Reflectorites
Reflectorites
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:26:11 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Here is a New Scientist article, based on a SCIENCE report, which says
>>that molecular clocks, the rate of neutral mtDNA mutation, is possibly 100
>>times faster than previously thought.
>>
>>If this turns out to be really the case, it would bring any "Mitochondrial
>>Eve", the last common female genetic ancestor, which has been variously
>>dated from ~ 400-60 kya, into closer contact with Biblical time-frames.
HX>What about nuclear DNA mutation rates?
It was the New Scientist article (based on a SCIENCE journal report) that
I quoted so if Huxter has any questions about the use of mtDNA rather
than nuclear DNA his dispute is with those journals.
My understanding is that the molecular clock hypothesis is based on the
*neutral* mutation rate. Mitochondrial DNA is therefore used instead of
nuclear DNA because mtDNA is thought to be selectively neutral since it
does not code for any phenotypical features.
But if Huxter knows of any molecular clock studies based on "nuclear DNA
mutation rates", perhaps he can post it to the List?
HX>Do we just ignore that much larger amount of information
See above. It was the above scientific journals who Huxter is claiming is
"ignore that much larger amount of information". I just posted what New
Scientist said.
And anyway, what "larger amount of information" is that exactly?
HX>because if we put a certain spin on reality,
I am glad Huxter said "we"! Claims about putting a "spin on reality" cut
both ways.
HX>the YEWC framework looks peachy?
What is the "YEWC framework"?
If it is anything to do with YEC then Huxter is barking up the wrong tree
on two counts:
1. I am an *old*-Earth creationist; and
2. the issue is the antiquity of *man* not the antiquity of the Earth.
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:19:57 EDT FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...If this turns out to be really the case, it would bring any "Mitochondrial
>>Eve", the last common female genetic ancestor, which has been variously
>>dated from ~ 400-60 kya, into closer contact with Biblical time-frames.
>>
FJ>What are "Biblical time frames"? The young earth time frames? It's quite
>obvious that young earth time frames are scientifically not supportable.
Who said anything about "young earth time frames"? The latter are to do
with the age of the *Earth*. These "time frames" that I am talking about
are to do with the age of *humans*. It is possible to believe in an old age
of the Earth and a comparatively young age for humans (e.g. the "old-
Earth/young-Adam" position).
My suggestion further along that "Hugh Ross" (as well as "the ICR")
would "*love* these" should have alerted FJ/Pim to this (assuming he
knows who "Hugh Ross" is?).
The Bible does not say anything about the age of the Earth (unless one
takes the "days" of Genesis 1 to be literal, 24-hour days - which is IMHO
against the Biblical *textual* evidence, let alone the scientific geological
evidence).
But the Bible does say (or at least imply) that the origin of humans was
comparatively recent (i.e. of the order of ~100 kya or less), even allowing
for gaps in the genealogies and symbolic elements in Genesis 1-11.
FJ>Nor
>is the Mitochondrial Eve necessarily the Biblical Eve. Despite a confusion in
>names.
I am well aware that "the Mitochondrial Eve" is not "necessarily the"
*literal* "Biblical Eve". I don't necessarily believe there *was* a literal
"Biblical Eve". As I have posted before, I regard Genesis 1-11 as symbolic
history, i.e. real history expressed in symbolic form. There is good evidence
that the Apostles themselves understood Genesis 1-11 that way (e.g. Rev
12:9,15; 20:2; Rom 16:20).
Nevertheless if the last common mtDNA ancestor of all humans living
today turns out to be of the order of 40-6 kya, this would bring it within
the ballpark of the Biblical genealogies. Although I regard Genesis 1-11 as
symbolic, the symbols are based on an underlying historical reality. My
interest therefore is trying to flesh out some of that underlying historical
reality.
But if the "Biblical Eve" was symbolic for our last common female
ancestor, then in a sense "Mitochondrial Eve" would be the "Biblical Eve".
FJ>Nor does this affect the dating of the humanoid fossils.
It depends on what one means by "humanoid". The molecular clock
evidence has already had a major effect on the dating of "humanoid fossils"
since the chimpanzee-human common ancestral split:
"The molecular clock was put to effective use by Berkeley's Allan
Wilson and Vincent Sarich, and had an important impact upon
accepted notions of human descent. Anthropologists relying upon
fossil evidence had estimated that the ape and human lineages had
split at least 15 million years ago, but the molecular calculations
supported a period of between 5 and 10 million years. A date of
around 7 million years has come to be widely accepted, in large part
because of the influence of the molecular data.." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial," 1993, p.99)
If the last common genetic ancestor (as measured by mtDNA) is reduced
by an order of magnitude down to 40-6 kya, then any "humanoid fossil"
found before that date may not necessarily be in the ancestral line:
"More recently, Wilson and others have studied descent within the
human species by analyzing mitochondrial DNA, which is passed
only in the female line, from mother to daughter. Their conclusion
is that all contemporary humans are descendants of a woman who
lived in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Some anthropologists
do not accept this conclusion, however, in part because it implies
that all the Homo erectus fossils found outside of Africa that are
older than 200,000 years could not be in the line of descent leading
to modern humans." ." (Johnson, 1993, p.99)
>SJ>I have also attached another New Scientist article from the same issue,
>>which claims that the maximum human life-span might be much longer than the
>>current estimate of around 120 years.
