INTRODUCTION
In a world filled with scientific discoveries and debates, the age of the Earth remains a hot topic of discussion. While mainstream science suggests an age of billions of years, there is a growing body of evidence that supports a much younger Earth.
In this episode of the Creation Podcast, Geneticist expert Dr. Tompkins delves deeper into the biological evidence that points towards a young Earth, challenging conventional evolutionary timelines. Let’s explore mitochondrial Eve, living fossils, and population growth to uncover the fascinating revelations that defy the norm.
Part 1: Mitochondrial Eve
A Genetic Time Capsule Our journey begins with a remarkable genetic discovery known as Mitochondrial Eve. Within our cells, we have an energy factory called the mitochondria, housing its own circular piece of DNA. Dr. Jeff Tompkins, an expert geneticist, explains how the variation in mitochondrial DNA from humans worldwide was analyzed. Astonishingly, this research, conducted by both creation and secular scientists, revealed that the human mitochondrial genome is only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This finding aligns astonishingly well with the biblical timeline, painting a picture of a recent creation event.
Dr. Tompkins also shares a fascinating anecdote about presenting this data to skeptical academics, highlighting the power of empirical evidence in supporting biblical narratives.
Part 2: Y Chromosome Adam
Tracing Back to Our Ancestor Our journey continues as we explore the Y chromosome, a unique genetic marker passed down from father to son. Unlike other chromosomes, the Y chromosome does not recombine with others, making it an excellent tool for tracing ancestry. Dr. Tompkins discusses how the variation in the Y chromosome’s genetic code points back to a literal Adam, estimated to have lived about 6,000 years ago.
He also touches upon the significance of three main Y chromosome lineages, which align perfectly with the biblical account of Noah’s three sons repopulating the Earth after the global flood.
Part 3: Living Fossils
Creatures Defying Evolutionary Expectations Living fossils, organisms that closely resemble their ancient counterparts, pose a significant challenge to evolutionary theory. Dr. Tompkins sheds light on these enigmatic creatures, some of which are allegedly millions of years old according to evolutionary timelines. He highlights examples like horseshoe crabs and coelacanths, which have barely changed over vast periods of time, defying the concept of gradual evolution.
The discussion also addresses the misconceptions surrounding coelacanths, clarifying that they are not transitional forms and never had the potential to evolve into land-dwelling creatures.
Random Science Question: The Origin of Life – A Scientific Conundrum In this brief interlude, Dr. Tompkins addresses a fundamental question: Where did life originate? He explains the challenges of the abiogenesis hypothesis and the lack of empirical evidence supporting the spontaneous generation of life from non-life. This question remains a significant conundrum for scientists and further emphasizes the uniqueness of life on Earth.
Part 4: Population Growth
A Clue to Earth’s Age As the Earth’s population approaches eight billion, we examine population growth as another piece of the puzzle supporting a young Earth. Dr. Tompkins discusses a meticulous study conducted by Robert Carter, considering various factors such as polygamy, twin births, and cultural differences. The study concludes that the Earth’s current population can only be explained by the existence of three breeding couples approximately 4,500 years ago, aligning perfectly with the biblical account of Noah and his sons repopulating the planet after the flood.
Challenging the Out of Africa Hypothesis
A Closer Look The episode concludes with a discussion of the challenges posed to the Out of Africa hypothesis, which suggests that humans originated in Africa and later migrated to other continents. Dr. Tompkins highlights the discovery of human fossils in China and Southeast Asian islands that significantly predate the proposed migration out of Africa. This inconsistency further underscores the complexity of evolutionary models and strengthens the case for a young Earth.
Conclusion:
In this illuminating episode, we’ve explored compelling biological evidence that supports the concept of a young Earth. From Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam to the enigmatic living fossils and population growth patterns, the puzzle pieces continue to fall into place, painting a vivid picture of a world shaped by biblical chronology. As we delve deeper into the mysteries of our planet’s history, it becomes increasingly evident that the truth may be far more fascinating than we ever imagined.
