The U.S. Could Learn a Thing or Two From Denmark


We’ve all heard it- how much better Denmark is than the US on oh so many levels. I mean, take it from the Occupy Democrats meme below: Denmark has free healthcare, college,  and childcare. To make matters worse those lucky Danes have a whopping $20/hr minimum wage and only have to work 33 hours a week. The conclusion- the US has got to be doing it wrong. So please, by all means lets learn about how awesome Denmark’s system is!! Are you ready!! I’m so excited!!

Let’s start with that free college. It’s free, but Danes do not get the same freedom of choice when it comes to what subject they want to study. Their choices are limited to what fields the Ministry of Education think that Denmark needs more graduates in. Want to be a writer? A teacher? You better hope the Minister of Education sees a need for more of those.

Now on to minimum wage. Actually, Denmark doesn’t  have a “national” minimum wage, but we won’t split hairs. Due to union and other agreements they have an “effective” minimum wage of 110 DKK/hr (Danish Krone). The current exchange rate is 1 DKK= .15 USD. So, that’s $16.50 an hour- not $20, but still beats the heck out of the US minimum wage, right? Not so fast.

Denmark has a progressive tax structure, but the 2016 personal income tax rate listed on is a whopping 55.8%. Talk about a chunk out of that paycheck! To add insult to injury, when you go shopping in Denmark, be ready to add a hefty 25% to your purchase (no matter what you’re buying) in the form of Denmark’s VAT tax. Want to buy a car? Get ready to shell out a 105% tax on your vehicle (up to a value of 82,800 DKK or $12,420 USD) and 180% tax on any value exceeding that 82,800 DKK mark- according to pwc Worldwide Tax Summaries. What did you pay for your last vehicle?

Do you want to own a TV, phone, or computer in Denmark? Be ready to fork over an additional 20% tax. Once you have your TV, phone, or computer you’ll probably want to be able to use it, right? Well then, you’re going to have to come up with extra cash to pay for your “licens” fee, which is the fee that you pay because you now have the ability (it doesn’t matter if you’ll actually tune in or not) to pick up the Denmark Radio signal. That amounts to 205 DKK per month.

For an eye opening glimpse into the financials of an actual Dane- H. Roland J. has been so nice as to share his for one month in 2015 in his blog post, Denmark- The Paradise of Fools.

    • He has a monthly salary of 25,000 DKK or about $3,750 USD.
    • Then comes the first portion of his personal tax at 8%.
      • That amounts to 2,000 DKK or $300 USD leaving him with 23,000 DKK or $3,450 USD
    • He then subtracts his “bundfradrag” or “bottom deduction”, which for him for 2015 came out to 3,433 DKK per month of non-taxed income (besides the 8% it was already taxed). Let’s subtract that amount to put into his pocket and see what he has left to pay more taxes with- 19,567 DKK or $2935.05 USD.
    • His county tax was 24.9% leaving him with- 14,694.81 DKK or $2,204.22 USD
    • Time out!! If he, at this point, made more than 37,000 DKK per month, he would be subject to an additional 15% “topskat” tax. He doesn’t, so let’s continue.
    • He now pays a 4% “health tax”- leaving 13,784.32 DKK or $2,116.05 USD
    • This adds up to, in this man’s tax bracket, an income tax rate of 44%.
    • So, now he has 13,784.32 DKK or $2,116.05 USD left- before living expenses of course.
      • I already mentioned that when paying bills, they also must add in the 25% sales tax. He paid his bills with the “disposable” income that was not taxed (3,433 DKK) and ended up with 10.34 DKK or $1.55 USD left over.
    • This guy doesn’t want to pay for TV or phone so if you couldn’t live without those, you’d have even more to pony up.
    • He then pays the “afgift” or extra tax on all utilities. He uses his power bill to illustrate how that works:
      • His power bill was 994.64 DKK for a 3 month period, ($149.20 USD) in which he used 358 Kilowatt hours.-Charges from the electric company were 111.06 DKK plus 30 DKK for membership plus sales tax comes to 176.33 DKK ( $26.45 USD)
      • The electric company charges .37 DKK per kilowatt hour, but the state imposes an “electricity transportation afgift” at .21 DKK per kilowatt hour (almost as much as the electric company charges for the electricity!) making his electric afgift 80.89 DKK for the period.
      • THEN, the Denmark government adds a sales tax of 20% onto the afgift! So a government tax on a government tax, for those who are keeping tabs.
      • SO- of the 994.64 DKK he paid for electricity, only 141.06 DKK went to the actual electric company and the bloated 853.58 DKK went to the government!

