DNA and Man's origin

by D wiltshire 126 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Earnest

  It was never the case that some apelike creature gave birth to a mutation that was fully human and she happened to be lucky enough to meet someone with the exact same mutation in her lifetime.

  I agree I over-simplified evolution to the point of absurdity but your suggestion that "it works through tiny tiny changes over long periods of time" is by no mean a consensus among evolutionists. The theory of punctuated equilibrium, popularised by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, is one of several alternative theories accepted by many. But the thrust of this thread is the role of DNA :

  OK, you've got the idea of mitochondrial Eve completely wrong...There was nothing special about "Eve" within her own lifetime. She was one of many females living at her time, and there were a similar number of males. She is only important in that she happens to have becom the most recent common ancestor in the purely maternal line.

  If you had bothered to read the article in talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html) to which I referred you would not have felt the need to repeat this decription of mitochondrial Eve. The article clearly says that mE is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers. This process of theoretically tracing back mitochondrial Eves cannot be continued indefinitely because life and the human species is finite (this argument comes from Dawkins). Eventually, you would get back to a woman who had no mitochondrial Eve, who was Eve herself, even if she was not the alluring seductress imagined in poetry and art.

  Earnest
  
• 

  Abaddon

  dubiousarse: If you answered questions, then I wouldn't lampoon you. But sometimes you don't answer questions properly, and I am not the only poster who has commented on your evasiveness in scientific conversations. If we are to attack the Society for the way they evade and slip around difficult subjects, why do you get off scott-free?

  I can compile, if you want to dispute the above, a list of occasions where you have behaved in this fashion. I do have better things to do with my time however, so only disagree if you are sure you have never behaved in the described fashion.

  If you're willing to use Forum guidelines to get out of being taken to task for your behavious, then I assure you I can lampoon and satarise you in ways that do not violate the guidelines.

  Please understand you are free to believe what you want and act in the way you want (within law) and say what you want.

  So am I.

  If we were talking about baseball, and I showed a clear misunderstanding of the game, and made unsupportable assertations, misinterpretations of evidence due to lack of background knowledge, etc., and then evaded questions that had been raised in the conversation, you would be free to be critical of me.

  Just 'cause we're talking about god doesn't mean the rules are different.

  I don't doubt your niceness as a person, or your sincerity.

  Now, the most onvious way to stop being lampooned is to stop being lampoonable.

  ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON.
• 

  funkyderek

  I agree I over-simplified evolution to the point of absurdity but your suggestion that "it works through tiny tiny changes over long periods of time" is by no mean a consensus among evolutionists. The theory of punctuated equilibrium, popularised by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, is one of several alternative theories accepted by many.

  The theory of punctuated equilibrium still views evolution as acting slowly, but in fits and starts and relatively fast compared to the more generally accepted gradualism. The point still stands. Mutations are only likely to be useful if they're relatively small. An ape never gave birth to a fully formed modern human.

  If you had bothered to read the article in talkorigins ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html) to which I referred you would not have felt the need to repeat this decription of mitochondrial Eve. The article clearly says that mE is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers.

  That's correct. It appeared from your previous post that you didn't understand it. And yes, I should have read the link.

  This process of theoretically tracing back mitochondrial Eves cannot be continued indefinitely because life and the human species is finite (this argument comes from Dawkins). Eventually, you would get back to a woman who had no mitochondrial Eve, who was Eve herself, even if she was not the alluring seductress imagined in poetry and art.

  No you don't, because whether you accept gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, there would never have been such a huge difference between a mother and her daughter that they would have appeared to be different species. When our Mitochondrial Eve was alive, the mitochondrial Eve at the time may have been a homo erectus or homo habillis. Go back far enough, and she was an apelike creature, further back she was a small rodent. But there's nowhere to draw a line. There was never just one man and one woman.
• 

  funkyderek

  hooberus,

  funkyderrik, was the 150,000 to 250,000 date based on observed mutation rates or on evolutionary assumptions? I think it might have been the later. I read this in the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution.

  It was based on observed mutation rates and the assumption that they have remained more or less constant over time. As far as I know, that's the only real assumption that needed to be made. I'm curious. Do you think that the mutation rate was as high as the creationist model requires? If so, why? If not, how do you explain the observed results?
• 

  hooberus

  Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati Eight printing November 1999.

