hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
22
Did Jesus meet them in Galilee? Contradiction
by peacefulpete inlibrary: magazines: the skeptical review: 1992: number one: did they tarry in the city?
if one were to ask a christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of jesus met him in galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "yes, they did.
" after all, matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "but the eleven disciples went into galilee, unto the mountain where jesus had appointed them.
-
-
-
48
Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals
by seattleniceguy inokay, 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:.
-
-
hooberus
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.
It should be remembered that every date calculated based primarily on the assumption of human-chimpanzee common ancestry (there are many) is not an independent method of clocking the rate, thus the many dates (ie: 171, 000, 200,000, 844,000, etc.) calculated based on this assumption are not independant witnesses supporting the current evolutionary scheme , in fact they are not even one witness supporting evolution (as they are calculated primarily based on it to begin with), but instead provide a baseline spread to potentially test the current evolution scenario by other means. Furthermore, given that the selected radiometric dates for the fossils used to calibrate the human-chimp split will almost certainly be in the "millions of years" range due to uniformitarian assumptions, all of these various starting dates will automatically be much "older" than the Bibilacal eve date.
Pedigree dates "older" the Biblical timeline can probably be relatively easily accounted for be assuming a possible higher mtDNA mutation rate in the past. Woodmorappe discusses this in his book Noah's Ark a Feasibility Study.
Even if they all didn't point to one date in particular. How trustworthy is the clock then though?
Given that mtDNA may easily be capable of different speeds of rapid mutation, clock calculations may be difficult to accurately assertain, however Biblical creationists expect a generally rapid rate.
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.
I agree that this could easily be so, this is why evidence such as Neanderthal divergence is not necessarily very good evidence against a Biblical eve date.
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)
The mution rates (and corresponding mt Eve dates) generated using the fossil record (with a subjective interpretation of fossils*) all assume a uniform rate of evolution (as well as of course evolution) to begin with.
*As an example of this (I believe that the following is correct, though I need to check) is that the Sivapithecus fossil/fossils were once thought to be an "ape-man" on this side of the human chimp split. Since Sivapithecus is "dated" at around 15 million years old it was used to calibrate the human-chimp split at over 15 million years ago. However, then problems developed with this date of the split and evolutionary based dates compared with other apes. Furthermore more studies revealed that Sivapithecus was essentially similar to an orangutan, so then evolutionists used Sivapithecus to date the orangutan split ! The same fossil was used first for the human-chimpanzee split and then later for the alledged much older orangutan split. Then based on the Sivapithecus orangutan split date they calibrated the human-chimp date at around 5 million years ago. This shows just how subjective evolutionary fossil evidence can be.
-
48
Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals
by seattleniceguy inokay, 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:.
-
-
hooberus
My earlier comments were based on what I remember reading in the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution about how the human chimpanzee split is calibrated using (I think I remember) the Sivapithicus (orangutan like fossil), as a calibration point for the orangutan split.
It looks like now evolutionists are using a more recently discovered fossil "Sahelanthropus tchadensis" to date the human chimpanzee split. Accoridng to one evolutionist arcticle:
"Although there are no known fossil chimpanzee to date, this evidence strongly suggests that hominins and chimpanzee ancestors diverged by at least 6Mya and possibly as early as 7Mya." http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~palanth/steiper_etal_2004.pdf#search='calibrated%20chimpanzee%20split(keep in mind that arcticles such as this linked one are filled with a host of evolutionary assumptions, and that mutation rates calculated therin are based on the assumption of evolution as well as uniformitarian dating methodology).
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.
-
48
Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals
by seattleniceguy inokay, 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:.
-
-
hooberus
According the what I have read the human-chimp date is untimately itself based on a date of an Orangutan/like fossil from Pakistan, and the assumption that chimps and orangutans sharred a common ancestor (assumption of evolution) around 17 million years ago. So ultimately I believe many mt Eve calculations rest on orangutans combined with a host of evolutionary/uniformitarian assumptions. This is then used to attempt to disproove the Bible.
(I added the word "like"). Also I think that modern living orangutans may be used in the calculation as well.
-
48
Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals
by seattleniceguy inokay, 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:.
-
-
hooberus
The standard mtDNA eve calculation method (based on the assumption of evolution to begin with), is based on the assumption that humans and chimpazees sharred a common ancestor around 4-5 million years ago. However this common ancestor has not been found, so how is the 4-5 million year date calculated? The answer I believe is:
According the what I have read the human-chimp date is untimately itself based on a date of an Orangutan fossil from Pakistan, and the assumption that chimps and orangutans sharred a common ancestor (assumption of evolution) around 17 million years ago. So ultimately I believe many mt Eve calculations rest on orangutans combined with a host of evolutionary/uniformitarian assumptions. This is then used to attempt to disproove the Bible. Orangutan (picture from yahoo)
-
48
Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals
by seattleniceguy inokay, 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:.
