Literal Creation Story

I guess your going to have to prove that assertion. Let's see 200,000 years divided by 6000 years tells us that you have to show that the clock is off by at least 30 fold. Or withdraw the assertion. Good luck.

Now, as to the other point we keep laboring with. It is not a prediction of evolutionary theory that within any group you can trace the maternal lineage to one individual it is a mathematical fact. Everytime you go back another generation the number of mothers must decrease. It is impossible to have 1000 daughters who were given birth to by 2000 mothers! The number can be at most 1000 and is less if any mothers gave birth to more than one daughter. How many other women were alive at the time is not relevant. You have tried so many times to point to multiple lineages whether it be different tribes or whatever. But remember that all this has taken place within the context of sexual reproduction mixing the genes of the individuals. You cannot have two or more seperate lineages evolving, they will evolve into different things. This is something that happens to a group over a long period of time. No matter how much you want to deny it, they were mixing through sexual reproduction all along. No matter how you believe the earth came to be, mathematically all members of a sexually reproducing group will be able to trace back to one individual in this manner. Your assertions do nothing but attempt to distract from this fact.

This whole ME should be a subject you avoid. It does nothing to support your case and opens up the can of worms about the DNA clock showing this common mother lived hundreds of thousands of years before you claim the world came into being.

 

Since I've posted more about this topic in this thread than in almost any other thread in the past six months, I could hardly be said to be avoiding the issue.

I'll reiterate what UTEOTW and I have said since the beginning of this thread: the ME effect has nothing to do with evolution; it is a mathematical effect which occurs in formal populations of a type which includes sexual biological populations.

By itself, it lends no support to either evolution, OEC, or YEC.

In conjuction with other, more detailed genetic evidence, it yields confirming evidence for at least a very, very old human population, with lots of recombination and genetic drift.

To show a human population reduced to three female lines and one male line at the time of Noah requires showing a different type of genetic bottleneck altogether.

-Neil

 

The world wide evidence is that there was no world wide flood. Such a flood would leave unmistakeable traces that just aren't there. It's not an "ism" thing, its an evidence thing.

mtDNA started from the one common ancestress and has come down to every human since then, but . . . changes have accumulated over the millenia. How many millenia? the changes seem to be so many that its been 200,000 years. Harmless changes, (people stuck with the harmful ones died out) but still changes.

OK you're saying that the clock is not a hundred percent accurate. If you're going to challenge the research about the variation in mtDNA, can you show a plausible scenario in which degree of variety of mtDNA that appears to require 200,000 years in order to accumulate could have accumulated in 6 to 10 thousand years, instead? What could have happened in the history of mankind to cause so much extant variation of mtDNA as to fool a reasearcher into thinking the last common ancestress dates back about 200,000 years ago? A universal flood with only eight survivors, of course, would only REDUCE the variation of mtDNA, not increase it. We await your suggestions.

 

The Tower of Babel. Something made everyone start talking differently all at once...

 

AS has already been noted - the fact that a SINGLE mtDNA lineage reduces to "ONE" is "predictable" and not that surprising to anyone.

That is the part "not being avoided".

The fact that there IS ONLY ONE strain of mtDNA - is the "big surprise" for Evolutionism - but is "predicted by Genesis1-2" given that the mother passes her exact MtDNA to her children.

That is the point being "avoided".


Don't know how else to say it -- again.

Again - it has already been noted that there are TWO - points being established.

#1. That the big surprise for evolutionism is that we have only ONE mtDNA strain. Yet this is predicted by the Genesis 1-2 model.

#2. That the mutational clock claimed to be "constant" by evolutionists - has already been found to "vary". So "continuing to assume it does not vary" seems - illconceived.

Nope. The Genesis model would predict that ALL 4 females at the time of Noah were of the SINGLE mtDNA strain of Eve. As were all the males.

And it also predicts that all the males were of the ONE Y-Chromasome line of Adam. It would predict that ALL humans today would be of the SAME Y-Chromasome line (all males) and that ALL humans today (both male and female) would be of the SAME mtDNA strain.

So we "see" the fact that these Genesis-model predictions are confirmed in our science today and are in opposition to the predictions of evolutionism's model. How is it we would not allow ourselves to see that as a problem for evolutionism?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The world wide evidence is that there was no world wide flood. Such a flood would leave unmistakeable traces that just aren't there. It's not an "ism" thing, its an evidence thing.
</font>[/QUOTE]Then we are agreed - humanism does need to ignore all evidence for a world wide flood. It has as much difficulty accepting that part of God's Word as it does accepting Genesis 1-2.

No doubt mutant defects have crept in and can be observed - but it is STILL one mtDNA strain - which is a "huge strain" on the mythologies of evolutionism.

And the fact that the injection rate of mutations has already been shown to be "variable" simply "assuming" that it is not - is illconceived.

More than that -- I am saying that the mythologies of evolutionism find themselves "forced to assume" that the rate is "constant" so they can do their calculations. But we "already observe" that such is not the case.

All the "variation studies" are not in EVEN for THIS generation of humans on this planet - let alone for all 6000 years preceeding it. In your "could have accumulated" speculation - are you simply saying that whatever I "speculate" will be pleasing to the high-priests of humanism?

