Distortiions due to evoltionists assumsions?

Vance · #11 28th August 2003, 10:45 PM

Here is one theory, although I have not done the research to determine whether this could be accurate. I put it up so that others can look into at the same time that I am. I will also be looking at other resources as well, of course.

"The oldest of the antediluvians listed in Genesis 5 was Methuselah who has become the epitome of longevity because he was reported to have lived 969 years. Noah was given an equally incredible age of 950 in Genesis 9:29. There are three serious problems with the Genesis numbers: men do not live to be nine hundred years, men do not father children when they are over a century old, and why did they wait so long to have children? All three of these problems disappear if we make two simple assumptions: the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of Genesis) has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place in modern notation. The original Genesis numbers were not written in decimal notation. Instead the numbers were recorded in an archaic, pre-cuneiform, sign-value, Sumerian number system, similar in some ways to Roman numerals.

The fantastic stories about these men living over nine hundred years and not getting around to fathering their children until they had lived a century or two, are the result of an ancient mistranslation of the original numbers. Except for Noah, each young man fathered his first son during his late teens or early twenties, just as young men do today, and they lived into their seventies or early eighties. Noah lived to be 83 years old and Methuselah lived to be 85. "

sfs · #12 31st August 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by troodon

As lucaspa said, mtDNA shows they weren't human.

It's a little more complicated than that. The mtDNA evidence shows that modern humans have not inherited any Neanderthal mtDNA. That makes it unlikely that there was extensive interbreeding between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that interbreeding was possible, or that some did occur.

sfs · #13 31st August 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by pudmuddle

I never have gotten a clear answer from theistic evolutionists on that one. Why would the Bible say men lived to be 300-900 years old, if they didn't? Nothing allegoical about it, it is simply stated as fact.

I assume the author(s) of Genesis picked it up from earlier Mesopotamian legends, which attribute great ages to their early ancestors. Much of the early chapters of Genesis has roots in Mesopotamian stories of various kinds.

sfs · #14 31st August 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Also, extensive analysis of genomic sequences reveals no sequence that goes back over 150,000 years. If neandertals were H. sapiens the genes would go back the 300,000 years that represents the beginnings of neandertals.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There certainly are loci in the human genome where the most recent common ancestor (of current chromosomes) lived more than 300,000 years ago. In fact, most of the genome fall into this category.

lucaspa · #15 1st September 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by sfs

It's a little more complicated than that. The mtDNA evidence shows that modern humans have not inherited any Neanderthal mtDNA. That makes it unlikely that there was extensive interbreeding between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that interbreeding was possible, or that some did occur.

That's not all the data. Sequences have a mean and standard deviation of divergence. We have enough sequences from 3 individuals to show that the mtDNA sequences are different between neandertals and sapiens by 5%. This is 3 standard deviations beyond the means WITHIN each species. For us to be the same species, you need overlap in the bell-shaped curves, and you don't have that.

Now, sapiens and neandertals lived on Mt. Shkul for 60,000 years. I all that time you don't have neandertal Romeos and sapiens Juliets (or the reverse) that made hybrid babies that, in turn, made more babies and thus passed on the hybrid traits to most of the population? We have quite a few sapiens and neandertal fossils from Shkul, and NONE of them show ANY signs of hybridization.

Finally, as you move from the past to the present, the neandertal features become more neandertal. Now, if we were the same species, and since sapiens and neandertals were in close contact in Europe for 10,000 years and in the Mid-East for 60,000 years, if we were the same species you would expect neandertals to look less neandertals as interbreeding took place.

Now, the long-lived people mentioned in the Bible bred with each other to produce descendents that are present in the population of Biblical times (and thus descendents now). Now, since you admit that there are no neandertal genes in modern sapiens populations, this means that the hypothesis that neandertals are those long-lived Biblical people has to be false.

lucaspa · #16 1st September 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by pudmuddle

Depends what you mean by transitionals. The ages to which men lived after the flood slowly lessened, thus the changes in face stucture and DNA?

