DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  crinklestein

  I didn't mean that they have days and nights. I was refering to whether or not they may have some concept of time and what they would consider a day. They wouldn't have daylight or nighttime as these are physical things. But God and the angels must have some form of perception of time, otherwise how would things be so exactly scheduled? Things are planned, in heaven and on earth. There are activities, events and work that needs to be done. And that work needs to be done by a certain time. And the Bible does say that only God knows the exact time of the end. So he would have to have a concept of time, as would the angels in order to do their preparation work.

  Now, just because God and the angels are ageless beings and are immortal and will never die does not mean that time is a useless concept. It is a reality that permiates all dimensions. Einstein once said that time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. If you became immortal that would not change the fact that time flows.

  But because they are ageless they have a different perception of time. Haven't you noticed that, as a kid, the days seemed so long and summer vacation never ended? Now summers are over in the blink of an eye? The longer we live the faster time seems to go. Try living for millions of years and see how your concept of a day changes.
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek said:

  You seem unwilling or unable to grasp the concept of Mitochondrial Eve. I - and others -explained it several times, and provided a link to an excellent easy to understand article which addressed the common misconceptions about Mitochondrial Eve incuding the ones you seem to be stubbornly adhering to.

  funkyderek, I do understand the basic concept of Mitochondrial Eve. I also understand the basic evolutionary interpretation of the data as my earlier posts clearly state. Just because I do not agree with all the sub-hypothesis evolutionists add to the mitochindrial data does not mean that I don't understand the concept.

  Just because an evolutionist website says that there were other womwn living at the same time as mtEve, or that there were other women before her, or that she shares a common ancestor with apes, does not make it so.
• 

  Earnest

  Perhaps I could ask a question of those more familiar with DNA than I am. As we are talking of a mitochondrial Eve of many thousand years ago, is it possible to determine the mitochondrial DNA of fossils whether they be hominid or simian. My question is not about insects trapped in amber but about the ancestors we are actually talking about.

  If it is not possible to determine the DNA of the majority of fossils then I have to agree with hooberus that this is all theory and nothing can be proven.

  Earnest
• 

  Abaddon

  Earnest;

  I suggest you do some research;

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/apeman/

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/967119.stm

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1469607.stm

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058484.stm

  I'm happy to have a debate provided this doesn't include filling you in on the current state of affairs in evolutionary theory or providing you with a gap-fill education in biology. You should already know that sort of thing if you want to have a debate about the subject and make valid points or contribute something.

  Sorry if you feel this is unreasonable, but if you were a painter and someone wanted to discuss paint with you, and then it turned out they didn't know how to mix purple, you wouldn't have a very high regard of their level of knowledge or expertise.

  As for the "this is all theory and nothing can be proven" thing... there is no explaination how a super-powerful being could have come into existence from nothing and created the Universe. There is also no evidence that this super-powerful being exists. Thus one can say regarding all of theology and religious belief... "this is all theory and nothing can be proven".

  There is a host of evidence pointing to us evolving in a way unlike the Biblical account. Whether there is any definative proof is irrelevent, unless you claim you have definative proof of the alternate arguement. In the lack of definative proof, one must decide which is the most likely explaination for our existence.

  As on one hand with have evidence which seems to point towards evolution, and on the other hand we have no evidence, my bets are with natural selection et. al.
• 

  Earnest

  Abaddon:
  

  Thank you for the links which you provided. I had asked whether it is "possible to determine the mitochondrial DNA of fossils whether they be hominid or simian". Unfortunately, the links made no reference to mitochondrial DNA in fossils. They did say :
  

  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. That might be the nail in the Neanderthal coffin, evidence that they were not our ancestors. However, that is just one piece of a huge genetic blueprint. We might yet find a Neanderthal gene that is still around today.

  The DNA was extracted from remains of a Neanderthal found in Vindija Cave, Croatia.

  So far, only two other samples of DNA from Neanderthal bones have been analysed.

  One came from fossils found in Feldhofer Cave, western Germany, the other from a Neanderthal child found in Mezmaiskaya Cave in the northern Caucasus.

  The discussion on this topic has touched on a common female ancestor of all living humans. It has been suggested that this common female ancestor, termed mitochondrial Eve, would have had her own mitochondrial Eve when she was alive, and that if we go back far enough the mitochondrial Eve was an apelike creature, and further back she was a small rodent. I suggested with my limited understanding that the mitochondrial DNA found in living humans is what we would expect if there was a mother ("Eve") of all humans who was the first human mother. It occurred to me that if we could identify mitochondrial DNA in the fossil record then we could say with certainty whether or not a distant mitochondrial Eve was an apelike creature, and further back a small rodent.

  Although the links you provided did not discuss mitochondrial DNA and suggest by the very limited amount of fossil DNA that has been extracted that it is unlikely this can be proved, the evidence of the DNA referred to above suggests to me that Neanderthals did not share the same mitochondrial Eve no matter how far back one goes.

