IN THE BEGINNING. Welby Thomas Cox, Jr.

faulty interpretation”.

       Conclusion

      Some of the most treasured works of ancient scripture and literature, from classics such as the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Genesis account of Noah and his ark, tell various versions of a great flood: typically a wise man and his family, together with various crops and animals, survived by floating on a wooden boat. Clearly this experience is deeply engrained into the human psyche, as it has generated some rather profound discussion and analysis throughout the ages.

      Are these accounts historical? Although many observers are skeptical, it seems plausible, given the prevalence of these myths, that at least some are based on historical events, dimly remembered.

      Yet must we insist that the particular version of this tale presented in Genesis 6 is a literal and scientifically precise account? And must we further insist that Noah's flood was a global (not just a local) inundation, that the fossils were all deposited in the flood, and that all living organisms on the planet today, without exception, are descended from the ark's survivors? Not only is this approach scientifically untenable, it is also a theological disaster, since it leads directly to "God the Great Deceiver" theology, an absurd notion that has been rejected by scientists and theologians from numerous religious traditions.

      Thus, while we may admire efforts of AIG and others in their efforts to draw awareness to ancient literature and scripture, we must draw the line at their insistence that the Bible be read as an infallible work of modern science. Reasonable people disagree.

      Chapter 9

       Archaeologists Found 115,000-Year-Old Human Footprints Where They Shouldn't Be

       Fossilized footprints in Saudi Arabia show human traffic on the cusp of a subsequent ice age.

       Like carbon dating, scientists use isotopes and context clues to calculate the approximate age of fossils.

       These human prints were surrounded by animals but not hunted animals, indicating humans were just thirsty.

      A uniquely preserved prehistoric mudhole could hold the oldest-ever human footprints on the Arabian Peninsula, scientists say. The seven footprints, found amidst a clutter of hundreds of prehistoric animal prints, are estimated to be 115,000 years old.

      Many fossil and artifact windfalls have come from situations like this special lakebed in northern Saudi Arabia. Archaeologists uncovered the site, deep in the Nefud Desert at a location nicknamed “the trace” in Arabic, in 2017, after time and weather wiped the overlying sediment away. It’s easy to imagine that a muddy lakebed was a high-traffic area in the Arabian Peninsula over 100,000 years ago.

      When populations move on, these prints are left behind until they’re covered over. In the far, far older Burgess Shale event, some of the oldest organisms ever found were preserved intact because they likely fell into a mudslide and were killed instantly. An entire armored dinosaur was found in unprecedentedly good shape because it was encased in mud and in the cold of the ocean floor. If there were a finder’s fee for incredible archaeology, a lot of it would be paid to mud.

      In their new paper, the scientists actually examine why that ancient mud was so special at all:

       “An experimental study of modern human footprints in mud flats found that fine details were lost within 2 days and prints were rendered unrecognizable within four, and similar observations have been made for other non-hominin mammal tracks.”

      That means their special, tiny batch of preserved footprints were made in unique conditions that also form a kind of “fingerprint” for pinning them all to the same timeframe. From there, scientists started to look at who made the footprints. Homo sapiens weren’t the only upright humanoid primate in the game, but the evidence, the scientists say, suggests we were the ones traipsing through the drying lakebed:

       “Seven hominin footprints were confidently identified, and given the fossil and archeological evidence for the spread of H. sapiens into the Levant and Arabia during [the era 130,000 to 80,000 years ago] and absence of Homo neanderthalensis from the Levant at that time, we argue that H. sapiens was responsible for the tracks at Alathar. In addition, the size of the Alathar footprints is more consistent with those of early H. sapiens than H. neanderthalensis.”

      The lake that forms Alathar today was likely part of a prehistoric highway that drew all the large animals in the area, forming a corridor dotted by freshwater rest areas that living things could travel on as they migrated with the weather or the changing climate. In this case, scientists found very little of the other factors that accompany prehistoric human travel, like knife or tool marks on animal bones indicating hunting.

      “The lack of archaeological evidence suggests that the Alathar lake was only briefly visited by people,” the scientists conclude. “These findings indicate that transient lakeshore use by humans during a dry period of the last interglacial was likely primarily tied to the need for potable water.”

      These Homo sapiens could be the last ones on their way through a temperate place as an impending ice age descends. That would also explain why their tracks weren’t tracked over by another group, at least not before an entire fresh layer of sediment accumulated.

      Chapter 10

      Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbors.

      The research confirms the “Out of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.

      Academics analyzed the mitochondrial DNA (mt DNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.

      The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.

      Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the “Out of Africa” theory was the existence of inconsistent evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those elsewhere on the “coastal expressway” – the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.

      Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.

      But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.

      Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: “Although it has been speculated that the populations of Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”

      At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge