There have to be phylogeographic studies for a fair number of primate species. I’d look for them in the literature and contact the authors. Presumably all the samples for those studies would be in somebody’s tissue collections. Don’t all institutions require that these days? And I’d ask somebody who works on primates, if you know anyone.
It depends heavily on what is going to be sequenced. I’m not an expert on sequencing projects, but I am familiar with cloning techniques. This will probably require cloning large chunks of the genome into a BAC, or something similar. There is a lot of equipment that comes with this, from tissue culture to imagers for BAC screening.
We would probably do it with PCR, but the down side is that this is a fairly variable region. That may not be the right way to do it.
Can’t imagine why. The only reason I can think of for cloning would be to separate heterzygous alleles. But you would only need to clone some short PCR products, and there are kits for that too. Nothing elaborate is required.
The problem here is the context you set up with the phrases “well-supported” and “scientific hypothesis”. This is an over-reaction.
In the Western world, there are lots of scientists who also claim to be good and devout Christians. Generally speaking, nobody challenges Scientists to explain how they can be men or women of scientists… and still believe Jesus was born miraculously… or whether he was resurrected!
Adam and Eve, being made in miraculous ways, but in the midst of thousands of humans who were created earlier by means of Evolution, should not be much more trouble to understand than a geneticist who puts up Christmas time stockings!
13 posts were split to a new topic: How Do Scientists Believe The Resurrection?
Then there seems to be a very simple solution to this problem: Ann Gauger can get a position at a University or otherwise obtain funding for her research thru non-creationist sources. i.e. Do what every other scientific researcher has to do.
If she is unable to do so, then that probably already tells all we need to know.
And a “scientist” who spends her limited time and resources trying to prove that Adam and Eve really existed should be treated no more or less seriously than one who tries to demonstrate that reindeer really can fly.
I think you are overstating our work, @Faizal_Ali.
We arent trying to prove Adam and Eve existed… we are proving that they could have been miraculously created… and science is not in a position to contradict some miracles!
So you’re trying to scientifically prove that which cannot be disproven by science.
And you wonder why you can’t get funding?
There is no way to scientifically prove de novo creation.
And secondly, we have obtained funding.
“And secondly, Joshua did obtain funding.”
No “we” haven’t. @swamidass gets a minor amount of JTF funding. But he also gets major secular funding to real science at WUSTL.
That is certainly more precise, @Djordje!
Sure there is.
If we saw giraffes and whales suddenly popping into existence out of thin air, what would that demonstrate? De novo creation.
But that’s not the kind of de novo creation in question. YECs have elevated Romans 5 to the point where just 2 people need to be miraculously created… not hundreds of giraffes and whales.
When Evolution was first rising up into prevalence in the world, scientists were too quick to say the world was devoid of miracles. And so, the “either/or” mentality became solidified into a complete obstacle.
As I’ve said before, in Western Civilization, Christians working in Science are not particularly taken to task for believing in a miraculous birth of Jesus, or his resurrection. It’s not like these Christians are saying hundreds of men are being born miraculously. And belief in a few miracles like this does not dismiss all the evidence for evolution.
So, adding another 2 “blips” of miracles (de novo creation of Adam & Eve), is really quite parallel.
How do you know that just one or two giraffes or whales were not “de novo created”?
Maybe they should be. If one of them said he thought a blue whale had suddenly popped into existence out of thin air, with no evidence to back it up, he’d probably be roundly ridiculed.
If you are interested in promoting MULTIPLE animals being miraculously created… you are already well beyond what evidence suggests.
The EVIDENCE tells us that the great majority of life forms came from common descent … and primates in particular descend from the great apes branch of the animal kingdom.
Romans 5 requires an Adam and Eve … not giraffes and whales made instantaneously. So you need to pay attention to the context of the Genealogical Adam scenarios.
They are not designed for everyone. They are designed for those Christians who WANT to retain the scientific evidence that they see around them… and wish only to retain a few more miracles.
If you are a nuanced thinker, you can see the distinctions…
There are many Christians who WANT to believe that the universe is only 6000 years old. Why don’t we have a special kind of “science” for them, as well? Isn’t that just fair?