Evidence that Eve lived 6000 years ago

[Micaiah]

OK, a good example of TE and atheist prejudice.

 

[Tomk80]

And then somehow you completely ignore the observation of this cherrypicking in this very thread. Why do you only respond to half of the post? And why do you not consider that maybe, just maybe, these people have this 'prejudice' because they have observed it so often in whole C&E-discussion?

 

[Micaiah]

Okay fellow cherry pickers and nit pickers, lets get back to the task at hand. How many nucleotides are there in the human mtDNA.

 

[Tomk80]

Am only able to access the abstract of the Nature articles. Until we are able to view the context of those numbers, I cannot be sure you are not cherry picking?

The articles summarize the conclusions of the papers. No cherry picking by Notto involved, at most cherrypicking of the authors. Notto's objection was that the authors of the AIG articles only picked out some parts of the abstract, in stead of using the complete abstracts.

 

[Micaiah]

Have you read the abstract of the latest paper?

 

[Tomk80]

Have you read the abstract of the latest paper?

I noticed that you suddenly changed your whole argument from 'mitochondrial even existed 6000 years before' to 'all studies on mitochondrial eve are unreliable'. Before we go on, have you noticed the change in argument you yourself made?

 

[Tomk80]

By the way, it's only a full article, there is no abstract. It's also available free.

Having read the complete article, I disagree that it tells us that the conclusion of one mitochondrial Eve is false. The article outlines the problems of accurate DNA-analysis and ways to remedy this, but does not give us any insight in the problem regarding the accuracy of the primary articles regarding the african origin studies. Note that the articles he sites about this are from 1987 and 1991, while the latest article cited by Notto is from 2001.

Notice that two of the articles cited as containing obvious errors (Hagelberg, (1999), Eyre-Walker (1999)) are actually positing that the conclusion of Mitochdrial Eve is hampered by recombination of MtDNA, and that the two articles correcting the errors in the article (Kivisild & Villems (2000) and Macaulay et al. (1999)) actually conclude that this is not a problem for the studies on mitochondrial Eve. So these two articles actually oppose the conclusion in the article you referenced. They tell us that an article that was problematic for the mitochondrial Eve model contained errors, and that the conclusion of a mitochondrial Eve is actually strong when the errors are removed. If anything, the apologeticspress article you gave indicates poor reading comprehension and poor research by apologeticspress (checking references in an article is good practice). It definitely does not give a basis for the criticism they give.

reason for editing: removing links, as they didn't work, and a small correction (changing one of the articles in two of the articles in the first sentence of the second alinea).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Okay fellow cherry pickers and nit pickers,

I stopped at this point. Kindly refrain from dragging others down to your level when your own arguments get shredded.

 

[Dannager]

Okay fellow cherry pickers

Who's cherry picking besides yourself? I'm glad that you realize you're guilty of it, but there's no need to pin that accusation on others.

 

[Micaiah]

Lets go over the lead up to my question of whether Tomk80 has actually read the abstract of the article mentioned.

Notto copied the following from the TalkOrigins site:

The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al. (1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.

It was used as the basis of accusations levelled against AIG. I was interested to find out more about the scientific basis for the dates mentioned, and the implied mutation rates, so asked for the paper. Notto posted a link to the abstract for the paper.

: Nature. 2000 Dec 7;408(6813):708-13.Related Articles, Links

Erratum in:

• Nature 2001 Mar 29;410(6828):611.

Comment in:

• Nature. 2000 Dec 7;408(6813):652-3.

[size=+1]Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans.[/size]

Ingman M, Kaessmann H, Paabo S, Gyllensten U.

Department of Genetics and Pathology, Section of Medical Genetics, University of Uppsala, Sweden.

The analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been a potent tool in our understanding of human evolution, owing to characteristics such as high copy number, apparent lack of recombination, high substitution rate and maternal mode of inheritance. However, almost all studies of human evolution based on mtDNA sequencing have been confined to the control region, which constitutes less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome. These studies are complicated by the extreme variation in substitution rate between sites, and the consequence of parallel mutations causing difficulties in the estimation of genetic distance and making phylogenetic inferences questionable. Most comprehensive studies of the human mitochondrial molecule have been carried out through restriction-fragment length polymorphism analysis, providing data that are ill suited to estimations of mutation rate and therefore the timing of evolutionary events. Here, to improve the information obtained from the mitochondrial molecule for studies of human evolution, we describe the global mtDNA diversity in humans based on analyses of the complete mtDNA sequence of 53 humans of diverse origins. Our mtDNA data, in comparison with those of a parallel study of the Xq13.3 region in the same individuals, provide a concurrent view on human evolution with respect to the age of modern humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11130070&dopt=Citation

I responded.

