Creationist Perspective on Mitochondrial Eve

[Antisthenes]

maybe the relationship with reality and what ever prejudices that were not allowed to be questioned that were generationaly passed down?

then again each situation would be different i myself am not enough of a theologian to know what each group down to the individual tells their offspring at the ages before they are old enough to think for them selfs

but i do know military recruiters use the same tactics

[djswan]

Thank you for the logic.

My father was a recruiter and one of the best. Captain Charisma they called him in '76, Oohrah!

I've always heard there is no such thing a stupid question, but I question that too.

I should tell you about the duck hunting trip I took, with the #2 to The Dept. of Homeland Security, very enlightining, indeed, but that's another story.

[guesswhat]

Certainly, if one refuses to believe in the higher being, then it is easy to think of <FSMs>, or anything w.ild theory of sc_ience for that matter. This is the problem with this type of thinking. Some are willing to accept any foolish idea intended to r.idicule, and can conceive of a <FSM>, as a means to ri.dicule.. but nothing beyond this. In this many error as well. Perhaps it was a <FSM> that invaded the dreams of the _s.c.ientists to come up with their wacky ideas.

If people are dis-respectful of E.ins.tein and even the higher being then it is no surprise they will dis-respect other members as well, and those who hold anti-e_v.o.l.ut.io.n_ beliefs. This type of thinking is truly designed in such a way that anyone who holds an anti-d.arwin view is persecuted. This truly is FSM thinking.

Now, according to E.ins.te.in,... e.vil is the abcense of the -Father.... Since these people are absent of the _Father, they are therefore_ e.v.il. And considering /He is in heaven then guess where ...e.v.il ...is?

It's not very long that you spend on this _e.a.rt.h. Now some may think they can easily dismiss _E.i.n.ste.in or even the _Father for that matter. They will never know what h.ea.ven was worth, and they are in for a big surprise in the after-l-ife. You can k.ill the body but you can't kill the s.pir.it. You can k.ill other members but you can't ki.ll their s.p.irit. That which exists in the realm of s.pi.ri.t and thought cannot be destroyed.

....prejudices that were not allowed to be questioned... These are very typical around those who hang on to these same beliefs. Don't dare question their pre-judices, they will come after you.

"Thank you for the logic."

or

"Thank you for the logic which agrees with my thinking." While all to continue to pat themselves on the back, their children are continuously indoctrinated into the errors of the system, creating a continuous cycle of passing on the same errors from generation to generation.

[djswan]

You should just quote the bible.

[designolution]

Evidence from Nu,clear D:N:A & Y Ch,romo,some Evidence

If, as supporters of the African E.ve hypothesis claim, there was a population movement of anatomically modern humans out of their place of origin in Africa resulting in total replacement of the previous hominid populations in Europe and Asia, this should be supported not only by ...mit.o.c.hon.d.rial.... D.N.A evidence but also by D.N.A evidence from the cell's nuc.leus. However, in his analysis of the early African Eve reports, Templeton (1993, p. 65) said, . . . there is no single set of assumptions that allows the .m.t.D.N.A and nu.clear data to be compatible with an out-of-Africa replacement hypothesis.

One group of researchers looked at variation in the B loc.us of the g.ene for the human apop.rotein. According to Templeton their detailed analysis led them to conclude that "Caucasoid populations (located from North Africa to India) were closest to the ancestral ...g.en.etic... stock and that worldwide g.e.n.etic differentiation at this l.ocus is best explained by westward and eastward g.e.ne flow from this geographical region and not by a sub-Saharan origin." For researchers who cite recurrent appearances of the human s.pecies (after planetary deluges) in the Himalayan region, this is quite interesting.

