Glenn Morton wrote in part:
>
>
> First, it will slow down the rate of mutation, meaning that fewer
> nucleotides will have changed per million years. This will have the effect
> of moving Eve further back in time; how far depending upon how slow it
> becomes. Since the earliest anatomically modern fossils are around 110-120
> kyr and current molecular data places the earliest hominids about 150 kyr,
> there is a good fit. But if the molecular data then points to an even
> earlier time, then the mitochondrial Eve will no longer be able to be called
> an anatomically modern human. She will be an archaic Homo sapien. At least
> one geneticist is already claiming that the chimp human split was between
> 10.5 to 13.5 million years ago (see New Fossils Raise Molecular Questions,
> Science Feb 15, 2002, p. 1217). If this guy is correct, this would double
> the time and halve the rate of evolution. In this case mitochondrial Eve
> would be dated at 300 kyr, and the oldest coalescence date for nuclear genes
> would indicate that part of our genetic heritage has been evolving for 4
> million years. Apologists like Hugh Ross, would definitely be affected by a
> change in the mutation rate.
Glenn,
You say here that a fossil discovery "will slow down the rate of mutation".
Amazing! Will it also alter the rate radioactive decay and other physical
phenomena that have nothing to do with archaeology?
I must admit to being totally mystified by comments like this from you --- and
they are not infrequent. For some points you insist that you are dealing with a
rigid set of scientific rules -- -- that are used to date fossils -- and not
the other way around.. Then things like the "mutation rate" become a variable
--- and all the past dating is tossed into the air. Yet you suggest that
everyone who does not agree with all this is not scientifically oriented.
Frankly all the changes of dates and methods that you keep throwing around make
me have serious doubts about the scientific rigor practised in your field. You
seem to a mental rule that: if the dating makes things happen earlier in time
-- so as to fit your theory --- then it must be correct. Why should any
technically oriented person believe (even tentatively) these theories if they
keep changing from month to month?
Bewildered,
Walt
>
>
> glenn
>
> see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
> for lots of creation/evolution information
> anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
> personal stories of struggle
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 03 2002 - 00:07:55 EDT