Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Story Telling or Story Testing: Evolutionary Genetics

Today I was listening to a talk by a leading evolutionary biologist who was criticising those who were misusing genetics by creating stories of history and movements of peoples based on a faulty understanding of the genetic evidence that have no basis in recorded accounts and archeology etc. He commented that Story Telling needs to be Story Tested by science. While agreeing with him on many points- I couldn't help being amused that he did not follow his own advice as he interprets genetics within the greatest fanciful story of our time, Darwinian Evolution.

Applying the evolutionary paradigm on genetics has totally distorted the evidence and led to many of these ridiculous theories. The imagined and unscientific evolutionary understanding of mutation rates is at odds with the mutation rates based on the germ line actually observed in families. The whole evolutionary myth of ice age refuges found in genetic literature until recently led to many of these stories. For example, some scientists told us that the Gaelic population came from Spain 10,000 or more years ago even though historians and archeologists of the recent past spoke of the Milesian Irish (Gaels) coming to Ireland about 300-200 BC. We were confidently told by a leading authority in a major documentary that we were all descended from the pygmy people of South Africa until that was discarded with further research.

Unfortunately much of the field of academia today interprets the evidence within this false paradigm of evolution which is a philosophy rather than a science. Those of us that believe that human, animal and plant life are no more than 10,000 years old are marginalised in the totalitarian world of peer-reviewed academia  even though there are scientists in all fields who reject the evolutionary hypothesis. For example, I have a good friend who is a geophysicist who does not accept the evolutionary theory anymore.

However genetics can be very useful when one discards the exaggerated dates imposed by the evolutionary paradigm. One can then test their theories based on archeology, historical accounts, legends, myths, genealogies, geology, the Scriptures etc with the genetic dna data and adjust their stories accordingly. 

For many years based on my research I claimed that King Niall of the Nine Hostages was a descendant of St Joseph of Arimathea before the advent of ydna testing. When it was proposed that Niall was the origin of M222+ ydna I believed that the Davidic ydna of the House of Nathan to which Joseph of Arimathea belonged was R1b L21+ (which is ancestral to M222+). Most recent studies have demonstrated that the origin of M222+ is more likely around 1800-2000 years ago in Southern England (around Devon). I then adjusted my understanding as it would seem that this even more strongly demonstrates my genealogical research and I realised that St Joseph of Arimathea or his son or grandson were the originators of the mutation M222+. British tradition tells us that St Joseph of Arimathea and his descendants were at Glastonbury in southern England and in the areas of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset.

Based on the writings of Velikovsky I believed that Akhnaten and his family were descended from King David and Solomon of Israel and that they had R1b1a2 ydna. Then came the news that Akhnaten and his family indeed had R1b1a2 ydna. Many people still question this but those who had through prior research demonstrated the Davidic connections with the dynasty of Akhnaten, based on a realignment of the Egyptian dynasties first proposed by Velikovsky, were not surprised by these results.

To evaluate events based on the evolutionary criteria is not story testing but more circular storytelling. Evolutionists will often criticise fundamentalist creationists for using the Bible in a literal manner as their paradigm for interpreting the data while doing the same thing themselves with the Darwinian paradigm. As a Catholic I do not have to accept either the literalistic creationist paradigm or the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm, though I may do so if this is what most convinces me fits the data. I certainly do not think Genesis 1 is meant to be read as a science text but I am also open to the idea that while its primary purpose isn't of a scientific nature it may give us insights into cosmology and science. 

While I incline to the view that the earth and our solar system is less than 10,000 years old, I am open to the opinion that the 'Heavens' are a lot older than that. But I might be wrong and so might we all. Just as many scientists look at the science of 100 years ago to have been very primitive so the scientists in a further 100 years may look back to our time as very naive and primitive. The evolutionary biologist, I first mentioned, spoke about the importance of further testing of ancient dna in our understandings of the movements of people. I would heartily agree with him. The testing of ancient dna in Europe has demonstrated so far that R1b did not enter Europe until at least the European Bronze Age, thus correcting many previous theories about R1b. Further studies also revealed that R1b was not a Western European phenomenon but that R1b is to be found throughout the Middle East and as far as Western China and Nepal as well as South Asia and Africa. 

However we must also be careful of accepting the terms Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age. They may be different periods of time in different parts of the world. They are not necessarily in chronological sequence as all three may exist at the same time as they are a technological level rather than a time piece. For example, Iron Age Europeans lived along side Stone Age Aboriginals in Australia. Also a settlement may be classified as Stone Age because that is all that has survived as the bronze and iron objects may have corroded away into nothing. The so-called Bronze Age peoples may have had Iron but due to the large period of time or differing climatic conditions or flooding all the iron objects have rusted away.

Anyone who has read my blog would know that I obviously love story telling and would encourage others to be creative in their story telling. However we should not be dogmatic about our story tellings so that we remain open to new information. Our stories should be rooted in solid research in a holistic manner while recognising the importance of other stories which could also fit the data of our research. 

The evolutionary biologist, mentioned previously, warns against assuming that because a certain dna type is found in one area today, that this area is its origin. Many assumed and still some believe that R1b originates in Western Europe because it has its highest density in that area today. However R1b is also found in the Middle East and other places. In order to find out its origin we need to study the deeper clades of R1b and the history, legends, myths and archeology of that culture. In fact due to mass migrations the original homeland of a haplogroup may today have little or no dna of that type. This is where the testing of ancient dna is crucial.

see Y-dna Clans

see Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen.

DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa” Theory of Human Evolution

Violent Volcanic Blasts Ripped Through Antarctic Ice Sheet Twice

Under-Ice Volcano Eruption Spewed Ash Over Antarctica


1 comment:

Joseph Felice said...

Why no mention of E1b1b1 or E3b? The Y DNA is present in all the areas mentioned and in higher percentages. It is the ancestral father to most in the near east, throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and Southern Europe? Oh and it's been in Europe for over 10,000 years. R is down-stream as well.