DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

Abaddon

Earnest;
Not that you need to bolster this particular argument, but the ease with which you add these little put-downs certainly identifies you with the fundamentalist class.
Your use of that word differs from the dictionary. So, you don't know enough about the subject to discuss it, and it's my fault? You are having a discussion about a topic, and you are too idle to even type in the words mitochondrial + DNA, or dating + DNA, and spend ten minutes answering the question using your own mind? And that's my fault?
You carry on talking about mtDNA;
... whether their mitochondrial DNA could be used to identify them as our ancestors.
... completely ignoring the point I made about the fact that you are asking a question with a redundancy built into it that indicate your level of knowledge. mtDNA and 'normal' DNA can BOTH be used for the purposes you are talking of, i.e. determining ancestry. Again I say; go read. This is not the Society. We don't get it on a plate each week. We have to go get it, it is YOUR responsibility.
Oh dear, fundamentalism at its best. First, set up the straw man with an assertion "You might object to me saying this"...
'Might' is not a strawman, I can see your point about 'I know why', but it wasn't intended as such, but it's funny how, rather than learning about the subject at hand, you defend your right to have discussions about subjects you need to learn more about to be credible in. This as good proves my speculation. So, to call Bill Clinton "a President who got a blow-job in the Oval Office" is strawman?
Again, I cannot see how you not knowing something and asking a silly question as a result of your level of knowledge is my fault. I notice you don't actually discuss the democratic fallacy. Do you believe that everyone's opinion as as good as everyone elses'? If so, how can you prove this?
As for this;
This is demonstrably untrue, but time and time again I have had to contend with people who, to one extent or the other, didn't know what they were talking about, and were using this 'position of authority' to make sweeping statements or assertations that they would not make if they knew their subject.
You say this is a strawman too. Well, the democratic fallacy is provably true, so let's ignore that as it's not a strawman. I have had to, time and time again, contend with people who didn't have a great deal of sceintifc knowledge, and yet were confident in their ability to make a considered judgement on the knowledge they had. These conversations are for the most part a matter of record on various websites, thus not a strawman. So this is not a strawman sentence.
[Mitochondrial DNA] clearly indicates that the Biblical account of creation is [genealogically incomplete], as mtDNA Eve lived long long before any Biblical Eve.
I prefer the phrasing I used. The Genesis account is in any literalistic sense, hogwash, and demonstrably untrue. Now, you can see it as merely 'genealogically incomplete', but don't say you agree with me and change my phrasing to do so, as I see its deficientcies as far deeper than that.
With regard to 'This time you misunderstood something as clear as day.', er, no, you misused grammar/syntax. In a sentence where you say "either x or y was z", either is normally taken to mean the one or the other of two, not both.
My point about Creationist apologetics can be proved, so I don't see this as a strawman.
And it's really funny how you say me saying "complaining about it is pointless" is a strawman attack, as how can it be a stawman attack if it's exactly what you did do?
Face it. I know the subject better than you. Doesn't make me better than you, but I think I'd pass a test on the subject (have passed tests on it). Would you, and if not, how do you feel qualified to pass judgement?
Lots of comment by yourself on my comments regarding your knowledge, very quiet over the example of how I keep clear of Biblical debates as I don't want to make a fool of myself. Mmmmm. So, you can have a debate about a subject you don't know that much about without making a fool of yourself? How special. (P.S. That was pretty definately strawman).
I've be very surprised if I haven't had these discussions more often than you, and know through bitter experienece the way people behave. You bleating strawman does not change the fact you are NOT trying to learn about the subject you want to discuss, and are defending your ignorance on the subject instead. How the hell is that a reasonable stance?
Imagine if a student started saying his science teacher was making a strawman attack on him, when the teacher was merely pointing out the point that the student had made indicated they hadn't studied hard enough. Deal with the issues I raised rather than avoiding them... 'cause you did do that didn't you? Here it is again;
You can nit-pick at Evolutionary theory, it doesn't change the facts evolution HAS evidence. God/creation has none, unless you accept interior proofs, which are objectively unprovable and create massive logical/moral quandries about the nature of god.
If you disagree with this, say why, defend your viewpoint!
Hooberus: If someone shows they don't know what they are talking about... say someone is saying that the sky is blue because it reflects the sea, and they are having a discussion on why the sky is blue, then it is reasonable to point out there's not much point in having a conversation unless they do a bit of research. The democratic fallacy is false. That's why it's a fallacy. Other people are welcome to explain chapter and verse x, y, z. I've done that lots in the past six years. Excuse me if I get impatient with people when they expect me to agree with a incorrect statement, or with them trying to have a discussion about something they don't know a lot about. It's why I get so frustrated talking to you sometimes hoob.
I make simple points, about how Hyena clitori' (?) are a clear piece of evidence against design, about how human sexual biology is clear evidence the Bible is not inspired, about how trees you can see and touch today are clear evidences that the flood was not global, and the little paragraph I quoted again for Earnest above.
Do the points get addressed? No. If you can believe something without answering them, good for you. I can't, so why should you be surprised I can't get how you can just ignore them, and instead look for what you feel you can make issue on. Of course, you might be avoiding answering those points for other reasons. Illuminate us.
Jerry Bergman

