Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 16:35:58 -0800
To: Andrew Arensburger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David McDougall
Subject: Re: Mitochonrdrial Eve is Younger Than First Thought
At 05:29 AM 2/2/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, David McDougall wrote:
>> There is no longer need to wonder why the mtDNA is found
>> outside the nucleus.... it is easier to trace there and was left that way to
>> provide evidence for those who are honestly looking,
> And your evidence for this is...?
The way models work, (when the process can not be duplicated by experiment),
is that you make a list of necessary conclusions or factors one would expect
to find if the hypothesis were true. If any of these are falsified, the
theory or model is (supposed to be), chucked. I would expect a creator that
wanted to provide evidence for all He spoke to leave behind the ability to
trace certain attributes of the creation which bore witness to it for those
who are interested in searching the truth. Since the evolutionists have
themselves stated in the article that the mtDNA is "easier to trace outside
the nucleus" and that they had been wrong about the constant and grossly
inflated rate of mutation, (which actually shows a figure closer to that
which a creationsist would expect), I'd say this one is a keeper. Wouldn't
you? I'd say their theories of an ancient beginning for man are in question
if not falsified and that Dawkins' criticism of the location of the mtDNA,
("if" there were an intelligent Creator), is put to shame. Wouldn't you?
Whether I'm right or wrong concerning the purpose for
the location, you have to admit that the facts provide a logical hypothesis
as to why such a thing was done.
>> (speculative on my
>> part, of course, but consistant with my understanding of the origin of life
>> and the preponderance of supporting evidence).
> What evidence is this? If you mean biblical evidence, then please
>provide some other evidence in support of it. (One might also ask why the
>Bible should be used as a science textbook, when a) that is clearly not
>its purpose, and b) it can't even get the shape of the Earth right.)
You are correct. a) The purpose of the Bible is neither to be a science nor
a history book, but sufficient evidence is found in those pursuits to
support what one would expect to find based upon the truths found therein.
b) The mainstream scientists in Columbus' time thought it was flat. I
guess ole' Chris figured a circle was close enough, eh? Of course, all he
had to go on was the evidence, (which could have easily been expected based
upon scriptures written thousands of years earlier...).
>> The following article was
>> published in some science rag.
> Any particular rag?
Sorry, the actual source was the best I could do:
* First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA, 25 to
28 October 1997, Washington, D.C.
Volume 279, Number 5347 Issue of 2 January 1998, pp. 28 - 29 1998
by The American Association for the Advancement of Science.
>likely, it just means that a few timetables will have to be adjusted. At
>worst, it might mean that mitochondrial DNA isn't as well understood as
>biologists think it is. Ah, well.
Andrew, the only problem is that they will not be adjusted according to
what is actually seen, especially if it supports the creation model.
It can be seen that stalacmites grow at Lurray about 4 cubic inches a year,
but the scientists they quote still say 200-300 years for just 1 ci. It can
be seen and is widely known that very finely detailed fossils encompassed by
100 feet of limestone had to have been covered rapdily, but evolutionists
tell us that one foot of limestone accounts for 1,000 years. It can be seen
and is known that the interbedded sedimentary rock was laid down in the same
catastrophic flood, but evolutionists still claim the Grand Canyon is a
result of hundreds of millions of years of errosion. I could go on, but
then again, if you were truly interested, you'd look at the Creation video
tapes with me. Not one Bible verse quoted, just all of evolution's finest....?
> Of course, the "conventional" numbers cited--one mutation per
>12,000 years--seem awfully low. I haven't done any calculations based on
>this, but I would have expected something at least an order of magnitude
Did you miss the part where they stated that if what they actually observed
were true, then man could not have been around much more than 6,000 years?
> At any rate, this article does not attack conventional
>evolutionary theory, either natural selection or common descent. So if
>you're still trying to demolish evolution, I'm afraid you're going to have
>to try a bit harder.
As long as you think it can happen in 6,000 years, I guess I'd have to agree...
>> (WHY NOT BASE IT ON A FEW STUDIES; ESPECIALLY THESE WELL DOCUMENTED ONES?
Never shouting, just delimiting my text from that of the article.
> (No need to shout.)
> Note the words "a few" and "living." This last, you'll note, is
>the thrust of Richards's objection: that we may be living at a time when
>the mutation rate is abnormally high, compared to the rest of history. For
>instance, industrialization may have something to do with it.
On the other hand, it is what we observe... the other is speculation. Which
provides the better evidence? For instance, we know that the 70 active
volcanos in the world today could produce the earth's crust in something like
100,000 years, but we know that there have been up to 600-700 active and
much more so in the past, so even the assumed constant can't begin to
a) the facts as we know them or b) anything close to the billions of years
needed for big evolution to take place
>> THIS HAS BEEN THE EVOLUTIONARY CRITERIA SINCE THE 40 CHUCKED DATES OF
>> THE FRAUDULENT JAVA MAN!!
> "Fraudulent"? What exactly do you mean? Dubois may have had some
>funny notions about how the assembled skeleton "ought" to look, but that's
>about it, as far as I can tell. It's certainly not in the same ballpark as
>the Piltdown Man hoax. Not even the same sport.
Ah, but when the Pigstooth man was thought to be accurate, how proudly they
strutted. But 40 chucked dates is not science. On the other hand, a knee bone
found several miles from the rest of the bones does not a fossil make. On the
other hand, it is a perfect specimine of the modern Galada Baboon.
>> LOOK TIL YOU "FIND" WHAT YOU THOUGHT.)
> Well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black...
Okay, I'll rephrase: Look past what you find and assume what you thought...
We're both attempting to examine our hypothesis through the falsification of
assumed criteria. The evidence, however, can only support one or the other,
Pascal or no Pascal..
Of course, we could save a lot of time by viewing what I consider to be the
best evidence anyone could offer if you were interested in seeing it. :-)
Chapter 14 | Chapter 16