Am only able to access the abstract of the Nature articles. Until we are able to view the context of those numbers, I cannot be sure you are not cherry picking?

Tomk80, in Nottos defence, said:

The articles summarize the conclusions of the papers. No cherry picking by Notto involved, at most cherrypicking of the authors. Notto's objection was that the authors of the AIG articles only picked out some parts of the abstract, in stead of using the complete abstracts.

The abstract says nothing about the age quoted in the article copied by Notto. Tomk80 obviously has not even read the abstract.

I suppose this is another good example of the 'scientific method' in action.

 

[Tomk80]

Lets go over the lead up to my question of whether Tomk80 has actually read the abstract of the article mentioned.

Notto copied the following from the TalkOrigins site:



It was used as the basis of accusations levelled against AIG. I was interested to find out more about the scientific basis for the dates mentioned, and the implied mutation rates, so asked for the paper. Notto posted a link to the abstract for the paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11130070&dopt=Citation

I responded.



Tomk80, in Nottos defence, said:



The abstract says nothing about the age quoted in the article copied by Notto. Tomk80 obviously has not even read the abstract.

I suppose this is another good example of the 'scientific method' in action.

No, I hadn't read the abstract. What I did was look at what Notto said and see whether you paraphrased him correctly. Based on this phrase from Notto's response: 'although they highlight the abstracts in a way to pursuade - cherrypicking' I concluded that you did not paraphrase him correctly. I never read the articles, nor did I say or imply that I did. I may have been wrong there, I'm only human.


The paper I read was the latest paper you quoted (which I presumed you meant with 'latest paper), not the paper quoted by Notto. I gave an analysis of the accuracy of apologeticspress in citing that paper (to summarize, no accuracy, their claim runs contrary to the conclusion we have to draw when looking at the papers underlying it) and asked you whether you realized that with the last paper you changed your argument.

Could you respond to the wrong conclusions drawn by apologeticspress as outlined in my last response?
And could you answer the question that with that paper you now seem to have changed your answer?

I'll be happy to look at the other articles in the coming week.

 

[JohnR7]

Surely even you must see the difference.

The point I am trying to make is, even if the scientific methoid were relyable and dependable. It is rare that anyone follows it. So it is pretty much a mute point for the most part.

 

[Tomk80]

The abstract says nothing about the age quoted in the article copied by Notto. Tomk80 obviously has not even read the abstract.

I suppose this is another good example of the 'scientific method' in action

Also note that I was responding on Notto's objections regarding use of quotations by AIG. I in no way made an argument regarding the talkorigins article copied by Notto, and I'm actually quite stunned how you seem to get that from my post? I can only conclude that you haven't accurately read my post #24, since your argument regarding it is so far from what I actually stated in it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The point I am trying to make is, even if the scientific methoid were relyable and dependable.

It is

It is rare that anyone follows it.

Not true.

So it is pretty much a mute point for the most part.

Assuming you mean a "moot" point, since your arguments are based on premises you've made up on the spot, I'd say it's anything but moot.

 

[Micaiah]

Also note that I was responding on Notto's objections regarding use of quotations by AIG. I in no way made an argument regarding the talkorigins article copied by Notto, and I'm actually quite stunned how you seem to get that from my post? I can only conclude that you haven't accurately read my post #24, since your argument regarding it is so far from what I actually stated in it.

You're digging yourself into a knot here, or was that tying yourself into a hole.

 

[Micaiah]

Since we're on the topic of cherry picking, you could explain:

1. Why did the latest studies sited by Notto exclude the control region of the mtDNA?
2. How was the age Notto quoted from the TalkOrigins derived, and what were the inherent assumptions?

 

[Micaiah]

It is



Not true.



Assuming you mean a "moot" point, since your arguments are based on premises you've made up on the spot, I'd say it's anything but moot.

Thought you'd taken your ball and gone home.

 

[Micaiah]

Someone may be able to help me here. I thought I understood how the age of 'Eve' was determined from this link:

http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondrial.htm

In restrospect, it doesn't seem right. Anyone tell me how you determine the age for higher rates of mtDNA mutation.

 

[Jet Black]

if Eve is 6000 years old, then the Noah's Ark story is false. then you also have to explain why Y Chromosome Adam is still tens of thousands of years old, even though the Adam should be far younger than the eve.

 

[Micaiah]

If Eve is 6000 years old she is entitled to get the pension. We can sort out Adam later.