Human Evolution

vandewat@seas.ucla.edu
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 13:02:37 -0800 (PST)

Greetings and Salutations,

Since nobody was able to answer my question:

>Anyway, I seem to have come in at the end of a discussion of a Y chromosome
>study. Will someone please tell me if this is the same study as cited in
>Hugh Ross's "Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists" (Facts and Faith, 3rd
>quarter, 1995). If it will be of help, Dr. Ross cites the following
>references:

>Robert L. Dorit, Hiroshi Akashi and Walter Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism
>at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y Chromosome", Science, vol 268 (1995) pp
>1183-1185

>Svante Paabo, "The Y Chromosome and the Origin of All of Us (Men)", Science,
>vol 268, (1995) pp 1141-1142

I went to the "Nature" address on the world wide web and obtained the
following summary:

"Eve Finds her Adam,

Theories of human evolution have been shaped in recent years by molecular
data, culminating in the concept of 'mitochondrial eve'. The corresponding
Adam, based on analysis of Y chromosomes, is a more shadowy figure. Michael
Hammer describes the evolution of a 2.6 kilobase ALU element on the male
specific part of the human Y chromosome, estimating that human Y chromosomes
started to diverge from a common ancestral Y chromosome between 50,000 and
400,000 years ago. In a separate report, Whitfield et al. arrive at a
slightly more recent divergence time (37,000 to 49,000) by analysing more
than 100 kilobases of Y chromosomal DNA. Despite the diffference, both
papers suggest that it may be possible to trace all human Y chromosomes back
to one carried by a "molecular Adam", who walked the earth around the same
time as the "mitochondrial eve". The findings also further discredit the
idea that Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens in multiple regions,
suggesting instead that modern Y chromosomes probably spread when their
bearers migrated out of Africa."

Note that the 100 kilobase study gives a more recent date than the 2.6 kilobase
study, and the study cited by Hugh Ross gives the most recent date of all
(no evolution means these 38 men may have all been brothers as far as the
DNA is concerned)

Note also the conclusion of this secular (?) author. Homo sapiens did not
"coevolve" from many different homo erectus populations. How much of the
fossil evidence for human evolution does this effectively eliminate,
I wonder?

In Christ,

robert van de water
Associate Researcher
University of California, Los Angeles