I would be surprised indeed if that turned out to be true.

The catastrophic decrease in human longevity recorded in scripture as precipitating at the flood - would be a "possible part" of God's Word to eventually "take seriously", if one was not sold on humanism. It may well represent changes in the atmopshere, ionosphere, plant life, and mutation rates.

In Christ,

Bob

 

When did we start talking about humanists? I'm a Christian, a baptist even, and I also accept the findings of science. I would have no difficulty whatsoever accepting evidence for a world wide flood, of which I have never seen any, although some false candidates have been proposed.

I'm not following your logic here. I don't think you've even communicated a clear idea of what "one strain" would BE for mtDNA. For example - if you took the mtDNA from a chimpanzee and switched it into your own cells, it would work. Does that mean it is one strain, or not?

OK I think you're saying the rate CAN vary so much that 10,000 years might mascarade as 200,000 years under the "non varying rate" hypothesis. Can you find evidence for rate varying by that much?

Exactly how far off has the clock been shown to be? By what factor?

A working hypothesis is a great incentive for gathering more evidence for or against it. If you have no working hypothesis to explain why we have the degree of genetic variation we have, then you have no reason to question what has already been presented.

There you go again, talking about humanism, which is a philosophy and not relevant to this discussion. I will ignore that irrelevant remark. What you need to find is some way to account for 200,000 years worth of variation in mtDNA in just a few thousand years. The wild variation would have to have occurred AFTER the flood. Any particular thoughts as to what caused the wild proliferation of mtDNA mutations in the immediate generations following the flood, required by your literal interpretation of scripture?

 

BobRyan, once you accept that "AS has already been noted - the fact that a SINGLE mtDNA lineage reduces to "ONE" is "predictable" and not that surprising to anyone. then the rest of your argument falls apart, whatever you are trying to prove.

If the mitochondrial DNA can be shown to able to be traced to a particular individual, then the strain carried by that individual would be the only one in the population today. With mutations of course. Your own words show this.

Assertion! You keep asserting this. Please prove it to be so or withdraw the claim. I do not think that you can show evidence that the rate of mutation is faster by orders of magnitude than what is claimed to get the 200,000 year old date to reconcile with your 6000 year old assertion.

 

It's neither a surprise nor a strain for evolutionism. It's a prediction of the formal mathematics governing population genetics -- regardless of whether or not evolution is happening. Even if the YEC model were correct and humans never evolved, eventually there would be a new "mitochondrial Eve" who lived at some later time than the Ur-Eve.

-Neil

 

As has already been shown. Evolution posits multiple sources, multipe starts, multiple mtDNA lines. Nothing has been attempted on this thread so far - to show anything else.

What we "have had on this thread" is the discussion of "how" the other lines got obliterated. However - the obliteration "along mtDNA lines" has never been explained as rational. In fact it is anything but --

It is an easter-bunny appeal to try to bend the imagination so that Evolution could possibly fit in what we measure today as reality - only ONE mtDNA line for the ENTIRE planet just as the Bible model would predict. Just as the Evolutionist model would deny.

The case could not be more obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[QB]

Paul of Eugene said --
When did we start talking about humanists? I'm a Christian, a baptist even, and I also accept the findings of science. I would have no difficulty whatsoever accepting evidence for a world wide flood, of which I have never seen any, although some false candidates have been proposed.

Which type of Baptist church teaches the mythologies of evolutionism? I am not familiar with it - but would love to hear more about it.

Humanism is simply the notion that man is more "reliable" than the Word of God - that man is the creator of himself. Hence the Word of God takes a backseat to the "real origin" mythologies of humanism as does the flood account in God's Word.

Paul of Eugene said --
I'm not following your logic here. I don't think you've even communicated a clear idea of what "one strain" would BE for mtDNA. For example - if you took the mtDNA from a chimpanzee and switched it into your own cells, it would work. Does that mean it is one strain, or not?


Wrong again. Not only is the mtDNA of a chimp NOT the same strain - EVEN Neanderthal man is TOO FAR removed from us to be classed as "human" from the standpoint of his mtDNA.

But that was a nice try Paul of Eugene.


We are in fact of ONE strain due to the simple principle that UNLIKE our normal DNA - the Mother passes on her EXCACT mtDNA - to all of her children. Think it through. That means ONE strain for ALL MANKIND since we have ONE Mother - Eve.

The ONLY differences are mutational glitches NOT variations in genes or new individual mtDNA in the way that we have individual DNA.

Paul of Eugene said --
OK I think you're saying the rate CAN vary


No I am saying that Evolutionism "needs" a constant mutation rate so it "can calculate time" backwards.

But we have "observed" variations in the rate and have no indicators as to how WIDE that variation can be over time. In fact we have no limiting principle to attribute to it.

And as already noted - we DO see a catastrophic debilitating influence on the biology of man at the flood in terms of longevity.

Your continual appeal to "exhaustive records of all variations in the history of man" - is kind of silly. The evolutionis "assumption" of "constant rate" is already dead - from imperical evidence alone.