  You said:
  

  I'm happy to have a debate provided this doesn't include filling you in on the current state of affairs in evolutionary theory or providing you with a gap-fill education in biology. You should already know that sort of thing if you want to have a debate about the subject and make valid points or contribute something.

  My question was a very simple one to which I thought I knew the answer but I have not studied molecular biology and the fossil record to the same extent as others have done and so rather than assert something I asked for guidance. We cannot all have the same degree of knowledge on all subjects and to suggest I cannot contribute an idea because I am uncertain of some facts is a reflection more on yourself than it is on me.

  You said:
  

  As for the "this is all theory and nothing can be proven" thing... there is no explaination how a super-powerful being could have come into existence from nothing and created the Universe.

  You miss my point entirely. The fact that mitochondrial DNA proves that we have a common female ancestor can either point to an ancestor that evolved or one that was created. If it could be shown from mitochondrial DNA in fossils that our distant mitochondrial Eve was an apelike creature or a rodent then that would be convincing molecular evidence. If that cannot be shown then on a molecular level it is simply theory. Creation is also a theory. Simply because creation cannot be proved does not make a rodent-like mitochondrial Eve a fact.

  I fear that fundamentalists behave the same whatever they believe - creationists and evolutionists alike.

  Earnest
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  Just because an evolutionist website says that there were other womwn living at the same time as mtEve, or that there were other women before her, or that she shares a common ancestor with apes, does not make it so.

  Just because the bible says that there was only one original woman, Eve, does not make it so. Evolutionary theory has evidence to back it. The bible only has... the bible. Anyone can see the circular nature of that argument.

  rem
• 

  Abaddon

  Sorry Earnest, I was in a hurry this morning...

  First of all, I'm not sure if you are even clear on the term 'mtDNA Eve'.

  Make people alive today X0. Make the mothers of those people X1. All the mtDNA of the people in X will be represented in X1. X1 will be smaller than X. Make the mothers of X1 = X2. X2 will be smaller than X1, but all the mtDNA of the people in X1 and in X will be represented in X2. Carry on the regression. With each successive generation, Xx (where x indicates the generations from present) is smaller. Eventually, the population of Xx = 1. That is mtDNA Eve.

  Thus mtDNA Eve is a fact, provable mathematically. This is well known.

  Now, you are interested in knowing if;

  "it is possible to determine the mitochondrial DNA of fossils whether they be hominid or simian".

  Well, 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. This is well known.

  Now, quite why you want to know about mtDNA to determine whether a fossil is hominid or simian, when you would get as good an answer from 'normal' DNA, is why I was such a grouchy camper.

  If you knew more about the subject, you would not have asked the question, as you would know DNA degrades significantly after about 50,000 years, and that asking specifically about mtDNA was pointless as normal DNA is just as good.

  Thus my analogy about a painter. It was obvious to one extent or the other, you didn't know what you were talking about. You might object to me saying this, and I know why you object to me saying it - it's called the democratic fallacy; that everyone's opinion is as good as everyone elses'.

  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.

  The fact that mitochondrial DNA proves that we have a common female ancestor can either point to an ancestor that evolved or one that was created.

  Does it? It clearly indicates that the Biblical account of creation is hogwash, as mtDNA Eve lived long long before any Biblical Eve (I can detail how and why). But beyond giving a time point for that common ancestor, it doesn't prove diddly either way as regards origins. You are wrong. Oh, and how can I be a fundamentalist if I point out mistakes you make in an open ended fashion like that? Please try to make your insults more amusing and accurate.

  Please realise, I claim no extra intelligence in this, I just have read a few books more on the subject than you.

  You might notice I don't often have big debates about the Bible as a historical book. Why? Because I know my strengths! I no sooner expect people to put up with my ignorance of detail in a debate on a subject than I expect people to foist their ignorance on a subject on me. I actually think it would be rude to try and pass myself of as a Biblical expert unless I was one... yet time and time again Creationist apologetics try to pass themselves off as knowledgable when they are not. Your complaining about this is pointless as your time complaining would be better put to reading, as then you can rubbish me when I make elementary mistakes.

  Harsh but fair, sad but true.

  Creation is also a theory

  Yes, without any supporting evidence. Evolution is a theory WITH supporting evidence.

  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.

  Avoiding this particular Gordian knot is something believers in supernatural entities are VERY good at. It convinces them, at any rate...
• 

  hooberus

  Here is an excerpt from an ICR arcticle:

  http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-229.htm

  This quote deals with the proposed "200,000" year date for mtEve. The author's comments on checking actual mutation rates may be outdated (earlier I gave sources which indicate a rapid mutation rate from studies which indicate a timeframe of 6,000 years). The main reason why I posted this quote is to show how the date of 200,000 years was arrived at by evolutionists.

