Re: AIG pontificates on Eve

I love it when they cite "a more recent study" with no information about
this study whatsoever--who did it, based on what, tested by other studies,
peer-reviewed, etc., etc.? How convenient that his "study" came up with the
figure of 6,000 ya. And, no indication that the scientists use of the name
"Eve" does not have the same connotation as it does to the biblically
focused YECs. The tragedy is that we have here another brick in the wall
that YECs build between good science and their people-in-the-pew supporters.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: <burgytwo@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: AIG pontificates on Eve

> From AIG this week ...
>
> Q: Why would evolutionists be interested in Eve?
>
> A: Over recent years, scientists have conducted a lot of research on DNA
> that is found in the mitochondria of a cell. This DNA is only inherited
> through females. By comparing mutations (or mistakes) in the DNA of people
> worldwide, scientists came to a startling conclusion-it looks as if all
> people living today are descended from one woman . and scientists have
> called her Eve!
>
> Yet there's a remarkable new twist.
>
> Based upon mutation rates, scientists once claimed that this ancestral Eve
> lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. But a more recent study claims
> that the rate of mutations in man is actually twenty times higher than
> originally estimated. What does this mean? Using this new figure for
> mutation rates, the ancestral "mother of all," as they call her, lived a
> mere 6,000 years ago!
>
> Of course, the evolutionary scientists don't accept this new figure, but
> it's no surprise to creationists that this research supports the Bible's
> teaching that there was a first woman, Eve, created about 6,000 years ago.
>
> Burgy
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat May 27 19:07:18 2006