Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Steven Den Beste's essay
Published on January 28, 2006 By Draginol In Pure Technology

Steven Den Beste's site seems to be down but I had a copy fo an article he wrote some time ago that talks about the reason why Noah's Arc is a fairy tale.  There are many many reasons why Noah's Arc is fiction but this is one of the better arguments I've seen.

Steven's site is located here.

I just had the distinct displeasure of encountering someone who is a Biblical literalist (and who actually believes that all evidence supports the fairy tale of Noah's Ark). Let's review the story, briefly:

God decides that the human race is sinful and wants to destroy it. But Noah is virtuous and God warns him about the upcoming catastrophe and tells him to build an Ark (a big ship) and to load it with breeding stock of animals, so as to repopulate the earth. Noah does this, and with his wife and three sons and their wives embarks on the ship. God then covers the earth with water for 40 days and 40 nights, drowning all animals. (It's not completely clear how this would harm whales and seals, but let that go.) Then the water begins to recede and Noah's Ark grounds on Mount Ararat. He releases his animals and the world is repopulated.

This is ecological nonsense. If the whole flora of the world was released from a single point, most of it wouldn't survive and they sure wouldn't be found where they are today.

It's also genetic nonsense. There are a lot of ways of showing this, but one is particularly unambiguous: human Y chromosomes. Nearly all the genetic information each of us carries comes from both our parents. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and one of each comes from our mothers and one from our fathers. One pair controls the sex of the child. One of these is normal sized and the other is extremely small (relatively speaking), and they're called "X" and "Y" respectively. (But the Y chromosome still carries millions of codons.)

In mammals, XX is female and XY is male. (This is not universal. In birds, XX is male and XY is female. In some insect species, females are diploid and males are haploid. And when you look at plants, sex isn't determined by genetics at all.)

Each human parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the baby, in egg and sperm. The egg always has an X chromosome and the sperm may have an X or a Y (unless there's an abnormality, about which more in a moment). If the sperm has an X then the resulting fertilized egg is XX, thus female. If the sperm has a Y then the fertilized egg is XY, male.

So the sperm cell determines the sex of the child (in mammals). But sometimes when the egg or sperm are formed there's a mistake, and they get more or less than 23 chromosomes. This can happen with any of the chromosomes. When it happens with the sex chromosomes you get individuals who may have three or one instead of the normal two.

If the egg forms wrong and has no X, and if the sperm cell has a Y, then you get a fertilized egg with a Y chromosome but no X chromosome. This egg isn't viable. The X chromosome contains genetic information without which a baby can't develop; the result is a miscarriage (so early, in fact, that the mother may not realize she's been pregnant).

The other three abnormal situations all result in children. If there's only one X chromosome ("Turner's syndrome") then the person looks female. XXY ("Kleinfelter's syndrome") is male. XYY (sometimes called the "supermale") is also male.

The development of male features is controlled by the presence of testosterone in the baby in the womb. This in turn is stimulated by the presence of the Y chromosome. There is, however, an extremely rare condition where the genes which describe the testosterone receptors are damaged, and in such an individual testosterone will be ignored even if it is present. The genes describing those receptors are not on the sex chromosomes but it's possible for them to be present in a person who has a Y chromosome, and if this happens the resulting person will look female. However, such a person will also be sterile, because no ovaries form.

The point is this: if a person is fertile and has a Y chromosome, then that person will be male.

I am male. I have a mother and a father. I got my X chromosome from my mother and my Y chromosome from my father.

Each of them also had two parents, so I have two grandfathers. My father's father gave his Y chromosome to my father. My mother's father gave his X chromosome to my mother.

I got my Y chromosome from my father and he got it from his father. I carry my paternal grandfather's Y chromosome. He got it from his father, and from his paternal grandfather, etc.

My mother got one of her two X chromosomes from her father and one from her mother. There's a 50% chance that the X chromosome I carry came from my maternal grandfather, but no chance whatever that I carry his Y chromosome. (He gave his Y chromosome to my mother's brother, but I'm not descended from my uncle.)

I have many male ancestors but my Y chromosome only came from one of them. I have many male ancestors but only one by strict patrilineal descent. They're the same person. That doesn't mean I have no genetic information from any of my other male ancestors; there are 22 other chromosomes to talk about and I may have gotten some of them from other men way back when. But the Y chromosome itself can only have come from one place, and it is from my strict patrilineal ancestor. My lineage from all my other male ancestors includes at least one intervening woman, and at that step their Y chromosomes were not passed on.