Does that really work? Do the bone structure of the face and DNA of a 20 year old sapiens differ from a 90 year old sapiens? NO!

I never have gotten a clear answer from theistic evolutionists on that one. Why would the Bible say men lived to be 300-900 years old, if they didn't? Nothing allegoical about it, it is simply stated as fact.

Because all the peoples of the time looked back to a "golden age" when men were mightier and lived longer. Look at the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek stories. They all have an earlier age when people lived much longer.

Now, this might reflect a vague oral memory of when they were hunter-gatherers. Agriculture allows you to feed more people on the same acreage, but it decreases the lifespan. The diet is not as varied and therefore tends to lack vitamins, there is more contact with domesticated animals and thus disease, the labor is harder, etc. All this decreases lifespan. So the stories could easily represent an oral tradition from the past when people did regularly live into their 60s as opposed to living to 35.

lucaspa's article only reinforces how much supposition and downright guess work goes into their conclusions about neandrathals and ancient humans. And Cuazzo's explanations make as much sense as any.

Care to elaborate on that? Please, be specific.

Again, Cuozzo's explanations have been supplanted by later data. The mtDNA data are clear that neandertals were NOT the same species as sapiens. Therefore there is another explanation for Cuozzo's "data".

BTW, Cuozzo misplaced the TMJ (how a dentist could do that is a mystery). The original construction is correct. Remember, Pudmuddle, I had to learn some gross anatomy in order to teach it to medical students.

pudmuddle · #17 3rd September 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Does that really work? Do the bone structure of the face and DNA of a 20 year old sapiens differ from a 90 year old sapiens? NO! .

Quotes from Cuozzo's book:
"What would happen to our head and face if we lived past 100 years as people in ancient Bible times did. We must never assume a similar rate of change in the past as in the present-that would be uniform thinking-but we can look for overall trends and make tentative predictions while "rates" will always remain in doubt.
Bishara, Treder, and Jacobsen recently wrote in the American Journal of Orthodontics that after the normal growth period for modern man is finished (18 to 25 years) growth still continues in the face and head. They measured the same 15 men and 15 women with precision cephalometric (measurable) x-rays over a time frame of 21 years.
They started out with 175 children enrolled in the study at the University of Iowa in 1946. Measurments were taken semi-annually until age 12, annually during adolescence, once during early adulthood (25 years) and once at mid-adulthood (46 years). They ended up with only 30 adults out of those original children at the age of 46, who had been measured at age 25--15 males and 15 females. The comparisons were then made between the face and head of each person when he or she was 25 and when he or she was 46. The male measurements were calculated to age 25. This is called a longitudinal study. This proved to be very significant indeed.
They stated in their discussion, "Overall, the present findings suggest that age-related changes in the craniofacial complex do not cease with the onset of adulthood, but continue albeit at a significantly slower rate, throughout adult life. With a few important exceptions, these changed tend to be of small magnitude, so that their clinical relevance is somewhat limited, and generally would not significantly influence orthodonic treatment planning. " Therefore while playing down its importance in the plan of treatment for a patient with braces, they affirmed a real growth trend in the adult years"

He goes on to cite an number of studies

"Pfitzner, in Germany, in 1899 examined 3,400 male and female cadavers and found that their heads and faces grew into middle age, 35-45.

To summerize, these studys show little increase in height of the skull, but " Therefore, if can be concluded that with the exception of the females of one isolated indian tribe in the United States, all other groups of peoples studied by the aforementioned anthropologists showed the following: a skull whose proportions changed as it aged with lengths gaining the most, the widths next, and the heights the least"

On the face, out of several studys listed;
"Using 10,000 Irish men..Hooten and Dupertuis in 1951 expressed surprise when they found continued facial growth into the sixth decade"
Another study included 120 skulls of ancient indians from Indian Knoll, Kentucky-finding that the cranial length increased from the younger to the older group among males while the cranial height did not increase.