Paul of Eugene said --
If you have no working hypothesis to explain why we have the degree of genetic variation we have, then you have no reason to question what has already been presented.


The question is brought in by the imperical evidence ALREADY showing variation in the rate.

Paul of Eugene said --
I will ignore that irrelevant remark.


First you propose "constant rate" and that is "shown" to be a fallacy.

Then you propose that I come up with a theory showing indications of a sharp/drastic/catastrophic rate change in ancient human history - which I do above. And you say "I will ignore that".

What you need is a little objectivity to go along with your faith.


Paul of Eugene said --
What you need to find is some way to account for 200,000 years worth of variation in mtDNA in just a few thousand years. The wild variation would have to have occurred AFTER the flood.


This is the part where you could have paid "attention to that comment above" about events just after the flood.

Perhaps you should reconsider.

Paul of Eugene said --
Any particular thoughts as to what caused the wild proliferation of mtDNA mutations in the immediate generations following the flood, required by your literal interpretation of scripture?

Is this where we talk about the clear word of God telling us that man lived for many centuries before the flood - but after the flood the numbers came down - by multi-century punctuated gradations until it came to the low to mid 100's.

Remember I am a "Bible believing" Christian - not a humanist so this "Bible text" will keep coming as "noteworthy" in my view.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul said -- There you go again, talking about humanism, which is a philosophy and not relevant to this discussion. I will ignore that irrelevant remark. What you need to find is some way to account for 200,000 years worth of variation in mtDNA in just a few thousand years. The wild variation would have to have occurred AFTER the flood. Any particular thoughts as to what caused the wild proliferation of mtDNA mutations in the immediate generations following the flood, required by your literal interpretation of scripture? </font>[/QUOTE]How fascinating that the piles of humanist guesswork that were combined to get to a 200,000 year date are "Assumed" by one who claims to be a Christian rather than objectively reviewed.

IS the Bible really that easy to toss out the window - such that all a humanist has to do is make a series of "wild guesses" combine them and "presto" the "Christian" chucks his Bible?

EVEN in the face of a mono-mtDNA paradigm that IS PREDICTED by the Genesis 1-2 model?? A paradigm that the humanist was forced to confess - screaming and kicking.

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Show me where a "humanist" was forced to confess that mitochondrial Eve supports YEC.

As for the principle demonstrated by mitochondrial Eve, that is predicted by the mathematics alone, even in continuous large populations -- whether evolving or not. Why in the world else do you think the scientists spent the time and money to look for "mitochondrial Eve"?

What confuses most people is that the appellation "Eve" is a misnomer. It can mislead those who have not examined the mathematics into thinking the research shows one thing, when in fact it shows something totally different. "Mitochondrial Grandma" would probably have been a better term (and one my mother -- a happy grandma -- would have liked ).

-Neil

 

Show me where a "humanist" was forced to confess that mitochondrial Eve supports YEC.</font>[/QUOTE][/quote]

The confession is in admitting that the mono-strain DNA situation that the Genesis model predicts is what we have measured imperically today.

The multi-start scenarios demanded by the evolutionary model - do not predict a mono-strain result. Hence the "speculation" that we saw EVEN on this thread by our evolutionist friends as to what "happened" to those other lines.


In Christ,

Bob

 

I am capable of learning things both within my church and outside my church. Creation is not very often discussed in church as such, except to affirm, of course, that God is creator.

Since I don't believe man created himself, then I am not a humanist by your definition, so your bringing this up in a discussion with me is totally irrelevant. It is a puzzle to me why some people keep bringing up completely irrelevant things like this in a discussion.

As for you assertion that evolution is a humanist mythology, I think you will find that many non-humanists embrace the findings of science concerning evolution and the age of the earth. It is not a mythology; it is the result of scientific investigation, and hence subject to amendment and improvement with further investigation. Mythologies are characterized by being set in tradition and not amenable to being changed. Sort of like - the way some people handle the creation story of Genesis around here. -OH I get it - your're demonstrating an example of psychological projection!

When I said "does that mean it is one strain, or not", I was not saying it was definately one strain, that was a question. I suspect you read all the evidence for evolution in an equally careless manner. Perhaps that explains why it has passed you by.

So is it your assertion that the mere existance of a common ancestress means that the mtDNA is all of a single strain? No matter how many glitches exist between the generations?

Readers, we have here a man who can assert there are mutational glitches that are not variations in genes. Draw the appropriate conclusion.

 

Paul -

I was trying to find some place in your response above where you actually made a point. You seem to be confused about the difference between DNA variation as we find in the Nuclear DNA containing 70,000 genes and the 37 genes of the mtDNA. Apparently in "your view" mutation results in the same kind of "differentiated DNA" as we find in nuclear DNA.

In your view all multi-start sequences from hominids to humans would STILL have generated the SAME DNA for mtDNA EVEN though they came along SEPARATE lines of mtDNA. How "odd". mtDNA "mutation" represents the SAME DNA strain - that is affected by a molecular defect but NOT one that has a new Gene sequence or a variation in Gene sequence as we find in nuclear DNA where the DNA instruction set is itself - unique for the individual.

In Christ,

Bob