Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 06:33:25 -0500
To: David McDougall
From: Andrew Arensburger <arensb@cfar.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Mitochonrdrial Eve is Younger Than First Thought 


On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 16:35:58 PST, David McDougall wrote:
> At 05:29 AM 2/2/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> >On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, David McDougall wrote:
> >> There is no longer need to wonder why the mtDNA is found
> >> outside the nucleus.... it is easier to trace there and was left that way 
>> to
> >> provide evidence for those who are honestly looking,
> >
> >	And your evidence for this is...?
> 
> The way models work, (when the process can not be duplicated by experiment),
> is that you make a list of necessary conclusions or factors one would expect
> to find if the hypothesis were true.  If any of these are falsified, the
> theory or model is (supposed to be), chucked.

	Or at least revised.

> I would expect a creator that
> wanted to provide evidence for all He spoke to leave behind the ability to
> trace certain attributes of the creation which bore witness to it for those
> who are interested in searching the truth.

	Okay, so other than mitochondrial DNA, what other such
"signatures" would you expect to find?
	Actually, why hide it inside mitochondrial DNA in the first
place? Why not write "Hello, world!" in 500-foot letters on some
mountain? Why not lay out the course of the Euphrates so that it
spells out a message in Aramaic? Why not make the continents form
words? Why not have "Made by God" in Hebrew tattooed on everyone's
foot?
	Remember, Jesus expected the world to end sometime in the
first century. So it would hardly make sense to place hints where they
couldn't be found until two thousand years later.
	In short, why would you expect hidden hints? Why not put a
signature in plain view, in such a way that no one can deny it?

> Since the evolutionists have
> themselves stated in the article that the mtDNA is "easier to trace outside
> the nucleus" and that they had been wrong about the constant and grossly
> inflated rate of mutation, (which actually shows a figure closer to that
> which a creationsist would expect), I'd say this one is a keeper.

	*Shrug*. I'll wait for the rest of the story to come in. After
all, the article says that these high mutation rates aren't supported
by other studies. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

> Wouldn't
> you?  I'd say their theories of an ancient beginning for man are in question
> if not falsified and that Dawkins' criticism of the location of the mtDNA,

	Remind me: what did Dawkins have to say about mitochondrial
DNA?

> ("if" there were an intelligent Creator), is put to shame.  Wouldn't you?

	No. The "mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis does not say that this
Eve was the first human; it merely says that she's in all of our
family trees (on the maternal side). She could have been (and probably
was) part of a much larger population. Obviously, there's a certain
amount of play here.
	Also, from what I've read, the "mitochondrial Eve" hypothesis
is still controversial, so presumably the evidence for it is
relatively tenuous.

> Whether I'm right or wrong concerning the purpose for
> the location, you have to admit that the facts provide a logical hypothesis
> as to why such a thing was done.

	So, getting back to my earlier question: why mitochondrial DNA
in particular? And where else would you expect to find such
"signatures"?

> >> (speculative on my
> >> part, of course, but consistant with my understanding of the origin of lif
>> e
> >> and the preponderance of supporting evidence).
> >
> >	What evidence is this?

	You never did answer this question.

> >(One might also ask why the
> >Bible should be used as a science textbook, when a) that is clearly not
> >its purpose, and b) it can't even get the shape of the Earth right.)
> 
> You are correct.  a) The purpose of the Bible is neither to be a science nor
> a history book, but sufficient evidence is found in those pursuits to
> support what one would expect to find based upon the truths found therein.

	Really? Is the Earth really flat? Do rabbits really chew their
cud? Was there really a worldwide flood? Is Heaven really hotter than
Hell?
	Please elaborate.

> b)  The mainstream scientists in Columbus' time thought it was flat.  I
> guess ole' Chris figured a circle was close enough, eh?  Of course, all he
> had to go on was the evidence, (which could have easily been expected based
> upon scriptures written thousands of years earlier...).

	Actually, no: the shape of the Earth was widely known to be
round in Columbus's time. The controversy at the time concerned its
size. In fact, Columbus's estimate was too small (and he fudged his
figures to make the Earth even smaller, to make his expedition seem
more plausible, in order to get funding).
	If he had gone by what it says in the Bible, he would have
stayed at home, since there is no shorter way to China on a flat
Earth.

>  Most
> >likely, it just means that a few timetables will have to be adjusted. At
> >worst, it might mean that mitochondrial DNA isn't as well understood as
> >biologists think it is. Ah, well.
> 
> Andrew, the only problem is that they will not be adjusted according to
> what is actually seen, especially if it supports the creation model.

	Why do you say this? Are you accusing someone of dishonesty?
If so, then please back this claim up.

> It can be seen that stalacmites grow at Lurray about 4 cubic inches a year,
> but the scientists they quote still say 200-300 years for just 1 ci.

	Can't comment on that, I'm not familiar with this (other than
what you've said).

> It can
> be seen and is widely known that very finely detailed fossils encompassed by
> 100 feet of limestone had to have been covered rapdily, but evolutionists
> tell us that one foot of limestone accounts for 1,000 years.

	I suspect you've misunderstood something. Could you please
provide a quotation of the above, along with a reference?

> It can be seen
> and is known that the interbedded sedimentary rock was laid down in the same
> catastrophic flood, but evolutionists still claim the Grand Canyon is a
> result of hundreds of millions of years of errosion.  I could go on, but
> then again, if you were truly interested, you'd look at the Creation video
> tapes with me.  Not one Bible verse quoted, just all of evolution's finest...
>> .?

	Just what videos are these? You keep mentioning them, but have
yet to give me so much as a title.
	And anyhow, what does evolution have to do with the formation
of the Grand Canyon? Aren't you confusing biology and geology here?

> Did you miss the part where they stated that if what they actually observed
> were true, then man could not have been around much more than 6,000 years?

	No. I also didn't miss the part that said that this study was
not confirmed by other studies. Besides, as I mentioned above,
disproving the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis (which is all that this
article talks about) is not the same as rewriting the entire history
of man from scratch.

> >> THIS HAS BEEN THE EVOLUTIONARY CRITERIA SINCE THE 40 CHUCKED DATES OF
> >> THE FRAUDULENT JAVA MAN!!
> >
> >	"Fraudulent"? What exactly do you mean? Dubois may have had some
> >funny notions about how the assembled skeleton "ought" to look, but that's
> >about it, as far as I can tell. It's certainly not in the same ballpark as
> >the Piltdown Man hoax. Not even the same sport.
> 
> Ah, but when the Pigstooth man was thought to be accurate, how proudly they
> strutted.

	What's "Pigstooth man"? I haven't been able to find any
references to it.

> But 40 chucked dates is not science.

	What are you talking about?

> On the other hand, a knee bo
>> ne
> found several miles from the rest of the bones does not a fossil make.  On th
>> e
> other hand, it is a perfect specimine of the modern Galada Baboon.

	Are you back on Java man now? If so, do you mean "femur"
instead of "knee bone" and "gibbon" instead of "baboon"?

> We're both attempting to examine our hypothesis through the falsification of
> assumed criteria.

	Huh? What do you mean by this?

> The evidence, however, can only support one or the other,
> Pascal or no Pascal..

	And where did Pascal creep in to the discussion?

> Of course, we could save a lot of time by viewing what I consider to be the
> best evidence anyone could offer if you were interested in seeing it.  :-)

	I've been asking you for evidence all along, so please tell me
what it is, already!

-- 
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy         Center for Automation Research
arensb@cfar.umd.edu                     University of Maryland
                          Jesus was adopted.

Chapter 15 | Chapter 17