Sorry, but so far, the words “Awesome Deal!” are NOT what is coming to my mind when I take a good look at Denmark. Regardless, I know there are many people out there saying, “But they get free healthcare and that makes it ALL worth it!!” Well, in case you haven’t noticed- that health care AIN’T “free”. This healthcare better be awesome! Is it?

One interesting fact to note is that in addition to the “free” government health care provided, Danes have the option of purchasing separate “private” insurance- sort of makes you wonder why this is even needed if the government health care is “all that”. Two additional facts: in Denmark your doctor must refer you to a specialist or you don’t see one and your doctor must refer you to the hospital or you don’t go. An American expat who now lives in Denmark explains her experience with the Danish health care system in her blog post, Free-Health Care in Denmark- My First Hand Experience. Her article is definitely NOT a Denmark health care bashing article, but actually just an honest recounting of her personal experience, which has been both good and bad.

She explains from the outset that health care is a straight up 8% line item deduction of gross pay. Denmark’s “free” health care option does not cover physicals, vision or dental care, and only partially covers mental health services if the government covers it at all. Danes pay full price for prescriptions until a personal threshold is reached after which they are progressively discounted. She notes that, “In nearly six years, I’ve never had my total yearly prescription cost in Denmark come in below that of my $10-$20 US co-pay.” (You can tell she hasn’t lived in the US for a while- I’d kill for a $10 co-pay!!) She has actually crunched the numbers and admits that she pays roughly 6 times as much for her “free” health care in Denmark than she did for her employer sponsored plan in the US.

She then admits that her initial experience with Denmark’s heath care was abysmal. Her doctor was absolutely horrible and misdiagnosed her twice. The last diagnosis could have ended up causing her “irreversible damage” had she not moved and had access to a better doctor. Of course, she is currently very happy with her new doctor so she has changed her mind about the quality of Denmark’s health care. She also notes that Danes have the opportunity to purchase private insurance (which I mentioned earlier) and that this insurance allows you to “jump queue” if you need to see a specialist with a long waiting list or need access to mental health services. This of course implies that, those who pay more, get to “cut line” in front of those who receive the “free” health care when it comes to seeing a specialist. Hmmm…

By the way, in Denmark there is no such thing as a malpractice suit. As of 1992, Danes cannot sue a doctor for malpractice. You’ll be hard pressed to find any article on this topic that gives anything other than a glowing account(like this one, How Denmark Dumped Medical Malpractice and Improved Patient Safety) of how this is revolutionizing health care by being in the best interest of both doctors and patients, but I’m skeptical and I’ll tell you why. First, instead of taking your case before a jury of your peers, you must submit a claim to “medical and legal experts” for review. These “experts” review your claim based on two criteria:

  1. The “specialist rule”: How did the treatment you received compare to care an experienced specialist would provide? If it wasn’t equal, you are entitled to compensation.
  2. “Fairness rule”: If you experienced a severe medical event that occurs less than 2% of the time, you are eligible for a “reward.”

#1 strikes me as extremely subjective and I suppose according to #2 if you aren’t a medical anomaly you’re out of luck. Sounds totally “fair”. But worry not! If you aren’t happy with the decision you can appeal- to a seven member board of doctors, patient representatives, an attorney, and two representatives of the Danish health care system. I’m sure it’s not as susceptible to corruption as it seems…

If we’re going to follow Denmark’s cue, Forbes points out that we’re going to need to let up on our business regulations and decentralize our government. Wait, Democrats are not for either of those things! US businesses migrate overseas every opportunity they get, but the Danes apparently realize that they can’t support their “entitlements” without making Denmark business friendly- so they do. Denmark businesses are far less regulated than US businesses.

Denmark’s government is less centralized than the US government. For example, Denmark taxes are astronomical, but only 3.76% of income taxes are national. The large portion of income tax comes in at the community level. So the taxes they are paying benefit their communities rather than being directed through Washington like ours.