To conclude:
"Should we make this more personal? Observe a picture of yourself at a younger age if you are an older person. Observe pictures of your parents and grandparents when they were younger and older. The changes you notice are not just soft tissue changes, they are genuine bone changes. If you are over 50 try on a hat that fit you at 20. My Navy officer's cap sits on top my head now and I have less hair then I did when I was 25.
When are the Bible-believing people going to wake up and put two and two together? If there were genuinely old people who lived in the past, don't you suppose they would have undergone the same changes in the face and head that the aforementioned studies have described? If so, where are the remains of these people? Do you think the museums would ever consider this type of reasoning? The answer to the latter question is no, since the museums and secular universities are dominated by evolutionists who do not believe that the Bible has anything valuable to say in the area of science or history."

Originally Posted by lucaspa

Because all the peoples of the time looked back to a "golden age" when men were mightier and lived longer. Look at the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek stories. They all have an earlier age when people lived much longer.

Now, this might reflect a vague oral memory of when they were hunter-gatherers. Agriculture allows you to feed more people on the same acreage, but it decreases the lifespan. The diet is not as varied and therefore tends to lack vitamins, there is more contact with domesticated animals and thus disease, the labor is harder, etc. All this decreases lifespan. So the stories could easily represent an oral tradition from the past when people did regularly live into their 60s as opposed to living to 35.

Care to elaborate on that? Please, be specific.

Again, Cuozzo's explanations have been supplanted by later data. The mtDNA data are clear that neandertals were NOT the same species as sapiens. Therefore there is another explanation for Cuozzo's "data".

"The mtDNA is different in Neanderthals and the reason is very simple. We are devolved humans and they [the Neanderthals] were less devolved than us. Paul's letter (Romans 8).

Also as one ages today his or her mtDna also changes considerably. The older persons in Genesis (300+) would most likely have mtDNA which is different than the younger people. Also new information tells us than mtDNA mutates much faster than previously known rates. Also, the Lake Mungo 3 (Australia)individual,an anatomically modern human, supposedly from 60,000 yrs. ago has different mtDNA than moderns today. "

Originally Posted by lucaspa

BTW, Cuozzo misplaced the TMJ (how a dentist could do that is a mystery). The original construction is correct. Remember, Pudmuddle, I had to learn some gross anatomy in order to teach it to medical
students.

Not sure which skull you are talking about, but the pic I saw was totally out of joint.
The only skulls I handle are animal skulls and even I can tell when a jaw bone is out of joint.

BTW, I don't claim all of Cuozzo's conclusions are correct, but I think people need to know that there are other conclusions that can be drawn then the common ones, that are just as valid.
Sorry for the long post, and any miss-spellings are mine.

pudmuddle · #18 3rd September 2003, 09:54 PM

Just a side-note that goes back to my trusting science post: Even people who have been able to observe native customs and art in process often got the details wrong. Those of us who are reviving some of these lost arts can verify that. Now, how much more room for error is there, when we are working with what can not be directly observed? There are cases when an entire neandrathal profile is based on no more than one bone.
Plus the fact that no one scientist can put all the peices of the puzzle together in a lifetime, so they are working out of each other's data, creating more room for error and assumption. Let's face it, no one has all the answers, or even a fraction of the peices they need to chart ever twist and turn of ancient history. Which is why it is a little amusing when you read things like, 10 million years ago, the such and such.....

lucaspa · #19 3rd September 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by pudmuddle

Quotes from Cuozzo's book:
"Bishara, Treder, and Jacobsen recently wrote in the American Journal of Orthodontics that after the normal growth period for modern man is finished (18 to 25 years) growth still continues in the face and head. They measured the same 15 men and 15 women with precision cephalometric (measurable) x-rays over a time frame of 21 years.
They started out with 175 children enrolled in the study at the University of Iowa in 1946. Measurments were taken semi-annually until age 12, annually during adolescence, once during early adulthood (25 years) and once at mid-adulthood (46 years). They ended up with only 30 adults out of those original children at the age of 46, who had been measured at age 25--15 males and 15 females.

