Midget-Sasquatch

Joined

• started 18 topics
• posted 1,723 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Midget-Sasquatch

• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  First I want to also say that I find your posts refreshing. You're more objective than some others I've talked to in the past.

  It should also be noted that the various evolutionary based studies have a large range, thus they do not appear to be pointing consistently.

  You have a valid point about that large range, and IMHO its good to see that scientists are being kept on their toes so to speak. I probably wasn't clear enough, but what I was saying was that those different methods of clocking the rate were generally more supportive of a date that was older than the one date expected from creation-science advocates. Even if they all didn't point to one date in particular. How trustworthy is the clock then though?

  Assuming a uniform rate of evolution between humans and chimps the pooled data rate "which is still faster by a factor of five than the rate given by the phylogenetic approach" should cause the chimp human split to be compressed to about 1 million years ago. This is very problematic for evolution, (ie: fossil dates, population genetics, etc).

  Well it could very mean that the assumption of a linear and constant rate of mutation is wrong. Maybe the rates vary in time as well as between some pedigrees. Again, the whole idea of a constant molecular clock may not be feasible. (Thats where the calibration with the fossil record and its dating comes into the picture)

  All in all, I don't think it would cause the downfall of the evolutionary view though. Mutations are the raw material afterall for natural selection to work on. Higher rates, mean more mutations, which does mean more of the deleterious and fatal ones, but along with that more of the neutral and a few of the beneficial variety to select from and that tends to increaseoverall diversity. It's been found that when E.Coli are in a starvation state, a mutator system is engaged that actually increases the rate of mutations in its DNA so that it can adapt quicker to the environment.

  Based on this evolutionists are now moving the alledged human chimpanzee split claibration point back to older periods of time. This redating of the split creates an even greater discrepancy between evolutionary based estimates and pedigree mtDNA Eve studies.

  I think you'd enjoy looking at chromosomal karyotyping. Its totally empirical. No "clocks" needed.
• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch
• 
  14

  Is Generation Y hurting the WTS?

  by Elsewhere in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the wts is pushing the "youth" message more than ever as their growth numbers start to stall.

  is generation y the primary reason for this?.

  http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050412-121457-4149r.htmgeneration y embraces choice, redefines religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Most definitely.

  I had the displeasure of going to the Special Assembly Day not too long ago. Two of the talks were given by a representative of the Canadian branch, an R. Jung, and he was pleading with youths to "give Jehovah a chance". Used those exact words a few times.
• 
  33

  New discovery of a lost gospel

  by Leolaia in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the lost gospel of judas, thought to be the same gospel mentioned by irenaeus (cf.

  adversus haereses 1.31.1), is currently being prepared for publication.

  http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004/07/exciting-news-about-coptic-gospel-of.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Thanks for making me notice that part of the quote where the contrast is with Satan. You're right that scheme isn't applied to the archons as far as I know.

  What got me thinking differently was what Bart Ehrman wrote in his book Lost Christianities:The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew.

  You see I rarely have any original ideas.

  here's the excerpt from page pg 125:

  Most Gnostics, however, took another line, claiming that Christ was a divine emissary from above, totally spirit, and that he entered the man Jesus temporarily in order to convey the knowledge that can liberate sparks from their material imprisonment. For these Gnostics, Jesus himself was in fact a human, even though some thought that he was not made like the rest if us, so that he could receive the divine emissary; some, for example, thought that he had a "soul-body: rather than a "flesh-body".

  So thats what got me thinking "a different race" in that sense....but again it doesn't contrast well with Satan.... maybe the idea is more along the line of being of the seed/race of Seth/Saviour rather than of the Demiurge.
• 
  33

  New discovery of a lost gospel

  by Leolaia in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the lost gospel of judas, thought to be the same gospel mentioned by irenaeus (cf.

  adversus haereses 1.31.1), is currently being prepared for publication.

  http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004/07/exciting-news-about-coptic-gospel-of.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  The idea that Allogenes is a disciple nicely explains the initial failure to overcome the powers. If that disciple is Judas (he does after all have knowledge on how the struggle should be played out) could that bit about being of "a different race" be explained by the gnostic concept that there are 3 sorts of humans - hylic, psychic, and pneumatic. Didn't the Cainites have the same belief?

  Maybe Allogenes was even the human Jesus, that some gnostics thought of as having a psychic body, to act as vessel for the Saviour from above. Maybe the defeat was before his merging with the Saviour (then he'd have the power and knowledge to do so). All wait and see....hopefully sometime in 2006.
• 
  9

  Scientists: What can Exponential Growth tell us about the Bible?

  by Caveat in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  need help from all the scientists, statisticians and math gurus out there?