This is all well and good, but some people out there are still saying this is all worth it if the poor are better off in Denmark. Are they? The poorest 10% in the US have adjusted incomes almost exactly the same as the poorest 10% of Danes. The poor in Denmark do not enjoy any higher standard of living than the poor in the US. However, the rich in Denmark definitely aren’t as rich as the rich in the US. But Denmark’s poverty rate is lower, you say!! Did you know that the US is the only country in the world that calculates poverty before benefits are received? ( you take this into account you are comparing apples and oranges.

We’ve gone through all of this, and I haven’t even mentioned the fact that Denmark only has a population of 5.7 million compared to the US’s population of 325.8 million. To say that the Denmark government operates on a smaller scale is the understatement of the century.

So, the next time someone tells you that the US needs to learn from Denmark, you can ask- what lessons specifically? Denmark’s crushing 55% income tax rate, whopping 25% VAT tax, taxes on utilities, taxes on the taxes on their utilities, monthly license fees for TV, computer, and phones? No covered dental or vision benefits and limited mental health benefits? Paying full price for prescriptions up to their government imposed “deductibles”? No legal recourse for medical malpractice? Lack of educational free will? Or perhaps they are referring to Denmark’s decentralized government and their relaxed business regulation?

Evidence for Darwin’s “Descent of Man”: Mountain or Molehill?

If you were to ask any individual, of any education level, if science does in fact have fossil evidence of Darwin’s “descent of man” (evolution from ape to modern day man) he/she would doubtless respond that indeed they do (or believe that they do). Any high school or college biology textbook will have a section devoted to this evidence in which you will read the names of our proposed ancestors: Australopithecus, Ramapithecus, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon Man to name a few. Anytime anthropologists uncover another ancestral candidate much ado is made and everyone is bound to hear about it from one news outlet or another. The problem is, when each candidate is eventually struck from the “family tree”, no updates or revisions are passed along- leaving those of us not “in the know” to believe that evolution has quite a mountain of evidence on its side. But is the evidence for Darwin’s “Descent of Man” truly a mountain, or more of a molehill? Let’s take a look and see.

First of all, you should be aware that the physical amount of evidence is not what you are led to believe. From Charles Scott Kimball’s The Truth About Cavemen: “In 1982 Dr. Lyall Watson stated: ‘The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!’” This might come as a surprise to you if you are assuming that we actually have a somewhat complete skeleton of ANY of our “ancestors”. Most are identified by a very few bones- mostly jaw bones and teeth. In my humble opinion these are pretty big conclusions to come to based on such skimpy evidence. Let’s look at the most famous candidates one by one.

Australopithecus was discovered in Africa in 1924 by Raymond Dart. This is why most evolutionists believe Africa to be the “cradle of civilization”. Many specimens have been found, but by far the most famous and most complete skeleton (40% complete) has been dubbed “Lucy.” Lucy was discovered in 1973. The problem is that they come in many varying sizes and builds, so they are all classified under different names. Because many of the Australopithecus finds have been determined to be nonhuman, it has been suggested that they are actually NOT a separate species, but rather male and female examples of the same ape. In 2015, one of Lucy’s vertebrae was found to actually belong to a baboon. Whoops!

While we’re at it, just a quick note about these “reconstructions”. Boyce Rensberger, writing in Science Digest in 1981, explains them this way: “Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist’s conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there . . . Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it . . . Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors.”

Take the case of the famous “Lucy” for example. In the picture below, the center image is a mold of Lucy’s potential face (remember the fleshy parts of the face are just guesses) . The images to the right and left are different artists representations of what Lucy could have looked like based on the same face mold. Notice the artist has complete control over whether Lucy looks like just another ape or decidedly more “human” (far left) based on the distribution of facial hair (which is ALL guesswork).

So there you have it. These pictures aren’t worth the paper they’re drawn on and likely look precious little like the creature whose bones they are based on.

Ramapithecus is touted as the oldest hominid. It was identified based on a few teeth and some bone fragments that appear similar to human bones. From these few bones, some textbooks boast pictures of what a Ramapithecus “would have” looked like. Apparently, he is envisioned as a little less “apey” than his ancestors, but definitely not very “humaney” yet. I mean- think early evolutionary human. They got all that, from a few teeth and jaw fragments…

Java Man was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois and was identified by one tooth, a piece of a skull bone, and a thighbone. Nevermind that the thighbone wasn’t actually found until a year later and 50 feet from where the other two bones were found. No big deal, because Dubois insisted they belonged together. When Dubois couldn’t get agreement from the scientific community of his day, he buried the bones under his house in a suitcase for 23 years before he finally brought them out again. (What!?!) Before his death in 1923, Dubois confessed that Java Man was actually a giant gibbon. Unfortunately, he is still in textbooks and museums labeled as Homo erectus.