  "It is also necessary for the evolutionist to determine the rate of mutational changes in the DNA if these mutational changes are to be used as a "molecular clock." Since there is nothing in the nuclear DNA or the mtDNA molecules to indicate how often they mutate, we might also ask how the evolutionist calibrates his "molecular clock." Sarich, one of the pioneers of the molecular-clock concept, began by calculating the mutation rates of various species ". . . whose divergence [evolution] could be reliably dated from fossils."[7] He then applied that calibration to the chimpanzee-human split, dating that split at from five to seven million years ago. Using Sarich's mutation calibrations, Wilson and Cann applied them to their mtDNA studies, comparing ". . . the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between humans and chimpanzees."[8] By this method, they arrived at a date of approximately 200,000 years ago for African Eve. Hence, an evolutionary timescale obtained from an evolutionary interpretation of fossils was superimposed upon the DNA molecules. Once again, the circularity is obvious. The alleged evidence for evolution from the DNA molecules is not an independent confirmation of evolution but is, instead, based upon an evolutionary interpretation of fossils as its starting point."
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon: earlier Earnest admitted that he did not know something and asked a question. I see nothing wrong with this. You replied with comments such as this.

  I'm happy to have a debate provided this doesn't include filling you in on the current state of affairs in evolutionary theory or providing you with a gap-fill education in biology. You should already know that sort of thing if you want to have a debate about the subject and make valid points or contribute something.

  I think that this is very hypocritical of you, as up to this point in time you yourself had contributed virtually nothing to the the subject of this thread, but instead had used this thread for a stage for your usual ad hominem attacks.
• 

  Earnest

  Abaddon:

  Sorry Earnest, I was in a hurry this morning...

  Apology accepted. We all have our bad days. I came off my bicycle on Friday and am sporting a real bruiser of an eye so as bad days go you are not alone.

  First of all, I'm not sure if you are even clear on the term 'mtDNA Eve'.

  Make people alive today X0. Make the mothers of those people X1... Make the mothers of X1 = X2...Carry on the regression...Eventually, the population of Xx = 1. That is mtDNA Eve.

  Thus mtDNA Eve is a fact, provable mathematically. This is well known.

  I have read the article at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html which explained it in a similar way to yourself but credited Daniel Dennett for the explanation in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Simon and Schuster, 1995).

  Well, 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. This is well known.

  Thank you for explaining that. I ought to point out that using the expression "This is well known" adds nothing to the information and is a common tool used by fundamentalists to bolster their arguments. 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.

  Now, quite why you want to know about mtDNA to determine whether a fossil is hominid or simian, when you would get as good an answer from 'normal' DNA, is why I was such a grouchy camper.

  You clearly misunderstood my question but I didn't explain it sufficiently at first. My question was not whether we could distinguish between hominids and simians by using mitochondrial DNA. But whether we could determine from fossils (either hominid or simian) whether their mitochondrial DNA could be used to identify them as our ancestors. As I said in my last post :

  It occurred to me that if we could identify mitochondrial DNA in the fossil record then we could say with certainty whether or not a distant mitochondrial Eve was an apelike creature, and further back a small rodent.

  You then said :

  Thus my analogy about a painter. It was obvious to one extent or the other, you didn't know what you were talking about. You might object to me saying this, and I know why you object to me saying it - it's called the democratic fallacy; that everyone's opinion is as good as everyone elses'.

  Oh dear, fundamentalism at its best. First, set up the straw man with an assertion "You might object to me saying this"..., then make it a fact "...and I know why you object to me saying it", and then knock it down. As your original premise (that I didn't know what I was talking about) was about a question I asked, and a question that you misunderstood in your morning haste, I do wonder why you bothered to reply at all. If I knew the facts I would not have asked the question so why should I object if you know more than I do on this subject?

  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.

  Two straw men in two sentences.

  [Mitochondrial DNA] clearly indicates that the Biblical account of creation is [genealogically incomplete], as mtDNA Eve lived long long before any Biblical Eve.

  Agreed.

  But beyond giving a time point for that common ancestor, it doesn't prove diddly either way as regards origins. You are wrong.

  This time you misunderstood something as clear as day. I said that a common female ancestor "can either point to an ancestor that evolved or one that was created". In other words, a common female ancestor doesn't prove diddly either way as regards origins. I'm glad we agree.

  I know my strengths!...time again Creationist apologetics try to pass themselves off as knowledgable when they are not.

  Another straw man.

  Your complaining about this is pointless...

  And another...actually it's a repeat of the first straw man some paragraphs above.

  Avoiding this particular Gordian knot is something believers in supernatural entities are VERY good at. It convinces them, at any rate...

  And another...

  Oh, and how can I be a fundamentalist...

  Regards,

  Earnest