More recently, re.searchers have found yet another problem with the African origins the.ory. This problem involves the glob.in g..ene cluster in humans. A g.en..e or part of a g.e.ne at a particular location on a ...ch.r.o.mo.so.me... may appear in several different forms called alle.les. One individual will have one all.ele, and a second individual another all.ele. In analyzing glob.in all.eles in various populations, authors of a recent textbook found that the observed degree of variation implied an age much greater than 200,000 years for modern .human populations. Indeed, looking at another part of the .glo.bin .....g.e.ne.. cluster, the authors stated that "two ....all.el.es... from a non-co.ding (and therefore neutral) region have apparently persisted for 3 .mil.lion years." They concluded, To date, it is unclear how the pattern found in the glo..bin ..g.e.nes can be reconciled with a recent African ..or.igin of modern humans.

Some researchers, considering the complexities surrounding .g.e.netic.. data, have suggested that ..g.en.etic information, at best, provides a the.ory of how modern human .origins might have happened if the assumptions used in interpreting the ..g.e.n.e.tic.. data are correct.

So where do we stand? The whole question of human origins, analyzed from the perspective of ..g.en.etic evidence, ..mit.o.c.h.o..n.d.rial... D.N.A.. evidence in particular, is confusing. For example, some ...s.c.ie.nti.st.s.... say that a small population of the .g.e.nus Homo arose from ..Austral.opithe.cus.. about 2 million years ago in Africa. This population developed into ..Homo.. ..e.re.ct.us, and then spread throughout Eurasia developing into Ne.an.de.rtals... and Ne.an.dertal-like populations. About 100,000 years ago a small population of anatomically modern ..H.o.mo.... s.a.p.i.e.ns... emerged in Africa, and then spread around the world, replacing the earlier populations of ..Homo.. erect.us and ..Ne.ander.tals, without mixing significantly with them. These anatomically modern humans then developed in different regions of the world into the different races we see today. Other .....s.cient.ist.s...., looking at the same ..g.en.eti.c, archeological, and paleontological evidence, conclude that the different races of anatomically modern humans emerged simultaneously in different parts of the world, directly from the Hom.o ...erect.us and Ne.ander.tal ..populations in those parts of the world. According to this idea, anatomically modern humans would have emerged in large populations over wide geographical areas, not in some small founder population confined to a small area. Another group asserts that there was a small initial population of anatomically modern humans, confined to a small geographical region. But this group holds that this population differentiated into the different racial groups we see today while still confined to this small geographical area. The racial groups then are supposed to have migrated out of this area and expanded their numbers in particular parts of the world. In short, there is considerable confusion about the ....g.e.n.eti.c.... evidence and what it means.

Y Ch.ro.mo.some Evidence

In the above discussion about ...mi.toch.ond.rial... D.N.A, ..nu.clear D..N..A.. was briefly mentioned, the .D.N..A found in the ..nucle.us of human cell.s with a few examples. Let us now look carefully at another example of such evidence-the Y ch.ro.m.o.some.

Human beings have 23 pairs of ..ch.romo.somes in the ..n.u.c.le.us.. of each cell. One of these pairs of ....ch.ro.mo.somes.. determines the sex of the individual. The pair of sex ...c.h.rom.o.somes... in females is made up of two X ..ch.ro.mo.somes.. (XX). The pair of sex ..ch.ro.m.o.somes.. in males is made up of one X .....c.h.ro.mo.some.. and one Y ....ch.ro.mo.some (XY).

The Y ....c.h.ro..mo.some... is passed down only from father to son. Females do not carry the Y ....ch..ro..mo..some. Certain parts of a ....c.h.r.o.mo..some are subject to a process called recombination, whereby parts of one .....ch.r.om.o.some.... are exchanged with parts of another ....c.h.ro.mo.some. But a large section of the Y ..c.h.r.o.mo.some... is not subject to such recombination. Theoretically, the only changes that accumulate in this nonrecombining part of the Y ..ch..ro.m.o.some.. would be random .mut.ations. The Y ..c.h.r.omo..some.... is the male counterpart of the ...m.it.o.c.h.on.d.ri.al..... D..N.A, which is passed down only from the mother and is also supposedly not subject to variation other than random ..mut.ations. The Y ..c.h.r.o.mo..some... can therefore be used in human origins research in just about the same way as .....m.i.to.c.ho.nd.rial.... D.N.A-as a molecular clock and geographical locator. Some researchers propose that just as there was an African Eve.., there was also an African ..Ad.am, or, as some call him, a "Y-guy." As we shall see, however, the conclusions that can be drawn from Y ....c.hr..omo..some... studies are not very perfect, and therefore some researchers view "Y-guy" as a statistical apparition generated by dubious .....e.vo.l.u.t.io.nary... assumptions.

In the May 26, 1995 issue of ..S.c.i.e.n.ce..., Robert L. Dorit of Yale University and his coauthors published a study of the variation in the ZFY ..g.ene on the Y ..ch..ro.mo..somes... of 38 humans from various parts of the world. They compared this variation with that found in chimpanzees. In converting the difference in the degree of variation into years, Dorit relied on the assumption that the human line separated from the chimp line about 5 million years ago. This led him to the conclusion that all the humans in his sample had a common ancestor who existed about 270,000 years ago. This differs from the usual age estimate of 200,000 years that comes from ...m.i.toc.h.on.d.rial.... .D.N.A... studies. However, a report in Science News (Adler 1995) pointed out that Dorit and his coauthors acknowledge that factors other than a recent common ancestor could explain their findings" and that their conclusions relied on a lot of ''background assumptions''.

In the November 23, 1995 issue of Nature, Michael Hammer, of the University of Arizona at Tucson, published a study of Y ...c.h.ro.mo..some.. variation in eight Africans, two Australians, three Japanese, and two Europeans. He concluded that they all had a common an.cestor who lived 188,000 years ago. The geographical location of the common ancestor was not clearly defined. Hammer's study also suggested that a reanalysis of Dorit's data would give an age of 160,000 to 180,000 years for the most recent common an.cestor of the individuals in the study (Ritter 1995).

In 1998, Hammer and several coauthors published a more comprehensive study of human Y ..c.h.ro.mo..some variation. The time to coalescence for the observed variation was 150,000 years, and the root of the statistical tree was in the African populations. The researchers, using nested ...cla.distic... analysis methods, proposed that the Y ....ch.r.o.mo..some... evidence showed two migrations. One out of Africa into the Old World, and a movement back into Africa from Asia. Thus, the previously observed high levels of .Y ....c.hr.o.m.o.s.o.mal.... ...g.e.n.e.tic... diversity in Africa may be due in part to bidirectional population movements, said the researchers (Hammer et al. 1998, p. 427). Hammer and another set of coworkers reached similar conclusions in a 1997 study of the YAP region of the -Y -...c.h-ro.mo-some... (Hammer et al. 1997). The movement of Asian populations into Africa is interesting, in light of accounts from ancient Indian historical writings, which tell of the avatar Para.surama driving renegade members of the ancient Indian royal families out of India to other parts of the world, where according to some sources, they mixed with the native populations.

In the November 2000 issue of Nature .G.e.n.eti.cs.., Peter Underhill and his coauthors said Y .c-hro-mo-some data suggested that the most recent common male ancestor of living humans lived in East Africa and left there for Asia between 39,000 and 89,000 years ago. By way of contrast, .m.i.to.c.h.on.drial... D.N..A evidence suggested that our common female ancestor left Africa about 143,000 years ago. Underhill simply suggested that the Y ...c.hr.om.o.some...... and ...m.it.o.ch.on.d..rial... D.N.A rates of change are different (Bower 2000a). Henry Harpending of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City thinks the Y ...c.h.ro.m.o..some's..... m.ut.ation.. ..rate is slower than Underhill and his coworkers reported. According to Harpending, this would bring Y Guy's age close to that of ...M.it.oc.h.on.d.rial... Eve (Bower 2000a). But just as the ......m.it..o.ch..o.nd..rial...... D.N.A.. rate of change is really not known with certainty, the Y ....c.h.ro.mo.some... rate of change is also not known with certainty. In an article in Science News, Bower (2000a) says, The Y ....c.h.r.o.mo.some.... segments in the new analysis exhibit much less variability than .D.N.A regions that have been studied in other chromosomes. Low ...g.e.n.etic.... variability may reflect natural selection, in this case, the spread of advantageous Y ...c.h.r.o.m.o..some... mut.ations after people initially migrated out of Africa, the researchers suggest. That scenario would interfere with the molecular clock, making it impossible to retrieve a reliable mut.ation rate from the Y ..ch.romo..some, they acknowledge.[/u] And ...g.en.eti.cist.. Rosalind M. Harding, of John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, England, says, [i]We don't know what selection and population structure are doing to the Y ...c.h.ro.m.o.some.... I wouldn't make any ....e.v.o.lu.ti.o.nary conclusions from [Underhill's] data (Bower 2000a). For example, Underhill thought that Africa was the home of the most recent common ancestor of modern humans, because the African populations in his studies showed the most diversity in their Y ...c.h.r.o.m.o.somes. But Harding points out that this diversity could have arisen not because African was the home of the original human population, but because Africa was more heavily populated than other parts of the world. Also, the diversity in populations outside of Africa could have been reduced by the spreading of particularly favorable genes throughout those populations. Bower says (2000a),If the critics are right, Y guy could be history, not prehistory In other words, humans could go back further in age, and the ...g.en.etic... diversity we see today could simply reflect some recent ..g.e.ne.tic... events in a longer history. The earlier results could simply have been erased with the passage of time.

The most recent Y ..c.h.ro.mo..some.. studies demonstrate that firm conclusions about human origins based on this kind of evidence are still out of reach. A group of Chinese and American researchers (Ke et al. 2001) sampled 12,127 males from 163 populations from East Asia, checking the Y .....c.h.ro.mo..somes.. for three markers (called YAP, M89, and M130). According to the researchers, three mut.ations of these markers (YAP+, M89T, and M130T), arose in Africa, and they can all three be traced to another African mut.ation, the M168T mutation, which arose in Africa between 35,000 and 89,000 years ago. The researchers found that all the East Asian males they tested had one of the three African mut.ations that came from the African M168T mutation. They took this to mean that populations that migrated from Africa completely replaced the original hominid populations in East Asia. Otherwise, some Y ...c.h.ro.m.o.somes... without the three African markers should have been found.

As Ke and his coauthors (2001, p. 1152) said, It has been shown that all the Y ..c.h.ro.mo.some... hap.lo.types.. found outside Africa are younger than 39,000 to 89,000 years and derived from Africa.[i] However, they noted that [i]this estimation is crude and depends on several assumptions. The assumptions were not directly mentioned in their report. The authors also admitted the possibility of selection sweep that could erase archaic Y ..c.h.r.o.m.osomes... of modern humans in East Asia. Furthermore, they admitted that Y ....c.h.r..o.m..o.some.... data is subject to sto.cha.stic processes, e.g., ....g.e.n.e.ti.c..... d.ri.ft, which could also lead to the extinction of ...ar.c.ha.ic.. lineages.

Ke and his coauthors (2001, p. 1152) acknowledged another problem, which they said creates confusion. They observed that age estimates for a most recent common ancestor arrived at by analysis of variation in... m.i.t.o.c.h.o.n.d.ri.al... D..N.A and the Y ..c.h.r.o.m.o.s.o.me ..D.N..A differ greatly from age estimates derived from analysis of variation in the ..D..N..A... of the X ....c.h.r.o.m.o.s.o.m.e.. and ....a.u.t.o.s..o.m.e.s.. (.c.h.r.o.m.o..somes other than the sex-determining X and Y .....c..h.r.o...m.o.s.o.m.e.s). They said, The age estimated with the use of ...auto.some/X ..c.h.r.o.m.o..s..ome g..e.n..es... ranges from 535,000 to 1,860,000 years, much older than the ....m.t.D..N.A.. and Y ...c.h.r.o.m.o.s.ome.. (Ke et al. 2001, p. 1152). The authors speculate that in the course of population "bottlenecks" during a supposed migration out of Africa, there may have been three or four times as many men as women, leading to the greater diversity in the ...a.u.t.o.s.o..m.e/X .....c.h.r.o.m.o.s.o.m.e.. D.N.A.

Milford Wolpoff, a committed multiregionalist, says that it's not surprising that the Y ..c.h.r.o..m.o..s.ome.. shows an apparent African origin. Africa had the largest populations for the longest periods of time. Therefore, the African populations were responsible for the greatest number of Y ...c.h.r..o.m.o..some.... lineages, which could over time have wiped out other lineages that originally existed along with the African lineages (Gibbons 2001, p. 1052). Ann Gibbons observes that it is difficult to check the reliability of the Y ...c.h.r.o.m..o.s.o.m.e.. and ...m.i..t.o.c..h.o.n.d.r.i.a.l... .D.N.A evidence. Ideally, one would want to compare this evidence with ...D.N.A.. evidence from many other ....c.h.r.o.m.o.s.o.m.e.s... in the ...n.u.c.l.e.u.s.., to see if they all support the same conclusions about the age and geographical origin of anatomically modern humans. But Gibbons (2001, p. 1052) notes: The dating of .nu.clear lineages is complicated because most nu..clear .D.N..A, unlike that of the ..m.i.t.o..c.h..o.n.d.ria... and the Y ..c.h..r.o.m.o..some..., gets scrambled when homologous ...ch.r.o.m..o.s.o..m.e.s.. exchange their ...g.e.n..etic.. material during human re.productive .....c.ell... formation. That makes detection of an archaic lineage so difficult that many .g.e.n.e..t.i.c.is.ts.. despair they will ever be able to prove-or disprove-that replacement was complete. Says Oxford University population ...g.e..n.e.t.i.c.i.st... Rosalind Harding: 'There's no clear ...g.e..n.e.t.i.c.. test. We're going to have to let the fossil people answer this one. And then again, with the problems in modern dating techniques, we are left with nothing but the speculations of modern ..s.c.i.e..n.c.e..

Conclusion

B.i.o.c.h.e.m.i.c.al.... and ..g.e.n.e.tic... evidence is not as reliable as some would have us believe. G.e.n.e.t.ic.. information, at best, provides a theory of how modern human origins might have happened if the assumptions used in interpreting the ..g.e..n.e.tic... data are correct. Contemplating the difficulties of using ...g.e.n.e.tic... evidence to establish the.ories of human ..o.r..ig.ins... and antiquity, Oxford University population ...g.e.ne.ti.c.ist... Rosalind Harding said, There's no clear ...g.e..n.e.t.ic... test. (Gibbons 2001, p. 1052). And when we do look at the ..f.o.ss.il... evidence in its entirety, we find that ...a.n.a.t.o.m.i.c.ally... modern humans go so far back in time that it becomes impossible to explain their presence on this planet by current ...D.a.r.w.i.n.i.a.n.... the.or.ies... of ...e.v..o.l.u.t.i.on... Furthermore, when we look at human origins in terms of the larger question of the ..o.r.i.g.i.n... of life on earth, we find that modern ...s.c.i.e..nce... has not been able to tell us how the first living things, with their ...g.e..ne.ti.c... systems, came into existence.

Also, both artificial ...i.n.t.e.l.l.i.g.e.nc.e... (AI) and artificial ...l.if.e... (Alife) researchers have failed to provide convincing models of living things. Rodney Brooks, of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT, wrote in a perceptive article in Nature: Neither AI or Alife has produced artefacts that could be confused with a living or.gan.ism... for more than an instant. AI just does not seem as present or aware as even a simple animal and Alife cannot match the complexities of the simplest forms of life (Brooks 2001, p. 409). Brooks attributes the failure to something other than lack of computer power, incorrect parameters, or insufficiently complex models. He raises the possibility that we are missing something fundamental and currently unimagined in our models. But what is that missing something? One possibility, says Brooks (2001, p. 410), is that some aspect of living systems is invisible to us right now. The current ...s.c.ie.nt.if.ic.... view of things is that they are machines whose components are ....b.i.o.m.o.l.e.c.u.l.e.s.... It is not completely impossible that we might discover new properties of ......b.i.o.m.o.l.e.c.u.l.e.s..., or some new ingredient. . . . Let us call this the 'new stuff' hypothesis-the hypothesis that there might be some extra sort of 'stuff' in living systems outside our current ...s.c.i.e.n.t.i.f.i.c... understanding. And what might this new stuff be? Brooks gives David Chalmers as an example of a philosopher who proposes that consciousness might be a currently unrecognized state of matter. But Brooks (2001, p. 411) goes on to say, Other philosophers, both natural and ...r.e.l.i.g.i.o.u.s.., might hypothesize some more ineffable entity such as a ...s.o.ul.. or vital force. Going along with such philosophers, one can propose that both a s.o.u.l.. (conscious self) and vital force are present in humans and other living things. Thus, under this model, this conscious self and vital force are necessary components in any explanation of living things and their origins.

[designolution]

Notice how those previous charac.ter ..a.s.s.as.s.in.ation.... t.a.c.t.i.c.s.. are always directed at those whose ..b.e.li.e.fs. are contrary to their own. They thus band together and mass ..p.e.rs.e.c.ute those who hold alternate views and uphold those who break the very r.u.les they propose. This bla.t.e.nt.. v.i.o.la.ti.on.. and c.ha.ra.cter.. a.ss.as.si.na..tion.. is clear. Then they claim m.e.mbers are .v.i.o.l.at.ing.. rules when they themselves .l.i.e.. and brake the very ..r.ul.es.. they apply to their e.n.e.m.ies.. but exempt their ..r.e.b.el... friends from, in a dis-h.o.nest application of such r.u.l.es. they so .a.da..ma.ntly.. uphold.

[djswan]

Naw buddy, feel free to have to have your beliefs. I suggest climbing a tall mountain and be like a monk, let people come to you with questions, instead of trying to shove false answers up our ass, donkey that is, it's carrying enough stuff, and doesn't need the your burden.

It's tough love. I might try doing the monk thing myself.

[Antisthenes]

there is a interesting article on yahoo news about y humans believe in myths/lies. chk it out

[djswan]

ahhh yes this one you are speaking of.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080818/sc_livescience/monstersghostsandgodswhywebelieve&printer=1


I'll will be speaking in my new "monk" talk, with random vows of silence every now and then.

There some good quotes to be found in there.

[alittlesensetodesign]

Some will continue to resist, despite the evidence presented to the contrary, as for example the discussion in the architectural forum on I.D.

This has already been postulated previously that some would react in this manner, so it comes as no surprise.

The evidence stands and is way grandeur then our minds can begin to fathom.

[Antisthenes]

nobody knows and to be OK about it not be 'creative' about the reasons is sound advise.

We will always continue to learn more, jumping to gun will get you nothing but ostracized and looked at funny, me thinks.

see: Palin

[djswan]

Poor Sarah, you probally just got her a sympothy vote or two for her by that.

soooo, "the attack on science" goes on, paraphrasing former President Bill Clinton. It was the #1 reason I voted Obama. Bill said it a bit under his breath as I still think he voted McCain. I still like McCain.

I find these ID folks, no good, filthy heathens. I have more respect for apes than those people.

Ben Stein(ID nutcase) made an ass out of himself again the other day, blabbing, financial armegeddon can only be fixed by a massive bailout. Neil Cavuto called him on it, good for him.