  (perhaps sng?).

  have you researched exponential growth and bible chronology?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  As for all humans being 99.9% the same, well yes, but that doesn't take away from the point about the time needed to have the present genetic diversity....0.1% of about 3 billion base pairs is still about 3 million base pairs difference right? With all those factors taking away from the overall diversity of the gene pool, I think it does make a good point for there being more than 6000 years to garner that diversity. Unless you want to say there's some fantastically high rate of mutation going on for us.

  If you want to look at empirically observed rates of mutation for mtDNA, some recently pooled results have given rates about 5 times higher than what is derived from calibration with the fossil record. Even if we go with those numbers, you divide the currently bandied figures by five and you're then still talking over 20,000 years needed for that diversity...well past what a literal reading of Genesis will give YECs.
• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Hooberus

  You find using colonization dates (derived by archeology) less preferable than empirically observed rates? Well, I can agree with you that being able to observe it directly would be best.

  I see you've mentioned Parson's paper. Yes he did (at first) report that mutation rates in mitochondria were about 20 times higher than the currently accepted figure. That would have brought the age of the MRCA around the 6000 year mark. Understandably, creationists jumped on it. But his work involved a hypervariable region which has a higher rate of mutation than other regions of the mtDNA. Others have noted that factor, as did he.

  I'm glad you've mentioned though how some empirical work produced values that came close with the currently accepted mutation rate. I think its very interesting to see how several different methods point to a very similar answer. So you can dispute the assumptions of the divergence , or colonization dates, but those two approaches combined with empirical evidence do apparently point to one reality: we've been here longer than any Genesis literalist or creationist would like to admit.

  Even if we were to go with the rate from the pooled data (about 5 times higher - so MRCA roughly 30,000 yrs ago?) it still causes problems for those believing in the historicity of Genesis.
• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Hi Hooberus

  I didn't skim through your post this time.

  We all coalesce into a single genetic entity??Adam? in the case of the Y-chromosome, ?Eve? in the case of mt DNA ?that existed for an unknowable period of time in the past. While this entity was a real person who lived at that time?the common ancestor of everyone alive today?we can?t use genetic methods to say very much about their ancestors.

  You've got it. As nicely explained elsewhere on this thread (I think it was SNG, but kudos to whoever it was), one could have found their "eve" or "adam" by sampling the populations at that time. Just like someone today may be the "adam" or "eve" of a future population.

  To get some good genetic evidence for ancestry to apes, one can run some other different analyses. Like hybridization experiments to size up homolgy/similarity (very old school) or even better I suggest reading SNG's thread on endogenous retroviruses. Then also consider human chromosome 2 and especially its composition near its center. Here's a page describing its apparently being a fusion of two ape chromosomes: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
• 
  36

  Do you think the more you learn the Bible, the less you believe in it?

  by jeanniebeanz in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  ?

  ?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Yes. One sees how its not divinely inspired at all. But that also gives me a freedom to weighing ideas in the Bible and elsewhere which funny enough moves me to think about them more so.
• 
  48

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  okay, everyone, buckle your seatbelts and put on your thinking caps.

  in this week's installment in my continuing series, we'll be examining two (count 'em!

  ) pieces of the evidence and how they relate to each other.. you can check out my previous articles here:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Hooberus

  First I want to apologize for my curt answer to your valid question. You're right that the commonly accepted mutation rate for human mtDNA (2-4% per million years) was calibrated using the fossil record and the tentative age of the human chimpanzee split.

  Then you politely asked for some sources, when I and others said that chimps didn't have anything to do with it at all.

  I like a hot headed lug just ranted on without giving you a source. Well here goes:

  Why I said that chimps really didn't have to do with it, is because of what I read in the following paper: Nature, 325 (1987), 31-6.

  from page 33

  Tentative time scale

  A time scale can be affixed to the tree in Fig. 3 by assuming that mtDNA sequence divergence accumulates at a constant rate in humans. One way of estimating this rate is to consider the extent of differentiation within clusters specific to New Guinea (Table 2; see also refs 23 and 30), Australia 30 and the New World 31 . People colonised these regions relatively recently: a minimum of 30,000 years ago for New Guinea 32, 40,000 years ago for Australia 33, and 12,000 years ago for the New World 34 . These times enable us to calculate that the mean rate of mtDNA divergence within humans lies between two and four percent per million years; a detailed account of this calculation appears

  Here's a link to the paper itself on the web with Table 2

  http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

  Note that using just the colonization ages of that small group of people, would still give very similar mean rates to that one derived by calibration to the human chimp divergence. So There's another way for you that doesn't invole chimps....as far as I understand it...Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  Again please accept my apology for not carefully reading your post and addressing that valid point properly. I hope I've done so now.