For years evolutionists have said that junk DNA was clear proof of neoDarwinism. Now so many uses for this DNA have been found that it would take a thick book to discuss them all. I am buried with work now, but plan to respond to some of the issues presented here. For now, the following article is a good introduction for lay persons.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
March 4, 2003

DNA Junk or Not?
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY

Q. How do scientists know that there aren't sections of junk DNA (the
introns between genes) that have some biological function?

A. For years, more and more research has, in fact, suggested that introns
are not junk but influence how genes work. Though they are discarded when a
gene's directions for making a protein are read from the exons and carried
out, introns do have active roles.

For one recent example, scientists have found that changes in just two
genetic letters, one in each of two introns, determine whether a gene that
causes lactose intolerance after weaning is switched on or off.

Also, certain so-called junk DNA sequences persist in many organisms over
thousands or even millions of years, suggesting that they are essential to
these organisms.

Other possible functions for introns include enhancing or damping the level
of gene activity; shaping the folded arrangement of chromosomes within the
cell nucleus; and providing reservoirs of change that allow DNA to be
shuffled and rearranged in novel patterns that may eventually contribute to
evolution, or conversely acting as a buffer against interloping DNA
sequences that might cause a change too quickly.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Abaddon

Evolution as a theory is less than two hundred years old.
It is based upon physical evidence, more of which can be uncovered over time that makes revison of theory neccesary.
It is examined using technology, higher levels of which make revison of theory neccesary as new detail or former errors are uncovered.
It is built into theories, which are built on proceeding theories, as with most of scienece, and which are subject to revison as new evidence points to more likely scenarios.
As a new science, it's hardly surprising that the delta v (rate of change) of evolutionary theory is quite high. Despite this, evolution has high levels of proof. Go to a beach with fossil bearing strata. Try the train station car park at York station in England. In both cases, one in fossil form, the other in the form of a weed, will you see speciation. There are other examples, but I have a train to catch. Evolution is fact, the theory is changable, but that doesn't change the fact.
Contrarywise, there is no explaination why, after millenia, there is no definative belief of god, or verifiable evidence of its existence. The evidences and methodolgy are static, unlike evolution, so there is no real excuse for the lack of certainty.
hooberus
Adaddon said:
I make simple points, about how Hyena clitori' (?) are a clear piece of evidence against design, about how human sexual biology is clear evidence the Bible is not inspired, about how trees you can see and touch today are clear evidences that the flood was not global, and the little paragraph I quoted again for Earnest above.
Do the points get addressed? No. If you can believe something without answering them, good for you. I can't, so why should you be surprised I can't get how you can just ignore them, and instead look for what you feel you can make issue on. Of course, you might be avoiding answering those points for other reasons. Illuminate us.

The points don't need to be addressed, because they are off the topic of "DNA and Man's origin". You pride yourself on being a competent cretaion/evolution debater. However you:
Go off topic
Use a rude, insulting attitude
Invoke dogmatic statements as though they are observed facts
Earnest

