Is Darwinism still fact after Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29?

[questfortruth]

Are you saying that the theories of Einstein should be exempted from skepticism?

Why?

What is scepticism and how it is different from logic? It is a negative emotion like this: "Nobel Commitee can not find flaws in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation, but we have strong persistent feeling, that there is something wrong with his derivation of E=mc^2. That's why we grant Einstein no Second Nobel Prize for E=mc^2."

Can you comment this: "How can there be the very first humans in history, if they came out monkeys? No way. Monkeys give birth to monkeys, not to the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Why genetics have pointed to Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived 100 000 years ago, and not to his monkey ancestors?"

 

[questfortruth]

Silly questfortruth... monkeys did not give birth to humans and the T of E doesn't suggest that they did. You do realize that all you accomplish with posts like this is to demonstrate for all to see just how phenomenally ignorant you are about the theory you're constantly attempting to disparage, don't you? But then folks have been trying unsuccessfully to educate you on the subject for quite some time, so perhaps you find some sort of bizarre comfort in remaining ignorant.

Why genetics have pointed to Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived 100 000 years ago, and not to his monkey ancestors?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why genetics have pointed to Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived 100 000 years ago, and not to his monkey ancestors?

Genetics has done so such thing.

 

[blü 2]

What is scepticism and how it is different from logic? It is a negative emotion like this: "Nobel Commitee can not find flaws in Einstein's E=mc^2 derivation, but we have strong persistent feeling, that there is something wrong with his derivation of E=mc^2. That's why we grant Einstein no Second Nobel Prize for E=mc^2."

We have the same persistent feeling of possible error, varying in strength from case to case but never zero, about all propositions of science, however satisfied we might be with the demonstration of correctness. The idea of 'error' here includes the possible future discovery of something we don't presently know.

I don't understand your point about Einstein and a second Nobel prize. Do you say he was robbed? If so, in what year, and who won instead?

Can you comment this: "How can there be the very first humans in history, if they came out monkeys?

I've already pointed out the obvious to you, that a gorilla didn't give birth to the first H sap. Instead there was a series of cumulative changes by which pre-H. sap creatures became H. sap ─ and as with any gradual process, there wasn't a single point at which we ceased to be one species and became another. As someone once said, every living thing is a transitional form.

Why genetics have pointed to Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived 100 000 years ago, and not to his monkey ancestors?"

The same answer as above. Chromosomal Adam is dated not by a fossil find but by calculation from what we know of genetics and rates of change and related qualities.

How do you think H sap came into existence?

 

[questfortruth]

The same answer as above. Chromosomal Adam is dated not by a fossil find but by calculation from what we know of genetics and rates of change and related qualities.

How do you think H sap came into existence?

The prior to 100 000 BC, where the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve have started the direct male and female line, was the year 300 000 BC. The present human population in 2020 AC came from Female line of creature (and Male direct ancestory line), who lived in the 300 000 BC. Long before the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Why the Genetics Research does not show the creatures in 300 000 BC?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Below references proved the Biblical Creationism (which tells, that Adam’s Family is just 7000 years old), but in order to be published in Darwinists’ journals the authors are saying, that they have not proved Creationism, but simply have questioned some aspects of the Darwinism:

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997); N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509; Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29; Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012: Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69.

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.
But then Darwinian Evolution has lost its proud title „fact“. If one aspect of the fact is put in doubt, then it is not fact anymore. These references are in "Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline" BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013 Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

However, if the papers, which prove Biblical Creationism get to be debunked, they nevertheless put in doubt the Darwinian Evolution. Thus, even if they do not disprove Darwinism, they have debunked it long ago.

Nevertheless, the true faith is not blind, one can know all and be believer in God: God is not atheist, cf.
1 Corinthians 13:2.

I do not understand. Those references have nothing to do with biblical creation. They are about mitochondrial substitution rates and the use of those as a clock to determine dating and timing.

The theory of evolution remains a theory and the fact of evolution remains a fact. It appears that nothing has changed.

If I am reading you correctly, you can understand and accept science and still believe in God. I would say that it sounds like you are half way there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You make it sound so dismissive.
It can range from speculation to the level of fact though.

Approximation can be factual, eg,
Pi approximately = 3.14159
That is a fact.

We're getting rather pedantic, eh.

An hypothesis is closer to speculation, but is more of an educated question or guess. A theory is an explanation of evidence that provides a frame for future inquiry, prediction and testing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Below references proved the Biblical Creationism (which tells, that Adam’s Family is just 7000 years old), but in order to be published in Darwinists’ journals the authors are saying, that they have not proved Creationism, but simply have questioned some aspects of the Darwinism:

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997); N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509; Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29; Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012: Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69.

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.
But then Darwinian Evolution has lost its proud title „fact“. If one aspect of the fact is put in doubt, then it is not fact anymore. These references are in "Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline" BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013 Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

However, if the papers, which prove Biblical Creationism get to be debunked, they nevertheless put in doubt the Darwinian Evolution. Thus, even if they do not disprove Darwinism, they have debunked it long ago.

Nevertheless, the true faith is not blind, one can know all and be believer in God: God is not atheist, cf.
1 Corinthians 13:2.

The link is not to a peer reviewed source. It is the Creation Institute that does not do science.

They are misinterpreting the data and substituting their desired outcome in as an answer. Not unusual considering the source, but pretty lame.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Below references proved the Biblical Creationism (which tells, that Adam’s Family is just 7000 years old), but in order to be published in Darwinists’ journals the authors are saying, that they have not proved Creationism, but simply have questioned some aspects of the Darwinism:

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997); N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509; Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29; Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012: Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69.