Java Man’s cousin, Peking Man was discovered in 1928. 40 skulls of Peking Man were unearthed from a single cave amid campfire ashes and stone tools leading discoverers to obvious conclusions about Peking Man’s abilities. Unfortunately, what wasn’t disclosed about this discovery is that only skulls and no other body parts were unearthed. To make matters worse, every single skull had been smashed so that the brain could be removed and eaten. Also, seven skeletons of modern men were found at the very same site! This deleted information leads one to come up with all together different conclusions. Like Kimball’s for instance, “ Peking Man was the victim of a feast, and the fire and tools were not used by Peking Man but on Peking Man…The most plausible answer is that “Peking Man” was just another ape like “Java Man” and “Solo Man,” killed and eaten by true men.”

Piltdown Man was discovered in 1911 by Charles Dawson and was deemed to be in the neighborhood of 500,000 years old. In the 1950’s, when dating methods had improved (dating methods are still extremely problematic, but that discussion is outside the scope of this article), Piltdown Man was found to be only about 620 years old. Subsequently, his teeth were found to belong to an ape- Dawson (or someone else) had filed them to disguise them. In 1982, the jawbone was discovered to belong to an orangutan. The bones had also been stained to give the appearance of old age. So, Piltdown man was a 40 year long hoax.

The discovery of a single tooth in Nebraska in 1922 gave rise to the famous Nebraska Man. This tooth was actually entered as evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in which the ACLU sought to usher in the teaching of evolution in science class. Evolutionists of the day scoffed at the “naive, mentally inferior” Creationists who considered a single tooth to be insufficient evidence of evolution. A mere two years after the trial, when a complete skeleton was unearthed with identical teeth, they were found to belong to none other than a fossilized peccary- also known as a wild pig.

Rhodesian man is considered the African counterpart of Heidelberg Man who anthropologists generally agree are an intermediate stage between Homo erectus and modern men. One detail that somehow isn’t widely discussed, is the fact that the Rhodesian Man skull found at Broken Hill quarry (in Zambia) actually has a bullet hole in it. Kimball writes, “The skull has a small round hole in the left temple, with none of the radial cracks around it that an arrowhead or spear would have produced. The right side of the skull is shattered, having been blown apart from the inside. A German forensics expert in Berlin has testified that only a high-speed projectile, like a rifle shot, could have done this kind of damage.” So, two options: either Rhodesian man is not as old as he has been dated to be and was actually shot in the 18th or 19th century (he was found buried 60 feet deep) OR prehistoric people had guns. Either way, evolutionists don’t like what Rhodesian man brings to the table- so they just disregard the information that doesn’t align with their theories. Convenient.

Rhodesian Man Skull Reconstruction picture from Kimball’s article

Ever since Neanderthal Man came on the scene in 1856, he has been considered our slumped, not-so-bright predecessor. Research has since determined that the original Neanderthal skeleton, “Old Man of La Chappelle,” was actually crippled by arthritis, which accounts for the stooped posture. Based on other Neanderthal fossils, it has been determined that Neanderthal’s harsh features may have had more to do with the environment he lived in (an Ice Age) and the health problems that arise due to this fact such as poor diet, and rickets. Other finds have also revealed that he was in fact more intelligent than originally given credit for- the Neanderthal brain is actually a little larger than ours. Presently, scientists no longer consider Neanderthal Man to be a separate species, but instead a distinct race within the human species.

Neanderthal man has also been diagnosed with “acromegaly” (an overactive pituitary gland). Interestingly, this condition causes ordinary men to develop an “apelike appearance” due to the fact that the bones begin to grow again after maturity leading to a “thickening” since the bones cannot grow longer. Other physical characteristics of acromegaly sufferers are large extremities and drooping shoulders. This disease is also hereditary. This is significant because if Neanderthal Man lived in small isolated groups where inbreeding was practiced it would have resulted in a predominantly ape-man looking family group in the fossil record. Kimball notes a recent example of this illness in wrestler Maurice Tillet, pictured below. Imagine what conclusions evolutionary scientists would come to if his skeleton were to be fossilized and unearthed in generations to come. Incidently, Tiller’s face was the inspiration for Shrek’s appearance.

