Scientific or Genetic Adam

“In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living men are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam)

Okay … that was a mouthful, but did you catch the gist? Modern genetics accepts that “all currently living males” are descended from one common male progenitor. A plethora of articles refer to him as Scientific Adam or Genetic Adam. Similar articles discuss Mitochondrial Eve. Though it’s much harder to track genetic succession through the mother’s mitochondria, many scientists are convinced they have traced all living women back to one ancestor. Of course, most geneticists are only tracing these lines back to the “emergence of anatomically modern humans.” They believe that our common ancestors arose from humanoids of inferior evolutionary development. This belief is necessitated in their materialistic, closed-universe worldview.

As I’ve read through articles about our genetic parents, every article goes to great pains to state upfront that this cannot be evidence in support of the Biblical Adam and Eve. So every living man and woman on the planet can be scientifically traced to two progenitors, but the Genesis account must be a “myth.” Romans 1:18–20 comes forcefully to mind,

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Do scientists who reject the Biblical narrative do so based solely on “evidence” or is there an a priori reason. Tune in next week.