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.
But then Darwinian Evolution has lost its proud title „fact“. If one aspect of the fact is put in doubt, then it is not fact anymore. These references are in "Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline" BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013 Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

However, if the papers, which prove Biblical Creationism get to be debunked, they nevertheless put in doubt the Darwinian Evolution. Thus, even if they do not disprove Darwinism, they have debunked it long ago.

Nevertheless, the true faith is not blind, one can know all and be believer in God: God is not atheist, cf.
1 Corinthians 13:2.

If the flood scenario were true, diversification would be universal and seen in all living things over the last 5,000 years. Rapid genetic diversification has not been found to be universal. Some species like the cheetah show significant reductions in genetic diversity to the point that they are almost like, but not quite, clones.

 

[blü 2]

The prior to 100 000 BC, where the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve have started the direct male and female line, was the year 300 000 BC. The present human population in 2020 AC came from Female line of creature (and Male direct ancestory line), who lived in the 300 000 BC. Long before the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Why the Genetics Research does not show the creatures in 300 000 BC?

First tell me how you think H sap came into existence.

 

[questfortruth]

The theory of evolution remains a theory and the fact of evolution remains a fact. It appears that nothing has changed.

If I am reading you correctly, you can understand and accept science and still believe in God. I would say that it sounds like you are half way there.

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?
The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

 

[tas8831]

Why genetics have pointed to Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived 100 000 years ago, and not to his monkey ancestors?

Great question.... from a non-geneticist, non-scientist.

You see, the analyses used haplogroup coalescence. That is, the researchers uses haplotypes found in modern human populations in the analyses, as they were not looking at anything beyond human origins.

I could ask 'Why has genetics pointed to a human/chimp/gorilla clade using complete mitochondrial DNA analyses?'
Or 'Why did comparisons of the entire genomes of several primates indicate a close kinship between humans and chimps?"

See?

It has to do with what questions are being answered - every DNA analysis is NOT about looking at a taxon's entire phylogeny.

Your question reminds me of Walt Brown's folly - Walt Brown is a mechanical engineer creationist who wrote an 'online book' claiming to have shown evolution false (don't they all?).

One of his anecdotes was about how his son had written a paper for a Christian science fair showing that humans and chimps are not related and all such analyses are unreliable. Because, you see, he had found a paper in which humans grouped with rattlesnakes, not chimps.

Sounds bad, right?

Well see, in that paper, human grouped with rattlesnakes because they were the only two amniotes in the analysis - there were no other primates, no other mammals, etc.

That, and 1000 other such examples are why I never believe or trust anything a creationist claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

An hypothesis is closer to speculation, but is more of an educated question or guess. A theory is an explanation of evidence that provides a frame for future inquiry, prediction and testing.

A testable hypothesis can be a formal theory, even if not tested yet.

Gawd, I'm just droning on & on.

 

[tas8831]

The prior to 100 000 BC, where the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve have started the direct male and female line, was the year 300 000 BC. The present human population in 2020 AC came from Female line of creature (and Male direct ancestory line), who lived in the 300 000 BC. Long before the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Why the Genetics Research does not show the creatures in 300 000 BC?

It does.

Do you really think every genetics research papers is solely about the entire phyogenetic history of humans?

 

[Audie]

I do not understand. Those references have nothing to do with biblical creation. They are about mitochondrial substitution rates and the use of those as a clock to determine dating and timing.

The theory of evolution remains a theory and the fact of evolution remains a fact. It appears that nothing has changed.

If I am reading you correctly, you can understand and accept science and still believe in God. I would say that it sounds like you are half way there.

It aint you who dont understand nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?
The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

I do not consider the creation story of the Bible to be a literal event.

People are free to speak their minds. In some places anyway. Just because someone says it does not mean that I will wilt and blow away. But if they say something intelligent, it might be useful to know.

I have never understood the contradiction of people being strong in Christ and afraid of what others say at the same time. It does not make sense to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A testable hypothesis can be a formal theory, even if not tested yet.

Gawd, I'm just droning on & on.

Agreed.

Edit. What did I agree with? Sometimes it is best to let the reader decide.

Of course, evidence indicates that I have no qualms about droning on with some subjects myself. So maybe agreement was just with the former.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed.

Edit. What did I agree with? Sometimes it is best to let the reader decide.

Of course, evidence indicates that I have no qualms about droning on with some subjects myself. So maybe agreement was just with the former.

Detente enuf for me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Detente enuf for me.

Da.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Great question.... from a non-geneticist, non-scientist.

You see, the analyses used haplogroup coalescence. That is, the researchers uses haplotypes found in modern human populations in the analyses, as they were not looking at anything beyond human origins.

I could ask 'Why has genetics pointed to a human/chimp/gorilla clade using complete mitochondrial DNA analyses?'
Or 'Why did comparisons of the entire genomes of several primates indicate a close kinship between humans and chimps?"

See?

It has to do with what questions are being answered - every DNA analysis is NOT about looking at a taxon's entire phylogeny.

Your question reminds me of Walt Brown's folly - Walt Brown is a mechanical engineer creationist who wrote an 'online book' claiming to have shown evolution false (don't they all?).

One of his anecdotes was about how his son had written a paper for a Christian science fair showing that humans and chimps are not related and all such analyses are unreliable. Because, you see, he had found a paper in which humans grouped with rattlesnakes, not chimps.

Sounds bad, right?

Well see, in that paper, human grouped with rattlesnakes because they were the only two amniotes in the analysis - there were no other primates, no other mammals, etc.

That, and 1000 other such examples are why I never believe or trust anything a creationist claims.

So if you cherry pick your data. Aren't completely open about what it says. You can use it to support a preconceived notion that it would not otherwise fit.

Gosh and golly gee. I hope other creationists don't pick up on that kind of duplicity.