That leaves us with Cro-Magnon Man. I like what Kimball says regarding this evolutionary piece of the puzzle, “ Cro-Magnon was the same height as us and had a brain the same size, and one child’s book has a chapter on Cro-Magnons entitled ‘People Like Us,’ only to say on the next page that they were not simply like us- they were us. There is no point in making this character the missing link if the only differences between him and us are cultural ones.”

Of course, we currently have Homo antecessor that scientists date from 1.2 million to 800,000 years ago and who scientists consider the latest common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals. According to Wikipedia, “As a complete skull has yet to be unearthed, only fourteen fragments and lower jaw bones exist, these scholars point to the fact, that ‘most of the known H. antecessor specimens represent children’ as ‘most of the features tying H. antecessor to modern people were found in juveniles, whose bodies and physical features change as they grow up and go through puberty. It’s possible that H. antecessor adults didn’t really look much like H. sapiens at all.’” So, yeah, from 14 bone fragments we now have this picture of what Homo antecessor “probably” looked like:

I forgot to mention that H. antecessor was cannibalistic. Yikes. Anyhow- let’s give it 40 years and see how this “missing link” gets debunked.


Could All the Diversity in the Human Race Have Come From Adam and Eve?

When you look at people today, with all of our diverse characteristics- skin color, hair color, eye shape, height, build, etc, you can’t help but wonder: Could only Adam and Eve, who lived approximately 6,000 to 7,000 years ago have been the foundation for the diverse group we have become? Evolutionary science would tell us no- that the human race must have begun around 200,000 years ago to account for the diversity that is represented among us today. Surprisingly, however, some of the most compelling evidence corroborating the Biblical creation account, is coming from evolutionary scientists.

Let’s look at the path evolutionary science takes using the example of skin color. To explain the rainbow of varying shades, (not just the four scientific classifications of race: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid) but the incredible diversity among each race (dark skinned Caucasoids, light skinned Negroids, varying shades of Mongoloids), the October 2002 issue of Scientific American claims that skin color is evolving in order to come to “just the right skin color”. A color dark enough to prevent the nutrient folate from being destroyed in the sun, but light enough to allow the production of vitamin D. Dr. Brad Harrub writing for Apologetics Press sums up the thought process evolutionist currently use to describe the human evolution of skin color (evolution from chimps, of course, who by the way do not have varying skin color), “For those of you keeping track, here’s a quick summary: We lost body hair to cool our growing brains. Our pink skin and folate levels were in danger of UV radiation, so we evolved lots of melanin and became dark skinned. But some humans traveled to areas where there wasn’t as much sunlight, thus they were required to evolve lighter skin.”

Of course, Creationists do not need to rely on mutations, we assert that our Creator, God, created man with the best possible combination of skin-color genes. With this knowledge we can scientifically account for skin color diversity (and most other diversity for that matter) using a simple Punnette Square straight from your high school biology class. Here’s a little refresher: The pigment melanin (which controls skin color) is mainly controlled by two pairs of genes- Aa and Bb. A and B are dominant and produce melanin well, while a and b are recessive and do not. If God created Adam and Eve “heterozygous” (meaning they had both dominant and recessive genes: AaBb) they would have been a middle brown color and capable of producing anywhere from darkest Negroid to lightest Caucasoid.

According to Dr. Brad Harrub, “The whole process is “put into reverse,” however, when people of different skin colors intermarry. Various combinations of genes occur, and the offspring thus begin to show a rainbow effect of skin colors, ranging from black to white.”

Now, obviously Adam and Eve could have literally created a rainbow of offspring within one generation. However, with all the mixing going on through the generations, many varying shades would have been produced. Notice, “race” is never even mentioned in the Bible.

I know what you’re thinking- Ok, but that’s not how it works today- white parents have white children only, black parents have black children only and so on. This is where the findings of evolutionary science fit in perfectly with the Bible.

Evolutionary scientists have come to the conclusion that there must have been some type of “bottleneck” (extreme reduction) in the earth’s population somewhere around 5,000 years ago when the population really began to diversify. Of course, creationists refer to that as the flood of Noah’s day. Dr. Jeffery P. Tomkins writes for the Institute of Creation Research, “A new study reported in the journal Science has advanced our knowledge of rare DNA variation associated with gene regions in the human genome. By applying a demographics-based model to the data, researchers discovered that the human genome began to rapidly diversify about 5,000 years ago.”

Why are scientists just now coming to these conclusions? Dr. Jeffery Tomkins explains, “Typically, evolutionary scientists incorporate hypothetical deep time scales taken from paleontology or just borrowed from other authors to develop and calibrate models of genetic change over time. In contrast this Science study used demographic models of human populations over known historical time and known geographical space. The resulting data showed a very recent, massive burst of human genetic diversification.”

This creates quite a conundrum for evolutionists, but a not so surprising affirmation for Creationists. From Dr. Tomkins article, “The authors [of the demographic study] wrote, ‘The maximum likelihood for accelerated growth was 5,115 years ago.’” Tomkins continues, “Old earth proponents now have a new challenge: to explain why- after millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans- human genomic diversity exploded only within the last five thousand years?…Since the author’s date represents maximum time, the actual DNA diversification event probably occurred even sooner. A biblical time scale indicates that a global flood occurred about 4,500 years ago, and this closely correlates with the time scale of the researcher’s estimate.”

Dr. Robert W. Carter explains the genetic implications in his article for Creation Ministries International titled Adam, Eve, and Noah vs Modern Genetics and I’ll hit the high points. We really don’t know what type of genetic mutation had occurred prior to the flood, but whatever there was, was reduced to the genetics represented in Noah’s family. Let’s start with the basics. Y chromosomes can only be passed through the male (obviously- it’s what makes a male a male), so fathers pass this on directly to their sons. This means, there was ONLY one Y chromosome represented on the ark even though there were 4 men (Noah and his 3 sons). This means whatever mutations had occurred in the Y chromosome up to that point, were effectively erased because only Noah’s sons reproduced after the flood. (The Bible doesn’t say Noah had any more children, so I assume he didn’t. But whether he did or not is neither here nor there.)

Can we know how many X chromosome lineages were on the ark? We can’t know for sure, but if you do the math, there would have been a maximum of 8 (9 if Noah had a daughter after the flood). Dr. Carter notes, “And since X chromosomes recombine (in females), we are potentially looking at a huge amount of genetic diversity within the X chromosomes of the world.”

This fits perfectly with genetic findings because, as it turns out, Y chromosomes are similar worldwide! Dr. Carter elaborates, “According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (ie, highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found. This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines.” X chromosome lineage fits just as well. Dr Carter notes, “As it turns out, there are only three main mitochondrial (female) DNA lineages found across the world.”

I hear you saying, “So how does this result in the race related diversification that we have today?!?” It all goes back to another Biblical event- the Tower of Babel. Prior to the separation that God ushered in at the Tower of Babel, the culture was described as a homologous one- all sharing the same language and intermixing freely. So much so, that they were disobeying God’s command to scatter and fill the earth. For our discussion today, the applicable verse is Genesis 10:32, “These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.”

Dr. Carter highlights the significance of this verse on the world we see today, “At Babel, God did not separate the nations according to language. He used language to separate them according to paternal (male) ancestry! This has monumental significance and is the key to understanding human genetic history. Paternal sorting would lead to specific Y chromosome lineages in different geographical locations. Since males and females from the three main families should have been freely intermixing prior to this, it also leads to a mixing of the mitochondrial lines. It is as if God put all the people into a giant spreadsheet and hit a button called ‘Sort According to Father.’ He then took that list and used it to divide up and separate the nations.”

We also know that what little variation there is among Y chromosomes is almost always geographically specific. This means after they were separated by Y chromosome, mutations occurred among the new smaller people groups who now only mixed among themselves. This makes those mutations geographically specific. Mitochondrial DNA on the other hand, is pretty much randomly distributed around the world. The variations we see now in mitochondrial DNA are also geographically specific.

This is nothing short of a perfect parallel to the Biblical account. The people groups were separated according to their father, meaning each group only had a specific amount of genetic information from that point going forward. The groups then dispersed, each ending up in completely different geographical areas. Mutations that occurred within each group were effected by their differing climates/environments to some degree and from that point forward became characteristics specific to that group only. This gives rise to the various characteristics that we consider “race specific”.

Interestingly, today, we can see this very concept working in reverse right before our very eyes. As people groups come together (especially here in the melting pot of the USA) and intermix freely, the attributes regarded as “race specific” are mingled and contribute toward a more homologous human race. We have proven to be a scientific product of our Biblical history and as time goes on we continue to prove it.