Conform to Jesus 
quite a set of false claims. No evidence for any Eve or Adam, and it’s hilarious how christians have to lie about this. They try to make science fit their lies. Sorry, dears, no rib woman no man made from dirt, and the fact that there were population bottlenecks doesn’t support your imaginary nonsense.
The whole “living fossil” nonsense shows the typical ignorance of a christain when it comes to evolutionary theory. That theory says that environments select for attributes in organisms that allow the organism to pass along those attributes to descendants. The coelecanth, etc didn’t have any environmental pressures so it didn’t change.
that “study” is a set of lies when it comes to the garbage that only three couples were responsible for all humans. I do love that Robert Carter has no education in genetics. It’s typical for lyign creationists to get people who aren’t part of a field to lie about that field. Unsurprisingly, no geneticist agrees with Carter’s lies. He has a doctorate in marine biology, that’s it. It’s hilarious that a marine biologist tries to lie about the flood, when he knows that such a flood would have killed most marine life, since they can’t handle fresh water when its miles deep. It’s even better that Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins is a plant genetist, and yet again we see that creationists have to get scientists who are liars and who aren’t experts in the things they lie about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting your attitude is very similar to Professor Dave and his debate with Dr. Tour at Rice University. He would just tell Dr. Tour over and over again that he is a liar, doesn’t understand the data, etc, just like you are saying about Dr. Carter and Dr. Tompkins.
And keep in mind, professor Dave didn’t even complete a master’s degree in science and Professor Dave has the audacity to say Dr. Tour is “ignorant” of chemistry as a phD at Purdue University and post-doctoral studies at Stanford.
Quite honestly, the more I hear from atheists, the more I become convinced that Creationism is true. Because all I hear from them, over and over again, is ad hominen attacks.
My friend, I took all the necessary prerequisites to get into medical school and had an organic chemistry professor in undergrad who was a theist as well. I have probably taken more classes in Biology than you have.
At the end of the day, you can continue to tell yourself over and over again that the data is in your favor. You can continue your own god of the gaps of methodological naturalism, and I will continue to look at the observable data and trust in the Creator of the universe. Good day.
LikeLike
You said: “The coelacanth, etc didn’t have any environmental pressures so it didn’t change.”
Question: What environmental pressure would it need to change? It literally has eyes that are suitable for dark depths of 300-600 feet, not shallow water. So it would need to evolve it’s photosensitivity before getting to shallow areas and being that deep proposes a problem.
What about it’s swim bladder? A French team found that coelacanths possess a swim bladder filled with oil, giving it neutral buoyancy between the depths of 600-900 feet. That proposes another problem if it’s going to change it’s environment to suit for less water pressure being in shallow water versus deep water.
And if it is considered to be descended from amphibians and more land-like species, then why is it’s DNA more in line with fish and they do not lay eggs like amphibians do? Thanks for your feedback.
LikeLike
Chad, you show the typical ignorance of a Christian when it comes to evolutionary theory. This willful ignorance destroys any capacity you would have to actually argue against it.
Yep, the coelacanth has eyes suited for very deep water. So the environmental change would be shallower water, say if an other ice age came and the ocean’s level grew shallower. This would be a gradual process so any coelacanth that had a slightly better range of sight would have a better chance of eating and thus reproducing in shallower water, and thus it would pass along those attributes to its descendants. It’s unfortunate how you have no idea how evolution happens.
The same thing holds with the swim bladder. And where did you get that the coelacanth is descended from amphibians? They didn’t. They came from other lobe finned fish. “Terrestrial vertebrates branched from the lobe-finned fish in the Late Devonian. Here, Lu et al. describe the new lobe-finned fish Ptyctolepis brachynotus dating from the Early Devonian, which preserves a novel combination of cranial characters and suggests revision of evolutionary relationships among bony fish.” – “A new stem sarcopterygian illuminates patterns of character evolution in early bony fishes”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good post Chad
LikeLike
Thanks for the response. I am in the process of expanding my YouTube channel and getting all my posts into video format. If you like this information, please consider subscribing at “Chad Damitz.” Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person