Bottleneck In Human Development
As evidenced by studies into DNA, it is claimed that 60 to 80 thousand years ago most of human existence ended and almost went extinct. The scientific timing of this extinction event has been contested. However, if correct and if the timing in the biblical account of Noah’s flood is correct, it could not have been this bottleneck since the timing would be in error by a factor of ten or more.
Noah’s flood would have caused a population bottleneck, yet the most recent common male ancestor, similar to mitochondrial eve, based on Y-chromosomes and called Y-chromosomal Adam, is said to be from Africa and is claimed to have lived as much as 60,000 years ago. This age is based on the Molecular Clock Hypothesis (MCH) and has been disputed. The MCH hypothesis assumes that the DNA error replication rate is constant which has been shown to be a fundamentally flawed assumption. The MCH has been shown to be false. This is not necessarily a plus for the flood story timing. This could mean this common male ancestor lived even longer ago. However, in actuality, an improved DNA error replication rate will likely show much better support for Noah’s flood and the associated population bottleneck. In fact, if it is possible to have one, an exact error replication rate should solidly prove the life-ending flood occurred.
As evidence of one particular mammalian bottleneck, all cheetahs alive today are almost completely identical. They are thought to have originated from one single pregnant female about 10,000 years ago. Of course “about” 10,000 years ago is a suitable description of the timing of Noah’s flood given errors associated with DNA error replication rates.
Human population was sparse before the flood. Biblically, after the flood there were eight people. As the population of eight increased, people would quickly re-inhabit old towns not washed away in the deluge. Shelter already existed and in good areas for habitation. It is unclear whether or not it can be shown that people inhabited those towns continuously. Clearly, Noah’s flood would suggest that they did not, but a break in the habitation of those areas might not be easily proven.
One other point of concern is a possible C14 age exaggeration after the flood. Due to escaping trapped gases, expected ratios of carbon used for the standard radiocarbon test would have undergone an immediate change at the flood event’s beginning. This change would tend to skew the measured age of post flood specimens to an apparent older age. Without solid ratio data for a C14 test, there may not appear to be any “dead-band” in specimens before and after the flood. Organisms that died after the flood may well appear to have lived and died prior to the flood. There may appear to have been a rapid increase in population before the biblical timing of the flood followed by a lull after the flood. This could then be wrongly interpreted as evidence of only a minimally destructive flood. In addition, the age of some of the human remains at the site of Noah’s ship’s construction may appear to predate the biblical timing of the flood.
Possible evidence of carbon ratio disruption is found preserved in glaciers in frozen regions. The glacial varves, or layers of accumulated ice, should show increased age with increased depth but they are in fact nonlinear. Although there could be other explanations for the nonlinear age-to-depth ratio, at depths below about 200 meters, the age spikes to 7000 years only to drop back down to about 5000 years at 800 meters. This seems consistent with a skewed carbon ratio. Note: Noah’s flood may only have been the most severe of many similar floods- severe enough that a flood of this type could never again occur.
15Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L.B. (1962). “Molecular disease, evolution, and genetic heterogeneity”, in Kasha, M. and Pullman, B (editors): Horizons in Biochemistry. Academic Press, New York, 189-225.
16Schwartz, J. H. and Maresco, B. (2006). “Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics”. Biological Theory 1: 357-371.
17 See 15