Posted by
Rob on Saturday, August 18, 2007 10:06:25 PM
It is a mistake to think that a scientific observation can "prove" a theory true, though it can certainly debilitate a theory, if Karl Popper's definition of theories is used. So recent scientific observations are only supportive of the
YACC hypothesis of an old Earth but a young Eden.
The
recent observations of prehistoric settlements found 11m underwater in the Channel Islands are not new, many such settlements have been found before:
the North Sea 8m down (2003), or
the Black Sea at 95m deep (2000), However the depth is significant, because the "sill" separating the Mediterranean from the Atlantic is only 400m deep, and may have been shallower before the inflowing Atlantic eroded it down. Likewise, the sill between the Mediterranean and Black Sea at the Bosporus is about
85m deep. So these mesolithic settlements were not at the tidewater line, but undoubtedly above it, perhaps by 3-10 meters to avoid storm surge water damage. Then evidence of these settlements, is evidence that sea levels were considerably lower, and that perhaps the Black or Mediterranean basin were available locations for locating Eden. In any case, it has remained a
controversial theory for 10 years.
More interesting to me was the observation that
several links in the supposed evolution of man were not links at all, but branches. That is, instead of a steady progression from one precursor to the next, evolution seems to go in inexplicable jumps, with no
missing link at all. (News reports usually report this as
Fossil find pushes human-ape split back millions of years.) When this is combined with the formidable DNA evidence that Neanderthals are not genetic ancestors of modern humans, we are left with the puzzle that new species just appear without apparently
evolving. Since this was the conclusion of YACC, that God played a part in constructing Adam from previously created matter, we would expect such discontinuities in the archaeological data. In addition, these ancient hominids show sexual asymmetry, the males are much bigger than the females. This usually indicates that males are not monogamous and controlled a harem, which YACC argues, is a sign that they didn't talk. Does any of this "prove" YACC, or "disprove" evolution, say, the way the
Creation Museum describes it? By no means, but it makes the standard model harder to support.
Finally, there is some progress on
epigenetic heredity. As we mentioned in YACC, it would seem that Adam's original sin, passed down the generations, may have a genetic (DNA) or epigenetic (non-DNA) source. We lean toward epigenetic, because these inheritable characteristics depend on environment. Well, work on junk DNA and transposons (repeated bits of junk DNA that show up like birdshot all over the genome), may be a controlling factor in embryonic development. It would seem to be a second method of transforming the genes, different from the usual meiosis and fertilization of sexual propagation. The source and the spread of transposons is not understood, but it is hypothesized that it is an external, epigenetic cause. That is, the fruit Adam ate may have infected his genes.
Not a lot of proof, but some intriguing support.