If any two men have the same strict patrilineal ancestor, no matter how far back, then those two men will have the same Y chromosome.

Which brings us back to Noah. According to the story, the ark carried 8 people: Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Genetically only five are important, because the three sons carried no genetic information not present in Noah and his wife.

So if the story is true then the entire human race is descended from just five individuals. And four of them were women; Noah is the only man among the five. 10 sex chromosomes, and nine of them are X. Of the ten, only one was a Y. Noah carried it and passed it on to his three sons.

And they passed it on to their sons, and their grandsons, and great grandsons, and ultimately to all living men. So if the Noah story is true then every existing Y chromosome in men should be identical because they'll all be copies of the one carried by Noah.

And they aren't. Human Y chromosomes have been tested many times and they are not all the same. There is enormous variety among them. It is impossible for all human men to have the same strict patrilineal ancestor.

Therefore the Noah story is not true.

 


Comments (Page 1)
9 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jan 28, 2006
Brad, check your email for a mail I sent you a few days ago!

on Jan 28, 2006

He does a good job of going around his elbow to get to his wrist.  But he does not disprove Noah, only that not the whole world was flooded.  The story of Noah can be true, but as in those days, it was a large world, perhaps only that part of it was flooded (My guess is a Tsunami - possibly caused by a meteor).

To say that we do not have a common father is in itself ridiculous.  For somewhere in time, a couple of monkeys climbed down out of the trees and started walking up right.  So that part of his arguement, while perhaps on point for Noah, is bunk.  Whether it was Adam and Even, or Oog and Glock, man evolved from a single point.  And even if not, then our Oog and Glock evolved from a single point.  Trace it back as far as you like, but life did not erupt spontaneous all over the globe. 

Somewhere, the Y Chromosone got mutated so that we do not all share the same one.  I dont know where, but he sure missed that splinter in his arguement.

on Jan 28, 2006

Just because we are all genetically related doesn't mean we have a common father. More like we're all very distant cousins.

The literal interpretation of Noah's Ark is nonsense though since there is no genetic way we are descended from a group of 8 or so people, all of the males being related.  That is a genetic impossibility.

But there isn't some genetic scenario that one day two humans suddenly came to be and suddenly started mating. It was a gradual process over 7 million years and they weren't building boats.  Even the Neandrathals weren't building boats.

on Jan 28, 2006

But there isn't some genetic scenario that one day two humans suddenly came to be and suddenly started mating. It was a gradual process over 7 million years and they weren't building boats. Even the Neandrathals weren't building boats.

Actually, man has been traced to a single woman in Africa about 250,000 years ago.  Who is to say she was or was not monogamous?  Sure we evolved (and it was a lot more than 7 million years), but somewhere a mutation occurred and man came about. 

That was my point.  I was not arguing, nor do I beleive, that we are all descended from Noah.  Only that the story may be true, but their world was not the entire globe at the time.

on Jan 28, 2006
Only that the story may be true, but their world was not the entire globe at the time.


But doesn't the story of Noah say this

[12] And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

[13] And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

[17] And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Sure sounds like God meant the entire Earth.

It is a "story".
on Jan 28, 2006
But can you take that 'story' literally?
on Jan 28, 2006
When people talk about Christians, and really mean biblical literalists that believe every word of the Bible to mean exactly what it says, it's like people talking about gay people and meaning only flaming, ultra feminine gays with ear-splitting lisps. I don't know anyone that believes that Noah's little crew was the only ones left alive.

When bronze-age people said "the world", they meant the world that they knew, i.e. like a very small percent of the real world that they could see. It's no different than when people say "Oh yeah, who did Adam and Eve's kids marry?" like it somehow defeats a belief. If you and this guy want to address a small sliver of of the human race, and folks that are probably so paranoid and set in their ways they'll never believe you anyway, fine. Waste of time if you ask me.

Why not write a big thesis on why Santa Claus can't exist? Would be hitting about the same level and be about as productive. Frankly, if someone needs a scientist to explain to them how we'd all be in-bred if Genesis were literally true, well, you might wanna explain the tooth fairy, too...

on Jan 28, 2006
Why not write a big thesis on why Santa Claus can't exist? Would be hitting about the same level and be about as productive. Frankly, if someone needs a scientist to explain to them how we'd all be in-bred if Genesis were literally true, well, you might wanna explain the tooth fairy, too...


The difference being that people don't claim that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are real. We make believe with our kids to make life more fun and magical. You obviously don't take the bible literally and perhaps don't know anyone who does but there are quite a few people here on JU alone who do.