  "Evolutionists believed they had clear proof against the biblical account, because "Mitochondrial Eve" supposedly lived 200,000 years ago. However, recent evidence shows that mitochondrial DNA mutates far faster than previously thought. (24) If this new evidence is applied to "Mitochondrial Eve," it indicates that she would have lived only 6,000-6,500 years ago. (25) Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the biblically indicated age of the "mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), (26) but an enigma for evolution/long age beliefs. Interestingly, there is a parallel account with males: evidence from the Y-chromosome is consistent with all people being descended from a single man. (27) The data is also consistent with a recent date for this "Y-chromosome Adam." (28)"

  24. T.J. Parsons et al., "A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region," Nature Genetics, 15:363-368, 1997.

  25. L. Loewe and S. Scherer, "Mitochondrial Eve: The Plot Thickens," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11):422-423, 1997; A. Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science, 279(5347):28-29, 1998.

  26. C. Wieland, "A Shrinking Date for 'Eve,' " CEN Technicl Journal, 12(1):1-3, 1998.

  27. R.L. Dorit, Hiroshi Akashi, and W. Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y-Chromosome," Science,268(5214):1183-85, May 26,1995; perspective in the same issue by S. Paabo, "The Y-Chromosome and the Origin of All of Us (Men)," p. 1141-1142.

  28. D.J. Batten, "Y-Chromosome Adam?" CEN Technical Journal, 9(2):139-140, 1995.
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderrik said: It was based on observed mutation rates and the assumption that they have remained more or less constant over time. As far as I know, that's the only real assumption that needed to be made. I'm curious. Do you think that the mutation rate was as high as the creationist model requires? If so, why? If not, how do you explain the observed results?

  I think from reading in the Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (my memory is a little fuzzy here) that the rate of mutation was calculated by the supposed assumption of the divergence beteen humans and apes 4+milliom years ago. Thus the 200,000+ year date may be based on the auumption of evoultion rather than on actual observed rates. However, I could be wrong and it could have been based on some direct studies. However If the above information from the Refuting Evolution book is correct, then direct studies may give a much more recent date than the 200,000.
• 

  hooberus

  dubiousarse: If you answered questions, then I wouldn't lampoon you. But sometimes you don't answer questions properly, and I am not the only poster who has commented on your evasiveness in scientific conversations. If we are to attack the Society for the way they evade and slip around difficult subjects, why do you get off scott-free?

  Abaddon, I am not "the Bible Answer Man," just because you post a question does not obligate me to take the time to answer it. Being in the minority here on these creation/evoltion subjects requires me to budget my time properly and select the questions which I wish to answer. Since you are rude and insulting I see no need to answer your follies. If you wish to believe that you came from reptiles x number of millions of years ago fine, but don't some on here acting like one and expect people to take the time to dialogue with you.
• 

  hooberus

  Since you like proper spelling: I meant "come on here" not "some on here"
• 

  Abaddon

  Hooberus;

  Abaddon, I am not "the Bible Answer Man," just because you post a question does not obligate me to take the time to answer it. Being in the minority here on these creation/evoltion subjects requires me to budget my time properly and select the questions which I wish to answer. Since you are rude and insulting I see no need to answer your follies. If you wish to believe that you came from reptiles x number of millions of years ago fine, but don't some on here acting like one and expect people to take the time to dialogue with you.

  I know you're not the 'Bible Answer Man'. But if you posit something based on xyz, and someone comes along and refutes it by saying abc, and you then don't address the rebutal, it rather frustrating. You seem to bail when you cannot refute something using the set of facts that fit within your belief envelope. And when it becomes a pattern of behaviour, well, you can call me, I can call you.

  That's my opinion. Doesn't mean I think you're a bad person. You may have noticed when I think that I tell them. I don't think I'm indisputably 'right', but unless someone comes and beats me over the head with a convincing arguement, it doesn't mean I think I am wrong either. And it doesn't mean my opinions mean diddly to you!

  Since you like proper spelling: I meant "come on here" not "some on here"

  Actually, I think your just about as sane as I am.

  Whether or not you want me to think that...

  Don't take life too seriously hoob, and remember, Pascal's wager is no way to live...
• 

  hooberus

  I know you're not the 'Bible Answer Man'. But if you posit something based on xyz, and someone comes along and refutes it by saying abc, and you then don't address the rebutal, it rather frustrating. You seem to bail when you cannot refute something using the set of facts that fit within your belief envelope. And when it becomes a pattern of behaviour, well, you can call me, I can call you.

  Just because someone posts a "rebutal" does not mean that my post was invalidated or that I need to respond. If I feel that my post stands on its own, I may not feel it necessary to respond. Also when I consider taking the time to giving a response (to a rebutal), I evaluate from whom the "rebutal" came from to determine if I am wasting my time.