Supplement 1.

Genetics supports day-8 man

Without being an expert in genetics, a very plausible case can be made that the interbreeding of day-6 man and day-8 man can explain the rapid reduction in the lifespan of day-8 man, and the appearance of the super-sized Nephilim. This was initially described in Chapter 15, Sons of God and daughters of men, and Chapter 20, About the Nephilim.

The data bases at the creation.com website for Creation Ministries International (CMI) provide some technical insights with the extra edge of a Christian, creation slant on the data. In places a good timeline is very helpfull. Try www.creation.com/real-history-the-timeline-of-the-bible.


Some independent support

Some keywords in the genetics of growth and ageing are “programmed cell death” or “apoptosis”, and “telomeres”, which are the bits of DNA that break off. I used these to search the database of articles at CMI and there are quite a few hits. I found this article which specifically looks at this period in history and the age reduction, also suggesting telomeres changes could have been a factor.

It also suggests that Cain’s wife may have introduced some genetic changes but could not suggest why. That is because with only a few generations between Adam and Noah you cannot explain how such radical DNA change could come about. But with Day-6 man and Day-8 man, and the declaration that they interbred, it is obvious.

The following article is something of an overview of apoptosis which is an amazing and relatively recent insight into the growth of multi-celled creatures. It gets a bit heavy in places but you sure get an appreciation of how intricate the processes are in growth and ageing. It quoted another author, Bergman, speculating that, “At some point in history human longevity could have changed as a result of some alteration of the telomerase system.” Can anyone guess where I think that point was?


A note to experts

I have cast the larger growth of the Nephilim as an early “turn on” combined with a late “turn off”. This implies that DNA has some clock. I suspect it’s way more complicated than that and involves programmed numbers of cell divisions. Someone might argue that it’s the same number of divisions to grow from 3 feet to 6 feet no matter how fast you grow and so dismiss my suggestion. However the “live a very long time” DNA of Adam’s descendants had to be programmed to be able to divide much more often before death. (This mechanism is already understood in part.) So any day-6 DNA algorithm based around a programmed number of cell divisions is likely to get a little un-calibrated if you throw in day-8 DNA characteristics which allow a much greater number of divisions.

Now I’m a software engineer with training in electronics, physics, and communication systems. My theology has allowed me to see a day-6 man and a day-8 man and a merciful God, with considerable help from the Holy Spirit. So I look to see supporting evidence, not that my opinions are derived from science or depend on science to confirm them. But others will be encouraged by confirmation. In this particular case I was not actually looking - the idea just popped into my head as I was reading Genesis 6 for about the 100th time.

Now don’t take this too personally, but it is a fact that theology leads science. If you don’t believe in God then your science supports evolution. If your Christian theology rejects the possibility day-6 and day-8 man outright, you will look for a solution to disprove my suggestion. This is what I have learned in my walk with God - you find what you seek!


As things unfolded

I work as a software engineer. The developments in genetics now-a-days are fascinating. The intricacy of the interdependent components is awesome. The team at CMI help to keep the body updated with what is happening. All I do is take note when I come across something relevant.


Late update #1

In February 2010, I submitted the evidence in Chapters 15, Sons of God and daughters of men, and 20, About the Nephilim, to two reputable Creation organisations. I sought comments about the feasibility of the genetics I had proposed. Both organisations were good enough to reply. Basically, their comments indicated that there was no problem with the Classic view and that my Day-8 view was errant. Neither indicated specific scriptural errors I had made. Neither made mention of the feasibility of the genetics. Well, why add support to a premise you consider to be wrong. Both indicated that the correct understanding of the sons of God in Genesis 6 was that they were demons. One reply offered a detailed explanation, point by point to support the demon interpretation. I personally hate this interpretation and wrote Appendix B3 Absence of good to explain why.

So, scientific support is not even considered without theological support. That is not really a problem. Bible first, science second is a good general principle. The problem was that my scriptural support for the Day-8 view seemed to be ignored simply because it seemed so different to what everyone has assumed under the Classic view.

Late update #2

In January 2011, a friend told me about a fairly recent discovery called “jumping genes”, also called “transposable elements” that are present in virtually all life forms. So I stuck that into CMI’s search engine. The following link seems to give a good overview and discusses speciation within mammals.

The summary section entitled, “Evidence supports biblical model” tells how these genetic elements facilitate rapid speciation, but this ability has become inactive over time. This is an encouragement to Creationists because it shows how many species seen today may have rapidly been derived from the parent species preserved on Noah’s Ark. Of course if rapid speciation occurred after the flood then so too before the flood, albeit with different environmental pressures. This speciation mechanism seems to stabilise or become inactive over time by which I assume generations, yet it seems to have been activated by interbreeding between similar species. Isn’t this my proposal for the results of day6/8 interbreeding?

This article cites another article, http://creation.com/vige-introduction, which is much more technical, but where I noted in the final “Discussion” section, that Variation-Inducing Genetic Elements (VIGE), could be responsible for different ways in which genes expressed themselves. It suggested that genes might code for a nose but that these VIGE could account for variation in the size of the nose. Wow, isn’t size one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Nephilim?

Here is another article discussing possible Neandertal man (also spelt Neanderthal) interbreeding with modern man from a creationist viewpoint. (Try “interbreeding of species” in the CMI search engine.)

It makes important observations that Neandertal man seems to be essentially the same as modern man yet there are differences. I knew about this for some time and did not feel to mention it because these Neandertal men could well have arisen from different descendants of the sons of Noah or through the scattering at Babel. But I mention it now, not as proof of day-6 man, but to indicate that discernable genetic differences between interbreeding streams of mankind are accepted post-flood, then why not pre-flood. Before the flood we know about an intelligent, articulate breed of animal that did exist and was described in Genesis 3. The primary difference between man and animals is that man alone has a spirit, then why can’t we allow the possibility of day-6 man in a purely genetics driven argument. I have established the possibility from the Word of God.

Importantly, my day-6 man is not a millions of years old evolutionary predecessor to Adam, nor a tack-on to justify man’s seeming existence much longer than 6,000 years ago. Day-6 man was created by God as was Adam, day-8 man, all in the biblical time frame.

Late update #3

In April 2011, I came across the following article that reports on how genetics, even performed by secular science, has traced male lineages back to a single male via the Y chromosomes. Similarly female lineages characterised by mitochondrial DNA appears to have just three main groups called N, M, and R.

http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics ... see “The Flood and genetics” section.

Now the author is very excited because he can see this as mapping to Noah and the wives of his three sons. I was also excited to see how modern genetics is confirming the Biblical model. But it struck me that we are looking back about 4,500 years which is about 180 generations at 25 years per generation. We see that these 3 female groups preserved is some distinct way over these 180 generations, yet if we go back just 10 generations more we should have the one group defined by Eve. But if Adam’s descendants, Day-8 man, the sons of God, took wives from different DNA lineages represented by the daughters of Day-6 men, then perhaps that explains why these three groups sprang up so quickly before the flood, yet were recognisably preserved for the next 180 generations.

So why don’t I contact the author of this article and discuss my idea? Well, right now I am a tad discouraged. My current experience is that any theological difference stifles technical discussion in this area. Anyhow, my goal is not to win a technical debate but just to introduce day-8 man. Once that is considered, gifted scientists such as this author will see the implications without having to talk to me.

In Nov 2015 I heard that scientists had identified ‘mitochondrial Eve’, that is, a single female ancestor to all people. The following articles at Creation.com offer more detail on this:

This is really encouraging because it’s what the Bible has always predicted and does not sit well with evolution. It is not proof of Adam and Eve but best explained as such. The above articles clarify this. As far as I can tell, it does not invalidate my proposed Day-6 man. This ‘mitochondrial Eve’ is not necessarily Adam’s wife Eve, but a common mother, grandmother, great grandmother etc. of the wives of Noah’s three sons. This is quite likely since Noah’s sons would have all lived and worked where the Arc was being built and with smallish populations, everyone in that region could be closely related. This common (great...) grandmother could be a direct descendent of Eve or from the Day-6 women. My comments here are simply that, if from Day-6 women, then it seemed more likely that three distinct strains of mitochondrial DNA were apparent.

The puzzle

Do you want to know what puzzles me? Genesis 6 starts by plainly describing an interbreeding between two groups of man. One MUST be the descendants of Adam who was also known to be the son of God. I totally reject any other option for the sons of God as demons. The Nephilim and age reduction are clearly consistent with this. The genetics seems plausible. Why the struggle to see the obvious?

Late update #4 - DNA Mutations

This update is more a proposal - it is not about support for the Day-8 view but about seeing the goodness of God.

Sup1/4: DNA Mutations


This supplement started life in about 2010, well before the book was commenced. In 2011 there were several follow-ups. Now it’s April 2015. So, these updates have had quite a pause while I prepared the book. I also wondered if the following seemed a bit repetitious. But what actually happened was that CMI published a couple of disconnected articles that I happened to read on the same day as I was catching up on a backlog of email. Both were very relevant.


Late update #5 - Implications of robust fossils

This update explores an article that compares the robustness of certain human fossil types and establishes a link with longevity. Though unintended by the author, this helps support my proposal that interbreeding between human types with different longevity started the decline in the lifespan of Adam’s descendants.

Sup1/5: Explaining robust humans

Late update #6 - Exponential fixation of mutations

A proposal, based on ground breaking research supports an exponential reduction in fitness after a popupaltion bottlneck. This is now being proposed to support the the post-flood age reduction. However scripture better supports the mechanism that I have proposed and more support for these mechanisms is presented.

Sup1/6: Exponential fixation of mutations

Late update #7 - The computing elements of life

In May 2016 I came across an article that observed mutations don’t fit evolutionary theory, but it also introduced some of the latest research showing how the machinery of life works. There is very tight control of the high level body type (created kind) but modular design at lower levels that effectively allows some re-shuffling of the existing information to enable adaptation. This supports the Biblical account of life and the changes in Genesis 1-11, but you will see that it also increases the plausibility of my explanation of the Nephilim.

Sup1/7: The computing elements of life


-> Supplements