I'm sorry, Pudmuddle, but this is a methodologically invalid study. To have less than 20% of the original sample in the final measurement is not acceptable. Any statistician will tell you that the study is biased. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery will not take any study with a dropout rate greater than 15%, and this one is over 80%.

[quopte] He goes on to cite an number of studies [/quote]
And none of these studies give us means and standard deviations for any of the parameters tested. What's more, I don't see the words "statistically significantly different" in any of the quotes used. We get indications of "growth" but never how much and whether it is of the same magnitude as Cuozzo is claiming for the neandertals.

Now, since Cuozzo apparently has the complete papers, why don't you e-mail him and ask him to put the actual data on his website? Then we can see if the conclusions actually match the data.

The changes you notice are not just soft tissue changes, they are genuine bone changes. If you are over 50 try on a hat that fit you at 20.

Did that. My boy scout hat I wore at Philmont. Fits just fine.

If there were genuinely old people who lived in the past, don't you suppose they would have undergone the same changes in the face and head that the aforementioned studies have described? If so, where are the remains of these people? Do you think the museums would ever consider this type of reasoning?

The remains of those people must be in the fossil samples we have now. After all, there is no reason to suppose there is a sampling bias toward younger people, unless people really didn't live to an old age. So why isn't Cuozzo doing the same measurements done in the papers he cites on the skulls of neandertals and archaic H. sapiens in the various museums?

"The mtDNA is different in Neanderthals and the reason is very simple. We are devolved humans and they [the Neanderthals] were less devolved than us. Paul's letter (Romans 8).

That won't work because the sequences don't show "devolution". Also, as you noted, we have the mtDNA from 60,000 year old Mungo Man and it is as different from the neandertal mtDNA as is modern human mtDNA. If we are "devolved" but Mungo lived when neandertal did, should have been the same species as neandertal by your claim, and thus wouldn't be "devolved".

Now, altho Mungo is anatomically human, it doesn't mean he is H. sapiens. Changes in the bone are the last changes. As creationists point out in other contexts, there are several modern species who have identical skeletons but very different soft tissue and are different species. Mungo could easily have been a different species that was replaced when H. sapiens got to Australia.

Also as one ages today his or her mtDna also changes considerably.

Data to back the assertion? I haven't seen it. Not in these sequences, which were chosen because they do not change rapidly.

BTW, I don't claim all of Cuozzo's conclusions are correct, but I think people need to know that there are other conclusions that can be drawn then the common ones, that are just as valid.

if the conclusions are not correct, then they are not valid.

lucaspa · #20 3rd September 2003, 11:18 PM

Pudmuddle, I have been looking at the Cuozzo site you posted in the OP. At the end I get this very interesting reference list:
" 1. Weidenreich, F.,1949. Trends of Human Evolution, Viking Fund Memorial Volume, Washburn and Wolffson, New York, p. 9. 2. Weiss, M. L. and Mann, A. E., 1985. Human Biology and Behavior, An Anthropological Perspective, 4th Edition, Little Brown and Company, p. 313. 3. Patte, E., 1958. L'Enfant de Pech de I'Aze, Neanderthal Centenary, Wenner-Gren Foundation, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 27()-276. 4. Ivanhoe, F., 1970. Was Virchow right about Neanderthal? Nature, 227:577-579. (more references will be added) "

Now, in the text, the reference numbers go up to 31. But only 4 are listed.

Now, this is a reprinted 1994 Creatio ex nihilo Technical Journal article. Now, it appears that the references were missing from the original article. Since most of Cuozzo's claims about the bias of evolutionists are based from quotes from articles, in order to evaluate the claims we need the references. Why did he withold them?

This makes his last sentence VERY ironic "So much for openness!"