I don't believe you have to take the bible literally to be a true christian but there sure are many who do.
on Jan 28, 2006
It is cute when people use science they don't actually understand to argue a point. Cute, but it sort of negates their argument. Sure, Steven uses lots of the right words, and makes it sound nice and intellectual. But he is also painfully incorrect.

If any two men have the same strict patrilineal ancestor, no matter how far back, then those two men will have the same Y chromosome.


Wrong. Painfully, embarrassingly wrong.

First off, let's consider for a moment the number of random mutations that occur between the time I got a Y chromosome from my father, and passed that along to my son. Random mutations happen all the time. We are talking millions a day. DNA polymerase does a wonderful job of correcting the vast majority of those. But plenty slip through the cracks. First off, I have years from the time puberty hits and my spermatogonia become active for one (or more) of them to acquire a mutation. Then consider just how many millions of times those spermatogonia are dividing to create a spermatocyte, which will then give rise to sperm cells. After all, men make millions of sperm a day. All it takes is a few mutations here and there for those mutations to be propagated time and time again, millions of times over.

Then through in the myriad of different possibilities of crossing over during meiosis I. Genes get swapped, shuffled around, inverted and some may even get dropped all together. By the time I pass along a Y chromosome to my son, the likelihood that it is the same as the one passed on to me by my father are so remote that it is ridiculous to assert they are identical.

And so, Steven's entire argument of there only being one possible source of Y chromosome hinges on an assumption that is simply wrong.

But for him to further argue that across generations this Y chromosome is somehow perfectly preserved and all us men out here would have to have identical Y chromosomes just demonstrates painful ignorance. The same changes that make the Y in my son different from the Y in me, and different from the Y in my father, etc. continue to work, generation upon generation, propagating enormous genetic difference, even if they all started out the same.

There is enormous variety among them.


The hyperbole alarm should be kicking into overdrive here. Just what constituted "enormous"? I mean, if our DNA is 99% (or 95% depending on whose studies you want to believe) homologous to that of chimpanzees, and well over 90% homologous with a whole host of other, non-primate mammals, just how "enormous" can the difference on a Y chromosome between two males of the same species be? The truth: very little in the actual scheme of the genome. So calling it "enormous" is just plain silly and just as much a "fairy tale" and fiction as the story of Noah and the arc.

I don't know about you, but I have a hard time buying into an argument that has just as many holes in it as the story it is arguing against.

Sure sounds like God meant the entire Earth.


Here we have another problem. How do we know that God actually said, verbatim, what those verses state? We have no idea. The whole Pentateuch is attributed to Moses. And sadly, we don't have his bibliography, and can't go back to check his sources. From the time Moses penned those words, they have been translated and translated time and again. Oh, and surely mistranslated somewhere in there. And just knowing how much early Christianity (and some modern versions as well) loved to emphasize the doom and gloom, repent or burn sort of mindset, I find it entirely possible that things were altered to make the whole "story" much more dramatic.

In light of that, I find Dr. Guy's hypothesis to be entirely plausible.

Finally, I am the first to say I don't take the Bible 100% literally, so I am not saying that we all did, in fact, descend from Noah. But Steven Den Beste's argument is so riddled with inaccuracy that, well, I cannot put any confidence in it either.

He sure makes it sound like he knows what he is talking about though, doesn't he.

on Jan 28, 2006
While I fully believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I don't for a second believe that the Bible tells us EVERYTHING.

The Bible says that God created Adam and Eve, but by the time Cain killed Abel and was cast away from the Garden of Eden, he feared that people outside the Garden would kill him. That leads me to believe that the Earth became fairly populated fairly quickly. Could Adam and Eve really have had that many children in that short amount of time? I don't know. I do know that the first five books of the Bible are believed to be written by Moses, and I believe that God spoke to him to let him know what He wanted written down. Maybe God had created other people that lived outside of the Garden? I don't know...the Bible doesn't say...

I see God as the US Government in a way. Think about how much those intelligence people know that we don't. They don't put out press releases for every bit of information they get for a REASON--it would create mass hysteria and confusion. So, the government lets us know what we *need* to know to make good decisions about life, and the rest just sits there and we never find out about it. I think God lets us know what's necessary, but nothing more so we don't get caught up in the complexity of all and forget that we should be focused on Him.
on Jan 28, 2006
"The difference being that people don't claim that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are real. We make believe with our kids to make life more fun and magical. You obviously don't take the bible literally and perhaps don't know anyone who does but there are quite a few people here on JU alone who do."

