hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  here is the correct link to the Creation Research Societyhttp://www.creationresearch.org
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Evolutionists would do well to examine mutation rate problems with the evolutionary story. The book "Genetic entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" lays these out in a relatively understandable format.

  It also contains a useful appendix with [shocking] citations from recent evolutionary journals. For example just the mutation rate of the mitochondrial DNA (only 1 / 200,000th of the genome ! ) should have led "to extinction of the evolutionary line leading to humans withing 20 million years" Loewe, L. 2006. Quantifying the genome decay parardox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. Genetics Research 87:133-159.

  The book is available from http://ww.creationresearch.org. I have read it and It is excellent.

  There is also a new DVD "The Mystery of Our Declining Genes" which features similar material. According to the site:

  The science of genetics is proving to be a powerful tool for creationists. Geneticist, Dr. John Sanford, shows that with a conservative estimate of the mutation rate today, and the fact that good mutations are very rare, natural selection causes a decrease in fitness with time. Every organism is decaying faster than good mutations accumulate. This is called genetic entropy and falsifies evolution, but upholds the young earth model. Sanford shows how the computer model, called Mendel’s Accountant, dramatically and powerfully falsifies evolution.
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus

  Using the human-chimp divergence and the amount of genetic differences between them isn't the only way to get an estimate for the mit DNA mutation rate. I'm not sure if you know this or are just ignoring data that doesn't completely side with your own view.

  I used the phrases "generally" and "frequenty" to denote the usual phylogenetic [evolution based] methodology used in such calculations, which of couse implies other less used methods exist that don't necessarily use this assumption.

  Another way they calculated an average mutation rate for mitochondrial dna was by looking at the genetic data of people (like the Aborigines of Australia) whose ancestors migrated to an area at reasonably well known points in time. So even if we put the human-chimp divergence point method aside, they can get an estimate for the rate.

  Lets assume the rate from this method is faster (even ten times faster). It would still mean humans have been here longer than the 6,000 or 7,000 years believed by creationists who adhere to a literal reading of Genesis.

  I'm sure if you check that you will find that these "reasonably well known" points in time, are themselves calculated by the use of uniformitarian dating, which also contain assumptions inconsistent with Biblical history to begin with.
• 
  3

  36 Arguments for the Existence of God (and why they fail)

  by behemot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the novel 36 arguments for the existence ofgod, the work of atheist philosopher and novelist rebecca newberger goldstein.. scroll down a bit (after chapter 1) and read the (non fictional) appendix where the 36 arguments are set out and sistematically debunked:.

  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/goldstein09/goldstein09_index.html.

  (long but worth reading).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  FLAW 2: Even without von Neumann's work (which not everyone accepts as conclusive), to conclude the existence of God from our not yet knowing how to explain the Original Replicator is to rely on The Argument from Ignorance.

  Design arguments involving the origin of life involve things like 1). probability analysis, and 2). known properties of chemistry, hardly merely an "Argument from Ignorance"

  Her other arguments against the necessity of an intelligent designer are dealt with (in excellent form) in the book the Biotic Message

  http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm

  available from www.creationresearch.org
• 
  3

  36 Arguments for the Existence of God (and why they fail)

  by behemot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the novel 36 arguments for the existence ofgod, the work of atheist philosopher and novelist rebecca newberger goldstein.. scroll down a bit (after chapter 1) and read the (non fictional) appendix where the 36 arguments are set out and sistematically debunked:.

  http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/goldstein09/goldstein09_index.html.

  (long but worth reading).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Appendix: 36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

  1. The Cosmological Argument

  1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

  The version of "The Cosmological Argument" that she argues against is one that I have never seen anyone use. Its hardly a valid representation of the actual arguments used by theists. As one site poins out:

  http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-a-work-of-fiction/

  "This analysis doesn’t work because the argument is mis-stated. The first premise is not “anything which exists must have a cause”, but “anything which begins to exist must have a cause”, which makes a huge difference in the analysis."
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus: Just to specify. I simply dont see what common ancestery has to do with the mithocondrial eve. Can you elaborate on this?

  The assumption of common ancestry (of humans and chimps) is frequently used by evolutionists as a baseline factor in their calculations for estimating mtDNA mutation rates. There are numerous other assumptions as well, however if you study my previous post and links you will find documention on this.
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  From another thread here, on how evolutionists calculate such dates:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/46578/6/DNA-and-Mans-origin

  To estimate the time when the most recent ancestral sequence common to the Neandertal and modern human mtDNA sequences existed, we used an estimated divergence date between humans and chimpanzees of 4–5 million years ago and corrected the observed sequence differences for multiple substitutions at the same nucleotide site. This yielded a date of 550,000 to 690,000 years before present for the divergence of the Neandertal mtDNA and contemporary human mtDNAs. When the age of the modern human mtDNA ancestor is estimated using the same procedure, a date of 120,000 to 150,000 years is obtained, in agreement with previous estimates. Although these dates rely on the calibration point of the chimpanzee-human divergence and have errors of unknown magnitude associated with them, they indicate that the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal sequence and modern human sequences is about four times greater than that of the common ancestor of modern human mtDNAs.39
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Fourth, The reason scientists care about this is that one can use these observation together with statistics and genetics to get an idea about how man evolved. What we find is that the ME lived about 200'000 years ago, . . .

  The problem with this is that such estimates generally are calculated based on the assumption of evolution to begin with- hence they are not independant evidence against the biblical timeline. They usually start with the assumption of human and chip common ancesty, and then based on this (as well as other evo assumptions) they generate an "age estimate", which internet evolutionists use as "evidence" against the Bible's account.
• 
  39

  Evolution in Action: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

  by Elsewhere in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what more do the creationists want?

  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/.

  on one of the galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young charles darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.. in many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer whod already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  It doesn't matter how much evidence we can show them, some people are just to thick to get (or accept) the fact of evolution. It's great to post this information for those with an open mind,

  Didn't you know that virtualy all informed creationists and creationist organizations accept the "fact" of the type of the observed speciation mentioned in the OP article?

  but it's a waste of time trying to debate the hard-core creationists with their closed little minds.

  But according to the materialist evolutionists our thoughts are the pre-determined products of brain chemistry responding (according to the laws of chemistry) to external stimuli. Hence, we have no free-will to open our minds any more than the atheists do. As the prominent materialist evolutionist Provine said:

  ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’

  1. Provine, W.B., Origins Research16(1), p.9, 1994.
• 
  39

  Evolution in Action: Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

  by Elsewhere in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what more do the creationists want?

  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/.

  on one of the galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young charles darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.. in many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer whod already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  What more do the creationists want?

  "Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will ‘floor’ creation apologists with examples of ‘new species forming’ in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation . . . ." http://creation.com/speciation-conference-brings-good-news-for-creationists