Abaddon:
Who would have thought someone so sure of their facts would object so strenuously to so simple a question. Just for the record I would remind you that my question was whether we could identify mitochondrial DNA in the fossil record and so, perhaps, have molecular evidence that mitochondrial Eve included apelike creatures and other links in the proposed evolutionary chain. I also commented that if it is not possible to determine this then the hypothesis that mitochondrial Eve included apelike creatures remained a theory and could not be proven from DNA.
In reply you said that "beyond about 50,000-100,000 years so much degradation of DNA takes place it is not posssible with current techniques to do good work with the surviving DNA. There may be a limit to what is possible even with better technology". You also kindly provided some links which included the information that "Svante Paabo's team of geneticists in Leipzig managed to sample a tiny fragment of Neanderthal DNA, and showed that it was very different to that of living people".
Am I going to discuss whether calling Bill Clinton "a President who got a blow-job in the Oval Office" is a strawman? No.
Am I going to discuss the "democratic fallacy that everyone's opinion as as good as everyone elses"? No.
Am I going to discuss whether or not I'd pass a test on DNA? No.
Am I going to discuss your pride in keeping clear of Biblical debates? No.
Am I going to discuss whether or not you've had these discussions more often than I? No.
Am I going to discuss whether proof of creation raises massive logical/moral quandries about the nature of god? No.
Am I going to deal with these issues you raise? No. They are all irrelevant to the topic and a blatant attempt to muddy the clear waters of truth that a simple answer to my simple question would provide.
Having said that I would like to add that I respect AlanF's earlier comment that the "[mother Eve] theory is based on mitochondrial rather than normal DNA, and has been strongly challenged by many biologists. It's certainly not consistent with 'population bottleneck 75,000 years ago' idea". I understand there are shifting theories regarding palaeo-molecular evidence. But I do maintain that those who accept the mother Eve theory should be quite clear where fact ends and theory begins.
Earnest
Abaddon

Hooberus; I wasn’t going off topic per se, I was explaining my frustration in discussing complex scientific subjects with people who haven’t studied about it. The clue to this is in the preceding paragraph where I actually say this quite clearly, and then use the examples you site as me going off topic as examples of my frustration.
Obviously, you don’t have to give two hoots about my frustration hoob, but the fact remain that those questions have never been answered satisfactorily, on or off topic, by you or anyone else. In fact, it’s been ages since I bumped into an OEC or YEC who would even try.
That is one of the major problems with trying to maintain a worldview apparently put together by a well-educated goatherd 4,000 years ago that was supposedly tinkered with by a carpenter’s son about 2,000 years ago.
You have to be selective about where you make your stands.
As there is no closure in many areas of evolutionary biology (most scientists wouldn’t even dream of claiming such a thing), it’s easy to find places where you can pick. We’re not dealing with revealed insights from god here…
Yes, there are parts of evolutionary theory that are part conjecture and may in time be completely discarded. But they are theories to explain the evidence that surrounds us. That evidence indicates life is not the result of a special creation a few thousand years ago, it is the result of millions of years of slow change. There is a massive amount of evidence for this, or as another way of putting it, a massive lack of evidence that would support any creation myth as in any appreciable way as literal or accurate.
But, if you need to defend a worldview badly, you’ll ignore the wood (as you can’t fight it, it’s too big) and attack individual trees. It’s like the old story about the blind men and the elephant… they each thought it was some kind of creature or thing based on what bit they happened to be feeling, a snake, a tree, etc. Their focused perceptions ignore the underlying fact that there is an elephant there.
You are welcome to pick at bits, it’s what scientists do. That’s why theories change. It was only during the suppression of any dissent in ‘scientific theory’ as propounded by the Roman Catholic church (i.e. Plato and Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy) that people weren’t allowed to pick at bits. Picking at bits won’t necessarily make you popular, as theories have their founders and founders have their egos, but that’s par for humanity. You’re unlikely to get set fire to by a bunch of scientists.
But when you pick at bits to such an extent you don’t notice that it’s actually, and rather undeniably, an elephant, you miss out. When you attack ‘trees’ that are theories in progress (and therefore by definition attackable), and ignore that you have a whole forest of evidence for the fact of evolution, you miss out. When you are so busy attacking perceived faults in other explanations of reality, you fail to address glaring inconsistencies with your own world view, you miss out.
You see, if mtDNA proves to be a theoretical blind alley, there is still a host of evidence pointing to evolution. Errors, mistakes, even human vanity and corruption – all of these are to be expected, but do not destroy the mass of evidence that does not fit in with any creation myth.
If you are a believer in the Bible as literal inspired truth from god, any fault in it is unexpected, as are errors and mistakes, human vanity and corruption. Thus my continued amusement and bewilderment that you won’t address those questions, and seek instead to win tiny victories over detail, when your own ‘house’, so to speak, not only has no foundations, but no roof. Obviously there is a tremendous internal pressure on you, as the creation account does explain man’s imperfection, which explains Jesus’ mission on Earth, etc. If you let go of the creation accounts literal nature, then you have to look at whether a lot of the Bible is literal or not. This would mean revising deeply held beliefs. This is hard and scary. Many of us have done it.
If you don’t believe the Bible is literal inspired truth from god, but are still a believer in god and creation, your obsession with attacking various aspects of evolutionary theory is also puzzling; if you think the creation account is symbolic, then it doesn’t matter whether if x theory is right or wrong, as scientific findings cannot falsify your belief.
Earnest; It’s simple.
If you are seeking to learn more about biological sciences and evolution in particular, this is not the right place. You can pick up a pretty good basis over time, but there will be holes in your understanding unless you study systematically.
If you are seeking to prove that there may have been a creator, in some way, without attaching that belief to a specific creation account, then I don’t understand why the details are important to you, unless it was because you were seeking to learn more about biological sciences and evolution in particular anyway (see above).
If you are seeking to show how a specific creation account can be proven to be accurate, then I can understand you being eager to attack theories that undermine the credibility of that account. However, focusing on areas where scientists happily concede there is no closure is puzzling. If you’re saying ‘ah-ha, so mtDNA Eve is an unproven theory’, you’re just telling people what they know. If you’re saying ‘‘ah-ha, so mtDNA Eve is an unproven theory, therefore we were created’, you have every right to do so, but you’re ignoring the fact that all you are disagreeing with is a theory; you are not refuting the existence of an awful lot of evidence that does not fit in with any specific creation account.
I am very suspicious of people trying to link a specific creation myth with reality. From my personal experience, I know the more you know about science the harder this becomes. I also know from experience that seeking to do this normally means they wish the authenticity of the source proven in that way, so they can rely upon its accuracy in other ways. I don’t know if that’s how you feel, only you can answer that.
That’s why I ask those questions you don’t/can’t answer. If someone had set me up with some nasty bastard questions, and refused to let me divert the conversation to areas where I felt I could defend my beliefs, I might have got out a decade earlier. You’re welcome to debate whatever you want at whatever level you want. What I’m trying to do is point you towards questions that may actually give you a swifter resolution of the root question. I actually think if you're not just using the "a blatant attempt to muddy the clear waters of truth" line as a line, and mean it, you should be interested in them. It's dancing around in theories when four fairly simple questions can go a long way to clear things up that muddies things.
Well, they helped me, maybe they won’t help you. Maybe you don’t want the answer as you’re comfy with what beliefs you have.
hooberus

Abaddon, why don't you start a new thread on the various subjects which you have brought up here which are not directly related to the subject of "DNA and Man's origin." Then those who are interested in dialogue with you on these things could address your comments. This would then free this thread up for those who wish to discuss the subject at hand (ie. DNA issues).
Satanus

Earnest
You mentioned your interest in fossil mtdna. Here is something about neandethal dna.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=624&ncid=753&e=10&u=/ap/20030306/ap_on_sc/neanderthal_uncertainty
There is no convincing evidence, says Richard G. Klein of Stanford University, that Neanderthals and modern humans ever mixed in substantial numbers, which means that when the Neanderthals died out, so did their genes.
He said modern studies of mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthal fossils suggest that the modern humans and the Neanderthals had a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. But he said the studies do not support the notion that there was interbreeding after modern humans evolved in Africa and invaded Neanderthal habitats, starting about 45,000 years ago.
As far as the common ancestor/eve from mitachondrial dna is concerned maybe this will help. It looks like there were many. For instance this article talks about a common ancestor for neamdethals and modern humans, based on mtdna. Common ancestor doesn't appear to prove anything, with regard to the biblical eve.
SS
hooberus

the following is taken from an icr arcticle:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-105b.htm
The DNA was recovered from the bone of the first Neanderthal discovered, an individual so riddled with rickets and old age that his legs had bowed. The DNA was mitochondrial DNA, not from the cell nucleus, and only 379 base pairs out of 16,500 (thus about 2%) of the total. It was found to differ from standard human mtDNA in 27 locations. Since modern human mtDNA differs on average in only eight locations within this stretch of 379, it was concluded that Neanderthals were probably not closely related to humans.
However, modern human mtDNA varies beyond the average, with the extremes statistically overlapping the Neanderthal measurement. Since all modern humans are interfertile, this measurement does not necessarily place them outside the family.
rem

hooberus,
However, modern human mtDNA varies beyond the average, with the extremes statistically overlapping the Neanderthal measurement. Since all modern humans are interfertile, this measurement does not necessarily place them outside the family.
This is a highly disingenuous interpretation of the facts. Notice that the extremes statistically overlap. This means that, though there is a tiny possibility that Neandertals could be more closely related (they are related - no question... just probably not directly) there is a much higher probability that they are not. You can read any modern book on mtDNA comparisons between Neanderthals and modern humans to get a better understanding of this.
rem

DNA and Man's origin

Share this