By quite a few, how many would you say here at JU? 5? Out of how many regular posters? I mean how many people really, literally believe ant Noah put every single major species of animal on a boat? How many people really believe that Adam and Eve were alone, the only man and woman on Earth? Read Marcie's post above mine. She calls herself a literalist, but do you see that as real literalism? I think you'll find about as many adults believe in Santa Claus as believe in the literal, solid reality of Noah's Ark story.

Your own Literalist blog is a good example. Even people who called themselves literalists flubbed up several times and admitted that they saw some of what is there as symbolic.

So, if you want to take JU posting as a cross section of the world, how many people here believe that Noah did literally, exactly what was written in the Bible, as opposed to how many see it otherwise? I think you'll find my estimation is about right.

on Jan 28, 2006
"I don't believe you have to take the bible literally to be a true christian"

Or a true Jew, for that matter. (I'm not sure if this would apply to Islam.)

The Noah story is Old Testament, Torah if you will. A part of our common heritage. I do find that most of the people that respond that they do take the Bible literally are Christians, but some Jewish sects do as well.

The problem that accepting any portion of the Bible as allegorical creates is that if one part is not true, then perhaps other parts aren't. And that opens up a veritable can of worms.
on Jan 28, 2006
But he does not disprove Noah, only that not the whole world was flooded. The story of Noah can be true, but as in those days, it was a large world, perhaps only that part of it was flooded (My guess is a Tsunami - possibly caused by a meteor).


So...basically the whole account is bunk? Like it had never rained upon the earth? And that it's completely impossible for God to make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights?

Who gives us the right to pick and choose what in the Bible is literal or not? If I think that God is who He says He is, and I believe that He's all-knowing and all-powerful, it opens a whole lot more doors.
on Jan 28, 2006
"So...basically the whole account is bunk? Like it had never rained upon the earth? And that it's completely impossible for God to make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights? "

There was obviously a great flood, since it is corroborated by diverse mythologies, some even thought to predate the original Jewish account. What people doubt, is that everyone on the Earth but Noah's family was killed, and that Noah could somehow travel the entire earth saving untold numbers of species. Did he go to the Galapagos and save the iguanas? Did he save the penguins? Polar Bears?

No, Marcie, you yourself can see the problems in the story, and you yourself have said elsewhere you can see things figuratively in the Bible. Why hold to the 'literalist' title when it really doesn't fit you? Maybe there was a Noah, and maybe HE thought the whole world was flooded, and maybe he DID take a lot of animals on his boat with him. I don't know. The literal account, though, simply can't be true in my opinion.

"Who gives us the right to pick and choose what in the Bible is literal or not? "

If God had written the Bible and handed it to us, that would be a valid point, Marcie. In reality the Bible is a lot of diverse material collected by MEN over the course of centuries. Given it is the creation of MEN, I think we have the right to question it. I wonder what kind of mess we can get into staking our lives and souls on something that rolls out of a printing press...

Ponder this, for a moment. If God's word is true and perfect, how could questioning dent it? If it isn't all literally true and 100% of God, then isn't it awfully destructive to promote it as such? If you believe in the Devil, what would make him more tickled than having people spend all their time in conflict about paper and ink when they have real lives to lead...

No, I believe anything that is truly of God can be questioned and tried and will always be found worthy. When people say you aren't allowed to question something, it is usually because they doubt it's ability to stand up to scrutiny...

on Jan 28, 2006
By the time I pass along a Y chromosome to my son, the likelihood that it is the same as the one passed on to me by my father are so remote that it is ridiculous to assert they are identical.


I agree that the assumption that the Y chromosomes would be identical is wrong but there are markers in the Y chromosome that never change. I had this discussion on my deism thread that involved a debate on the sort of changes you are talking about BlueDev. Some genetic material within the chromosome can "jump" or the chromosome can take on "junk DNA" but there are certain markers in Xs and Ys that don't change. Some of the mutations that you elude to would probably prevent reproduction.

That aside, is there anyone who really believes that 8 people, 4 of which were a father and his sons, could have repopulated the planet? If you believe in the literal interpretation you should.

How do we know that God actually said, verbatim, what those verses state?


We don't but if you take the bible literally you should. If you state "The story of Noah was true" how do you prove that? You can't. You can make all sorts of assumptions about what may or may not have been meant. It makes no sense if you take it literally.
9 Pages1 2 3  Last