you are, yet was invisible.



Again, the discovery of DNA means that this idea is nothing supernatural.

Answer 4

As a non biologist a number of my reasoning is in all hazard stupid to you. I additionally see this as a 2 section question. I settle for evolution because of fact i will see it take place, and would possibly no longer basically forget relating to the mountains of evidence. I additionally use "evolution" particularly many times to "layout" electronics. So I particularly understand that whilst any single mutation is all the way down to random hazard, evolution isn't random, it fairly is guided by employing determination pressures. I actual have additionally yet to discover a single subject in biology that persons declare could no longer evolve which decrease than nearer scrutiny actual would be defined as "irreducibly complicated". Why do I agree that as quickly because it includes organic and organic evolution organic determination is ninety 9% absolute to be the only determination stress? because of fact there is 0 evidence for something outdoors of nature, and lower back the mountains of evidence. and because me attempting to stretch to realize some thing won't supply my sperm any further of a "long palms" gene than that they had a danger of having till now i attempted to realize that a techniques away subject.

Answer 5

Adam and Eve really did exist, but 230,000 years ago when mitochondrial DNA and the Sumerian tablets say it happened.