>>
>>If this holds up, it could not be ruled out that the ages of the antediluvians
>>in Genesis 5 (e.g. "Methuselah lived 969 years" -Gn 5:27); were literally
>>true.
FJ>Again an unproven assertion.
It is not *even* an "assertion". I said: "If this holds up...". FJ/Pim needs to
pay more attention and keep his trigger finger off his "unproven assertion"
macro!
BTW why is FJ/Pim always looking for absolute *proof* of everything?
Hasn't he heard that science is supposed to be *tentative*?
FJ>That humans could live longer hardly means that
>this happened in the past.
FJ/Pim needs to read what his opponents actually say, not what he *wants*
them to say.
I said "...it could not be ruled out that the ages of the ... were literally true."
That is, it *could* have "happened in the past" but not that it definitely
*did*.
FJ>Why the insistence to merge the Bible and science?
See above. It is not an "insistence" either. I was merely proposing a
tentative hypothesis. It is interesting how FJ/Pim seems to see everything in
black and white terms? Or perhaps this is just a debating tactic of FJ/Pim to
try to portray his creationist opponents as dogmatic extremists?
But to answer FJ/Pim's question, it is my basic *assumption* that "the
Bible and science" are both ultimately true, and would be seen to
complement each other when all the facts are known and interpreted
correctly. Here is what I say re this on my web page:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimn1.html#twobooks
The "book" of nature and the book of Scripture ... I took as my bedrock
position Ramm's basic assumption that the "book" of nature and the book
of Scripture had the one Author and therefore, when all the facts were
known and our layers of mistaken interpretations were cleared away, they
must ultimately be in agreement 3
3 "If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and that
the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are committed to
some very positive theory of harmonization between science and
evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech
in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and Scripture are the same God, then
the two books of God must eventually recite the same story." (Ramm B.L.,
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1955] Paternoster: Exeter,
Devon, 1967, reprint, p.25)"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>I would imagine that Hugh Ross and the ICR will *love* these!
>>
>>Whatever happens, this shows that scientific `fact', especially in the
>>field of human origins, is only as good as the next discovery.
FJ>Huh?
If FJ/Pim disagrees with the above then it seems that he believes that
present "scientific fact" (at least "in the field of human origins") is
*immune* from the effects of any future "discovery"? Otherwise what was
his point?
>SJ>This may mean that estimates of the divergence between chimpanzees and
>>humans, and the emergence of modern man, happened much more
>>recently than currently believed, say the team.
FJ>On time frames supportable by Biblical time frames as Stephen suggested?
It is not clear (to me at least) what FJ/Pim is getting at here.
FJ>It also shows that the time frame of 5 billion years for evolution becomes
>longer and longer...
Nor here. I fail to see what "the emergence of modern man" happening
"much more recently than currently believed" has got to do with "the time
frame of 5 billion years for evolution" let alone that "evolution becomes
longer and longer".
>SJ>Age old
>>The maximum human life span is increasing, a fact which may cast doubt
>>on the idea of a maximum possible age
FJ>Ah, as I thought, it's increasing. Hardly evidence that this would make
>longer life spans in the past possible.
Disagree. If the argument has been that "longer life spans in the past" (e.g.
of the Biblical antediluvians) were not "possible" because it was thought
that " the human life span is set at around 120 years" removal of that
objection leaves the original claim as "possible" unless some other
argument is found.
FJ>Certainly no evidence that 900 year life spans are within our reach.
As the quote from the article says this "... may cast doubt on the idea of a
maximum possible age".
But even if humans cannot in future "attain ...900 year life spans" it does
not follow that they could not have done so in the past, especially if the
limiting factor today is the accumulated burden of degenerative genetic
mutations over the last tens of millennia.
FJ>False alarm it seems.
Why does FJ/Pim perceive it as an "alarm"?
[...]
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 14:27:40 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>SJ>Whatever happens, this shows that scientific `fact', especially in the
>>field of human origins, is only as good as the next discovery.
SB>Science changes as new information comes in.
Susan should tell that to FJ/Pim!
SB>That always seems to disgust religionists.
Not really. But it "seems to disgust" some evolutionists who think that
science is a source of absolute truth.
SB>Religionists prefer knowledge that doesn't ever change. Not a
>single sentence of the Bible may be added, edited or deleted to reflect
>what is now known about the world, that wasn't known 2800 years ago.
It seems that Susan has never heard of Westcott and Hort and the science
of Biblical Textual Criticism?
It might help if Susan and her ilk actually found out what Christians
as a whole do *really* believe.
SB>You are so delighted by this new information. Does that mean you *really
>are* a young-earth creationist after all?
No. See above. It is not only YECs who wish to explain and defend the truth
of Genesis 1-11. OECs are too - as even a passing aquaintance with Hugh Ross'
writings (for example) would make Susan aware. Susan seems to be the prisoner
of her own `all creationists are red-necked YEC Bible-thumpers' stereotype!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 09 2000 - 19:36:21 EDT