Mitochondrial Eve and Noah's Dames

by donkey 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hooberus

  There is no circularity.

  Lets say that I calculate mutation rates based on the genetic difference in modern people compared with a biblical date of 4004 bc, and come up with a figure. If I later take the above calculation and use it to disprove humans/apes sharing a common ancestor 4.5 million years ago with you accept this as objective evidence or as evidence from circularity?

  The mitochondrial calculations are not set out to prove evolution.

  My calculations above were not directly set out to prove creation either. However since they are based on it they are not in themselves objective evidence against a macro-evolutionary scenario witch does not have humans being created 6,000 years ago. In the same way though the evolutuionary mitochondrial calculations are not directly set out to prove evolution, the fact is they are based on it (humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor) and are not objective evidence against a recent biblical eve (as they commonly presented as being).
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  :So If I calculate mutation rates based on the genetic difference in modern people compared with a biblical date of 4004 bc, and take the resulting calculation and use it to discprove humans/apes sharing a common ancestor 4.5 million years ago with you accept this as objective evidence or as evidence from circularity?
  
  I'd be interested in how you would be able to get that information. Do you have DNA samples from pre-flood people? If you really could do what you say, then that would be great! We would have more accurate information on mutation rates. I say bring it on. Now I know of studies that have shown high mutation rates in certain sections of modern MTDNA, but that is not what we are talking about here.
  
  You see, scientists have modern (and I believe some ancient) chimpanzee DNA. They also have modern and ancient human DNA. The fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor is not in dispute, therefore the calculationos based on it are appropriate. It just so happens that the calculations push any bottleneck further back than your flood theory requires.
  
  Now there are assumptions made on how far back the common ancestor goes and on mutation rates, which changes the range of the calculation. However, no reasonable tweaking of the educated assumptions yields a date anywhere near what you wish to find.
  
  rem
• 

  Satanus

  Hoob

  Archealogy started out basing itself on christian bible premises in the 19th century. Most of those recanted because of evidence that demolished the biblical paradigm. Your resurrection of it, and insering it into dna studies is pretty hopeless.

  SS
• 

  hooberus

  I'd be interested in how you would be able to get that information. Do you have DNA samples from pre-flood people? If you really could do what you say, then that would be great! We would have more accurate information on mutation rates. I say bring it on. Now I know of studies that have shown high mutation rates in certain sections of modern MTDNA, but that is not what we are talking about here.

  You simply compare the differences between modern people and assuming the date of 6,000 years ago you calculate the mutation rate. This is similar to how evolutionists calculate the chimp/human mitochondrial dates.
  

  You see, scientists have modern (and I believe some ancient) chimpanzee DNA. They also have modern and ancient human DNA. The fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor is not in dispute, therefore the calculationos based on it are appropriate. It just so happens that the calculations push any bottleneck further back than your flood theory requires.

  It is not in dispute (in the mind of evolutionists that is). Of course non-evolutionists dispute it. Interestingly the chimp/human split is (I believe) itself not directly calculated based on human/chimp "common ancestor fossils" (which even many evolutionists believe have not been found) but was calculated based on the assumption of evolution (chips and other apes and or monkeys sharring common ancestors) combined with the assumption of uniform rates of evolution calculated based on evolutionary interpretations and dating of things such as Orangutan fossils!!

  There is nothing in the mitochondrial DNA that directly rules out a recent biblical eve. Of course by making many evolutionary assumptions can one come up with very old dates. However these assumptions begin with assumption that eve was not created but sharred a common ancestor with chimps and the chimps likewise with orangutans etc. Hense such mitochondrial dating evidence is itself not objective evidence against a recent created biblical eve (as such evidence is commonly presented as being).
• 

  hooberus

  Archealogy started out basing itself on christian bible premises in the 19th century. Most of those recanted because of evidence that demolished the biblical paradigm. Your resurrection of it, and insering it into dna studies is pretty hopeless.

  I have not even mentioned archaeology here.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  So you are able to calculate a Mitochondrial Eve from the time of the flood? Please elucidate. Also, what is your margin of error?
  
  rem
• 

  donkey

  The whole biology stuff is balderdash. The biologists also claim that the trees are growing. I have been observing one outside my window, and it has not grown at all during the whole hour I have been staring at it.
  
  Yet old photos show that years ago it has been smaller. The only explanation is that now and then God walks around glueing extra parts to the trees to make them bigger.
• 

  badboy

  hooberus,1 problem the flood took place c.2000 BC.

  do u take that in2 consideration?
• 

  hooberus

  I believe that more than one of the women on the ark left descendants that survived into modern times, so the creationist mitochondrial eve lived before the time of the flood.
• 

  ThiChi

  ""In the January 2 issue of Science magazine there was an article about the use of female mitochondria to trace backward generations of men to their common origin. Evolutionists have been working on this line of research for quite some time. They announced earlier that the mtDNA ?Eve? woman, from who all modern people are descended, lived in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. This latest research indicates that mutation rates would change the date ?Eve? lived to only several thousand years. Quoting from the article ?Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old.? Now they show their bias; ?No one thinks that?s the case, but at what point should we switch from one mtDNA clock to the other.? Here is an excellent example of how evolutionists let their presuppositions dictate their science. Six thousand years is a very good date from a creationist viewpoint, but let me paraphrase what the writer said. How can we fudge the data to fit our model. The evolutionists will not admit any evidence that may justify creation so the data will be altered or the research may even be abandoned. This is BAD SCIENCE and speaks very poorly for the image they would try to portray of ?scientists seeking truth?. These are scientists seeking justification for evolution without any regard for truth. Instead of letting the research lead them they use it or discard it.""