-
-
hooberus
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.
There also appears to be other regions as well that may generate rates close to the Biblical timeline.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/DNA%20Mutation%20Rates.html
I'm glad you've mentioned though how some empirical work produced values that came close with the currently accepted mutation rate.
The cited evolutionist arcticle did claim that, however I don't believe that it listed the specific study/studies.
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.
The standard method (based on the assumption of evolution to begin with), may receive some support from claimed colonization rates, and possibly some empircal studies. It should also be noted that the various evolutionary based studies have a large range, thus they do not appear to be pointing consistently.
The Biblical method is based on claimed history, and does appear to receive support from some empirical studies (see earlier link), though there appears to be a substantial range even within empirical studies.
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.
Its difficult to evaluate a claim of "pooled data" since we need to know what assumptions were included, and what were excluded (for example were any mtDNA regions giving rapid rates excluded merely because they are way out line with evolutionary expectations?). It should also be noted that while the "pooled data" approach generated rates which are possibly problematic for Bibilcal creationists it also generates problems for evolution as well. 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).
-
22
Evidence for evolution, Installment 4: Atavisms and vitamin C
by seattleniceguy inretroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx.
cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx.
this week's primary source: .
-
-
hooberus
Good article, SNG! The defective vitamin C gene that is common amongst primates was one of the pieces of evidence I found (while still a dub) that convinced me evolution is valid. Those observations simply do not support special creation at all.
I don't think that defective genes were created, but (if truely defective) were caused by the curse at the time at the fall, or in the deterioration since. Since the creation follows a nested hierarchy pattern (including genes) it would seem reasonable that all members of a created class (ie:primates) would possibly share the same induced curse gene defect. Also, If (I'm speculating) a generally systematic pattern of gene defects were to be found, then this could be taken as evidence of an orgainzed curse of genes at the fall. This (if true) would also be very difficult for evolution to explain since an equidistant pattern of defects (ie all generally primates vs. non primates) would not be expected from random evolutionary processes (we probably from evolution would expect some primtes to have the defect with their decendants an other primates not to).
-
22
Evidence for evolution, Installment 4: Atavisms and vitamin C
by seattleniceguy inretroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx.
cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx.
this week's primary source: .
-
-
hooberus
It's telling that the only creationist argument against this one is to play it up to be nothing more than an elongated, serendipitously-placed wart. And using false claims, at that.
The cited 1983 icr arctice by Dr. Gish http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-117.htm was written primarily to rebut a 1982 evolutionist arcticle that appeared in the The New England Journal of Medicine. In this Journal arcticle an evolutionist was attempting to claim a fleshly appendage as "evidence" of evolution. Gish was responding primarily to the the claims of this arcticle. Even the talk origins author said: ". . . their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails not true tails." It was the evolutionist in 1982 attempting to (falsly) claim something as evidence of evolution. The creationists were simply responding.
-
39
Please Please PLEASE post some words of encouragement to my JW friend......
by PAJA ini will try to make this quick...... .
i have been with this wonderfull woman in a "relationship" for almost one year now (ive known her for 3 years).
she is jw and obviously i'm not, our relationship has gone almost exactly like many of the ones discribed here, hiding from parents, familly, church, etc.
-
-
-
48
Evidence for evolution, Installment 3a: Mitochondrial DNA and Neandertals
by seattleniceguy inokay, 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:.
-
-
hooberus
mtDNA mutation does not occur fast enough to directly observe, even though it clearly happens.
A large enough sample of mothers and children would allow a good estimate of the mutation rate. Most children would obviously have identical mtDNA to their mother, but a certain percentage would be slightly different. This would give a good estimate of the likelihood of an mtDNA mutation in any generation. I'm not sure how large the sample would have to be to make this worthwhile, or whether it's been done. I have a vague recollection that it was, but I haven't been able to find details.Some recent studies done (based on the pedigree methodology) have come up with results consisitent with a much higher mtDNA mutation rate than according to evolutionary estimates: http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/DNA%20Mutation%20Rates.html Even a talkorigins link says:
Nevertheless, on the face of it, there is a substantial discrepancy between the mutational or substitution rates as determined by phylogenetic analysis (comparing the mtDNA sequences of chimp and human, foe example) and pedigree analysis (data based on allelic differences between close family members).
However, the arcticle then goes on to say:
Others who attempted to repeat Parson's results with pedigree data were unable to do so (10) and derived a rate little different from the rate given by phylogenetic data which yields an MRCA of 150,000 years. In order to help resolve these discrepancies, all the scientists have pooled their data and the result is a mutation rate of one every 1200 years based on the pedigree data - a rate which is still faster by a factor of five than the rate given by the phylogenetic approach.
source: http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm
