"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... but we didn't start out with inbred Humans ... Adam and Eve's genomes contained all of the basic genetic diversity of Mankind.

Why Adam and Eve?

Can we not just skip forward and say 'Noah and his wife' given that his family were the only ones to survive the flood 10,000 years ago. I guess the son's three wives survived as well. Still, we all came from 8 people then.

J C

gosplan wrote: »

Why Adam and Eve?

Can we not just skip forward and say 'Noah and his wife' given that his family were the only ones to survive the flood 10,000 years ago. I guess the son's three wives survived as well. Still, we all came from 8 people then.

Evolutionists also agree that we are descended from one man and one woman ... its just the timescale we disagree on ... here is a quote from Wikipedia on the matter:-

"Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has postulated that human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

cavedave

J C

Evolutionists also agree that we are descended from one man and one woman ... its just the timescale we disagree on ... here is a quote from Wikipedia on the matter:-

Evolutionists are not saying here that there ere only 2 humans at any time. The figures given mean that of all the men alive 90,000 years ago only one has living ancestors now. And the same for women 140,000 years ago. there were other humans then just not ones who have ancestors in the present day.

darjeeling

cavedave wrote: »

Evolutionists are not saying here that there ere only 2 humans at any time. The figures given mean that of all the men alive 90,000 years ago only one has living ancestors now. And the same for women 140,000 years ago. there were other humans then just not ones who have ancestors in the present day.

True. One would think that creationists would drop this obvious distortion of the science, now that we've even sequenced mtDNA from women who did not trace their female line of ancestry to mtDNA Eve: the Denisovans and the Neanderthals.

Here's the family tree:


Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal ancestor of all the people shaded in grey - all humans alive today. The Neanderthals (blue) and Denisovan (red) are clearly not on the female line of descent from mtDNA Eve, as these people had split from our line long before mtDNA Eve lived. Despite this, people today are known to have inherited genes from both through interbreeding long after mtDNA Eve's time.

I posted this in another forum in an Adam and Eve thread similarly abusing science, and it rather fizzled out.

.

J C

cavedave wrote: »

Evolutionists are not saying here that there ere only 2 humans at any time. The figures given mean that of all the men alive 90,000 years ago only one has living ancestors now. And the same for women 140,000 years ago. there were other humans then just not ones who have ancestors in the present day.

... the point is that even Evolutionists agree that all of the genetic diversity in Humanity was originally within the genome of one man and one woman ... and we are all descended from them!

cavedave

J C
... the point is that even Evolutionists agree that all of the genetic diversity in Humanity was originally within the genome of one man and one woman ... and we are all descended from them!

I am not quite sure that is true. The Y chromosome I have now is different from that of our last common male ancestor 60-90 thousand years ago. Due to mutation over that time. So the diversity (difference) in my y chromosome from yours is not from within that mans genome as there is no diversity in one y chromosome. The diversity is from within all the mutations that happened since then within my ancestors and your ancestors.

J C

darjeeling wrote: »

True. One would think that creationists would drop this obvious distortion of the science, now that we've even sequenced mtDNA from women who did not trace their female line of ancestry to mtDNA Eve: the Denisovans and the Neanderthals.

Here's the family tree:


Mitochondrial Eve is the matrilineal ancestor of all the people shaded in grey - all humans alive today. The Neanderthals (blue) and Denisovan (red) are clearly not on the female line of descent from mtDNA Eve, as these people had split from our line long before mtDNA Eve lived. Despite this, people today are known to have inherited genes from both through interbreeding long after mtDNA Eve's time.

I posted this in another forum in an Adam and Eve thread similarly abusing science, and it rather fizzled out.

.

Grasping at straws ... are you???
... or rather a portion of a finger bone and a tooth ...
... which, although it is all we have of the 'Denisovans' ... clearly shows them to be fully Human ... with 4-6% of the DNA possessed by people today in New Guinea springing from this vanished family of humans!!!

Here is what AIG has to say about this discovery ...

"Genetic data gathered from a tooth and a portion of a pinky bone found in a Siberia's Denisova cave have confirmed the existence of a “new” group of humans related to Neanderthals and “modern” humans (though their genes are more similar to Neanderthals’). They have not been given an official scientific name, but have instead been nicknamed the “Denisovans.”

But the most interesting twist (from the evolutionary perspective) is that modern humans from New Guinea have Denisovan DNA. While an evolutionary perspective interprets this as meaning that Guineans’ ancestors “interbred” with Denisovans, a biblical perspective interprets this as simply meaning that the descendants of one of the people groups leaving Babel eventually settled in what is now New Guinea.

Rather than thinking of Denisovans—or even of Neanderthals—as a separate group of “less-than-humans,” we should merely think of them as a collection of our ancestors with certain genes that did not get passed on to us today as successfully as the genes from our other ancestors. This may have been because those humans grew more isolated from other humans and, as a result, their genetic diversity and fitness declined. But they were both just as (or even more intelligent than) modern humans. (As an aside, scientists recently learned that Neanderthals cooked and ate vegetables—but creationists shouldn’t be surprised.)

Writing for BBC News, Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum, emphasizes that both Denisovans and Neanderthals belonged to our species, Homo sapiens. (Indeed, given the original definition of species as referring to organisms that could interbreed successfully, treating them as separate species doesn’t make sense. However, that definition is no longer observed by some Evolutionists.) Dr Finlayson writes:

Put together, this evidence shows us that humans formed an interwoven network of populations with varying degrees of gene flow between them. Some humans may have looked quite different from each other, revealing a combination of adaptation to local environments and genetic drift, but it does seem as though those differences were not large enough to prevent genetic interchange.

The Bible presents all humans as descendants of Adam and Eve, and distinguishes us from other animals as having been made in the image of God. After the Tower of Babel, mankind parted ways, and that parting set off a chain of genetic adaptation as humans spread across the globe, giving us the people groups we have today while others died out. But we all remain one race, and looking back in time, that includes both Neanderthals and, now, Denisovans.;)

J C

cavedave wrote: »

Evolutionists are not saying here that there ere only 2 humans at any time. The figures given mean that of all the men alive 90,000 years ago only one has living ancestors now. And the same for women 140,000 years ago. there were other humans then just not ones who have ancestors in the present day.

The differential in time is accounted for by Noah being the common male ancestor of all men ... and Eve being the common female ancestor of all Humans.
The evolutionist dates are 'out' by a factor of approximately 20 in each case i.e. Eve lived about 7,000 years ago ... and Noah lived about 4,500 years ago!!!:)
... so it was actually Y-Chromosome Noah ... and Mitochondrial Eve.

... but Adam was the original common ancestor ... and the original Y-chromosome progenitor.

gosplan

J C wrote: »

and Noah lived about 4,500 years ago

When I found this out I decided to stop discussing things with creationists.

When someone can believe that we're all descended from 8 people who survived a major cataclysim 4.5K years ago when thriving civilisations were wiped out, thee's really no point in trying to change their mind or prove them wrong on anything else.

Tis a shame J.C. If someone with your intelligence and tenacity devoted themselves to a better cause - Christ, you'd blow Bono out of the water and probably have the third world debt forgiven a few times over by now.

Anyway, enjoy the fight.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The differential in time is accounted for by Noah being the common male ancestor of all men ... and Eve being the common female ancestor of all Humans.
The evolutionist dates are 'out' by a factor of approximately 20 in each case i.e. Eve lived about 7,000 years ago ... and Noah lived about 4,500 years ago!!!:)
... so it was actually Y-Chromosome Noah ... and Mitochondrial Eve.

... but Adam was the original common ancestor ... and the original Y-chromosome progenitor.

In other history; according to this 'new' time-line, when did the ancient Egyptians live?

darjeeling

J C wrote: »

[some irrelevant stuff]

JC, I've said before that I don't reply to your posts, and I won't respond to this one.

liamw

gosplan wrote: »

Tis a shame J.C. If someone with your intelligence...

Who?

cavedave

J C

The evolutionist dates are 'out' by a factor of approximately 20 in each case i.e. Eve lived about 7,000 years ago ... and Noah lived about 4,500 years ago!!!

what evidence do you have of this? Mutation rate analysis may not be massively accurate but why do you think it is out by a factor of 20?

The figures for y chromosomes of Genghis Khan (or one of his men) seem pretty accurate

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical.

If y chromosome mutation was 20 times what is believed there would have to have been someone doing an enormous amount of travelling and shagging not 700 years ago like the historical record says Khan did but 35 years ago.

Wait a minute! my dad went backpacking around central Asia about then. :eek:

What other evidence other than genetic mutation rate can be used to find the mitocondrial eve and genetic Noah (i wont say Adam as he was just a king of Jerusulum much later ad not the original man*). How about language difference? Languages change over time so if we had a common language 4.5K years ago or even shared enough words for noah and his descendants to get jiggy with everyone else would that be obvious in our vocab?


*Off topic but did anyone see Bible's Buried Secrets with Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou on bbc? I thought her explanation of Adam in particular was really interesting. One of the main things in it is debating the bible in English is probably not very wise because you end up debating about mistranslations.

J C

cavedave wrote: »

what evidence do you have of this? Mutation rate analysis may not be massively accurate but why do you think it is out by a factor of 20?

The figures for y chromosomes of Genghis Khan (or one of his men) seem pretty accurate


If y chromosome mutation was 20 times what is believed there would have to have been someone doing an enormous amount of travelling and shagging not 700 years ago like the historical record says Khan did but 35 years ago.

Wait a minute! my dad went backpacking around central Asia about then. :eek:

... but mutation rate wasn't used in this study ... here is how article explains what was done:-
"The Y-chromosome is passed on as a chunk of DNA from father to son, basically unchanged through generations except for random mutations.

These random mutations, which happen naturally and are usually harmless, are called markers. Once the markers have been identified, geneticists can go back in time and trace them to the point at which they first occurred, defining a unique lineage of descent.

In this particular instance, the lineage originated 1,000 years ago. The authors aren't saying that the genetic mutations defining the lineage originated with Khan, who was born around 1162; they are more likely to have been passed on to him by a great great grandfather."

... or even by a great, great, ... as many as you are having yourself ... grandfather!!!:)

This study didn't definitively identify Genghis Khan as the common ancestor of these people ... it identified that they share a common ancestor with Genghis Khan.

The markers can definitively determine a population with a common ancestor ... but they can't definitively determine when that ancestor lived.
Assumptions can be made about the mutation rate ... but such assumptions may be 'wide of the mark' if different mutation rates occurred during different time periods or in different geographic locations.

cavedave wrote: »

What other evidence other than genetic mutation rate can be used to find the mitocondrial eve and genetic Noah (i wont say Adam as he was just a king of Jerusulum much later ad not the original man*). How about language difference? Languages change over time so if we had a common language 4.5K years ago or even shared enough words for noah and his descendants to get jiggy with everyone else would that be obvious in our vocab?

It is the common marker sequences that indicate a common ancestor ... the assumed rate of mutation then determines the length of time that is thought to have elapsed ... but if the assumed rate is wrong than the timeline will be wrong.

cavedave wrote: »

*Off topic but did anyone see Bible's Buried Secrets with Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou on bbc? I thought her explanation of Adam in particular was really interesting. One of the main things in it is debating the bible in English is probably not very wise because you end up debating about mistranslations.

I didn't see it ... what did she say??

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
and Noah lived about 4,500 years ago

gosplan
When I found this out I decided to stop discussing things with creationists.

... why do you have such a problem with this fact?

... and what exactly is your problem ... is it the existence of Noah ... or when he was alive?

wrote:

When someone can believe that we're all descended from 8 people who survived a major cataclysim 4.5K years ago when thriving civilisations were wiped out, thee's really no point in trying to change their mind or prove them wrong on anything else.

If you doubt the cataclysim ... just look at the worldwide presence of billions of dead things in sedimentary rocks which were laid down by water all over the Earth.

... and if you doubt that Noah existed ... consider the fact that all men are descended from one common male ancestor ... and a genetic bottleneck occurred due to the near extinction of the Human race!!!

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

In other history; according to this 'new' time-line, when did the ancient Egyptians live?

The pyramids may have been built by ante-diluvians ... and they were subsequently commandeered and 'renovated' by what we now call the (post-diluvian) 'ancient Egyptians'.

Some massive ante-diluvian stone structures were so large that they may have survived the other flood processes, once local tectonic movements didn't destroy them.

cavedave

J C

... but mutation rate wasn't used in this study

From the explanation you quote mutation rate was used in that study

... or even the great, great, ... as many as you are having yourself ... grandfather!!!

We have no way of knowing if it was Khan himselfs original y chromosome. More likely it was some relative before him so that when Khan divided various kingdoms amongst his cousins the y chromosome they all shared became popular. So its Khans immediate ancestor who gave khan and khans cousins their traceable y chromosome. If the markers from mutation rates go back further then geneticists imagine it is hard to argue that they go back 20 less far as well.

It is the common marker sequences that indicate a common ancestor ... the assumed rate of mutation then determines the length of time that is thought to have elapsed ... but if the assumed rate is wrong than the timeline will be wrong.

But your presumption that the mutation rate is wrong by a factor of 20 would imply my dad sired millions of children on his back packing holiday in 1976. Hes an attractive man, striking rather then handsome but hes not able to do that.

I didn't see it ... what did she say??

It is a really good series the Bible's Buried Secrets. In the Adam and Eve episode here on youtube. It is about written history rather than genetics though. Tell you what if you watch it and think its interesting we start a seperate thread?

gosplan

J C wrote: »

... why do you have such a problem with this fact?

... and what exactly is your problem ... is it the existence of Noah ... or when he was alive?


If you doubt the cataclysim ... just look at the worldwide presence of billions of dead things in sedimentary rocks which were laid down by water all over the Earth.

... and if you doubt that Noah existed ... consider the fact that all men are descended from one common male ancestor ... and a genetic bottleneck occurred due to the near extinction of the Human race!!!

gosplan wrote:

I decided to stop discussing things with creationists.

DorianGrayism

J C wrote: »

...
If you doubt the cataclysim ... just look at the worldwide presence of billions of dead things in sedimentary rocks which were laid down by water all over the Earth.

... and if you doubt that Noah existed ... consider the fact that all men are descended from one common male ancestor ... and a genetic bottleneck occurred due to the near extinction of the Human race!!!

But all the sedimentary rocks were not laid down at one time.

The population bottleneck that you are talking about didn't occur 4500 years ago. Neither does the existance of a Y Chromosome Adam suggest that he was the only male. It only suggests that he is the only one that has produced an unbroken male line.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The pyramids may have been built by ante-diluvians ... and they were subsequently commandeered and 'renovated' by what we now call the (post-diluvian) 'ancient Egyptians'.

Some massive ante-diluvian stone structures were so large that they may have survived the other flood processes, once local tectonic movements didn't destroy them.

The reasons I ask are a) Since the pyramids are not water-proof, shouldn't there be immense water-damage to the contents of the pyramids? and b) A large labour-force is required to build a pyramid; where did the work-force that built the first post-diluvian pyramids come from?

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

The reasons I ask are a) Since the pyramids are not water-proof, shouldn't there be immense water-damage to the contents of the pyramids? and b) A large labour-force is required to build a pyramid; where did the work-force that built the first post-diluvian pyramids come from?

a) The outer surface of the pyramids and the Sphynx shows water damage. The internal paintings were done after the Flood when the pyramids were commandeered by the 'powers that be' at that time.



http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/sphinx.html

b) The population of the World was probably over a thousand million by the time of the Flood.

Delirium

that sphinx was damaged by artillery fire in the 18th century and the rest can be accounted for by damage caused by sand and wind.

if you want to use the flood theory to account for the damage, then you'd have to consider that supporters of that idea put the flood at between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago.

which doesn't fit with the timeline you've been putting forward.

also I'd like to see how you account for a population go from 2 people to billions in a timeframe you've given. and why did the rapid growth of population stop?

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

The population of the World was likely to be over a thousand million by the time of the Flood.

And you're ok with this mass murder of civilians?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

a) The outer surface of the pyramids and the Sphynx shows water damage. The internal paintings were done after the Flood when the pyramids were commandeered by the 'powers that be' at that time.

How would Noah's descendants be able to reproduce the Egyptian language bearing in mind that unless Noah was Egyptian, all Egyptians were wiped out in the flood?

J C wrote:

b) The population of the World was likely to be over a thousand million by the time of the Flood.

In a period of 1500 years the population rose from two to over a billion? That's a lot of going forth and multiplying.

Anyway, 4500 years ago the Egyptian were the most advanced civilisation on earth (were the Hebrews originally Egyptian?) and then came the flood.

Then there were eight people, not Egyptian and not being in possession of the knowledge of the Egyptians. How long would it take for those eight people to repopulate the world such that pyramid building could resume in Egypt?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

And you're ok with this mass murder of civilians?

God giveth ... and God can taketh away.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

How would Noah's descendants be able to reproduce the Egyptian language bearing in mind that unless Noah was Egyptian, all Egyptians were wiped out in the flood?

The Egyptian language was produced at Babel ... after the Flood ... and along with all of the other languages of the World.

himnextdoor wrote: »

In a period of 1500 years the population rose from two to over a billion? That's a lot of going forth and multiplying.

... not really ...
If every person had only two children on average, then (using an average inter-generational length of 30 years), the world population could reach 1,000 million in less than 900 years:-

Years Population
30 2
60 4
90 8
120 16
150 32
180 64
210 128
240 256
270 512
300 1024
330 2048
360 4096
390 8192
420 16384
450 32768
480 65536
510 131072
540 262144
570 524288
600 1,048,576
630 2097152
660 4194304
690 8388608
720 16777216
750 33554432
780 67108864
810 134217728
840 268435456
870 536,870,912
900 1,073,741,824

PS ... it is likely that population growth was actually much more rapid earlier on as large families led to large populations quickly ... and growth would have slowed down as resources became limiting ... and disease / famine took their toll later on.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Anyway, 4500 years ago the Egyptian were the most advanced civilisation on earth (were the Hebrews originally Egyptian?) and then came the flood.

... the Ante-diluvians who originally built many of these enormous megalithic structures around the World weren't the peoples who took possession of these structures after the Flood.

... so the Pyramids probably weren't built by either the Hebrews or the Egyptians

himnextdoor wrote: »

Then there were eight people, not Egyptian and not being in possession of the knowledge of the Egyptians. How long would it take for those eight people to repopulate the world such that pyramid building could resume in Egypt?

Like I have said about population growth in the immediate aftermath of Creation, population growth would also have been most rapid in the immediate aftermath of the Babel Dispersal as resources wouldn't have been limiting ... and a Million people would be produced in just 300 years with an average of 4 children being produced per person and an inter-generational length of 30 years ... and even only producing two children person would produce a population of a million people in just 600 years.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

God giveth ... and God can taketh away.

So if God decreed that a fellow Christian must kill your family, you'd be ok with that.

Delirium

your figures for population growthm have no basis in the real world.

first of all, it doesn't allow for deaths reducing the overall population. Secondly, it presumes that every parent has 1 boy and 1 girl. you presume all children live long enough to reproduce.

you rate of population growth is 200%. populations actually take longer to double the less there are according any documents i've found.

for example, from 0.5 million to 1 million takes approximately 300 years, not 30 as you suggested. however, 1 million to 2 million takes 120 approximately, so 30 years is wrong here also.

the less people means that it is more unlikely for a doubling to occur due to infant mortality, death before raising a family, childless adults etc.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

So if God decreed that a fellow Christian must kill your family, you'd be ok with that.

NO ... because God wouldn't decree such a thing!!

... please remember that it was God and not another Human who caused the Flood.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

NO ... because God wouldn't decree such a thing!!

... please remember that it was God and not another Human who caused the Flood.

How do you know He wouldn't? He declared a global flood to wipe out millions of families. Surely, it is plausible he may declare another global flood and take a large proportion of your family and friends and maybe yourself. So what would you do if He decreed another flood? Does it feel just to you to kill millions of people, many of whom aren't even aware of the concept of your God. Surely at the time of the first global flood they were people just being born who had no awareness of their own existence let alone the possibility of God's.