• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitochondrial Eve

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A hilarious misapplication of that "mitochondrial clock."

She may as well be saying "well, the mitochondrial clock turned out to be ten times faster than anticipated, so thats why you should only microwave your hot pocket for twenty seconds."
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A hilarious misapplication of that "mitochondrial clock."

She may as well be saying "well, the mitochondrial clock turned out to be ten times faster than anticipated, so thats why you should only microwave your hot pocket for twenty seconds."
Don't pay attention to the obvious doubter/hater causing my quote of their post...According to the speaker, Mitochondrial Eve is 6,000 years old. In other words, the earliest groups of females that mutated into present day humans were 6,000 years ago. This coincides with the biblical claim that the earth is about 6,000 years old (and man was created on the 6th day). It is a 'scientific rebuttal' to the theory of evolution that humans evolved from the lowest forms to humans.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't pay attention to the obvious doubter/hater behind the quote... Mitochondrial Eve is 6,000 years old. In other words, the earliest groups of females that mutated into present day humans was 6,000 years ago. This coincides with biblical claim that the earth is about 6,000 years old. This is what the speaker is attempting to impart.

Yes, that's what she was trying to impart.

But she's lying to do it.

She's "adjusting" a radioisotope "clock" based on findings about a "mitochondrial clock."

Different clocks, dude. Radioisotope decay is not dependent on mitochondrial mutation.
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, that's what she was trying to impart.

But she's lying to do it.

She's "adjusting" a radioisotope "clock" based on findings about a "mitochondrial clock."

Different clocks, dude. Radioisotope decay is not dependent on mitochondrial mutation.
I don't think either the theory of evolution or the biblical 'theory of creation' has been proven. Do you?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think either the theory of evolution or the biblical 'theory of creation' has been proven. Do you?

Don't change the subject. Her statement is objectively false based on a flawed methodology. Do you agree? If we can't agree on that, then I don't see a reason to answer your question.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A hilarious misapplication of that "mitochondrial clock."

She may as well be saying "well, the mitochondrial clock turned out to be ten times faster than anticipated, so thats why you should only microwave your hot pocket for twenty seconds."
I don't think that is even close to being an apt analogy here. Wanna start over and try again?
 
Last edited:

pinqy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
6,506
Reaction score
2,673
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't think either the theory of evolution or the biblical 'theory of creation' has been proven. Do you?

But do you think that means they are equally viable theories??

I'll remind you that germ theory of disease has never been proven, and Newton's theory of gravitation and Boyle's law of gasses have been shown to be wrong under certain conditions. But all are still useful because they work
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
34,211
Reaction score
22,965
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Mitochondrial Eve lived between a hundred and two hundred thousand years ago, before humanity expanded out of Africa.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think that is even close to being an apt analogy here. Wanna start over and try again?

It's not an analogy. It's just an attempt to be equally absurd. She's comparing two entirely different "clocks," one of which isn't really even a clock in the first place. Then she's taking a supposed adjustment to the not-a-clock, and using it to adjust an atomic clock.

Do you agree with her methodology, or do you agree with me that her methodology is flawed? I can't help but notice you were unwilling to distance yourself from her lies.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's not an analogy. It's just an attempt to be equally absurd. She's comparing two entirely different "clocks," one of which isn't really even a clock in the first place. Then she's taking a supposed adjustment to the not-a-clock, and using it to adjust an atomic clock.

Do you agree with her methodology, or do you agree with me that her methodology is flawed? I can't help but notice you were unwilling to distance yourself from her lies.
I do not pretend to be an expert or have any special knowledge in this area.

However, I think that for you to call her assertions lies when, to what I do know, there are wide variances into the possibilities of time accumulated in determining mutation for a species. Nobody has yet pinned it down with any certainty and that she is stating what appears to be her forthright hypothesis upon the matter which has yet to be logically, or even reasonably, diminished as yet in this debate... well, your analogy/attempt at what you perceive as equally absurd is what is absurd, so far.

I can't help think that, between the two of you she seems the far more rational, fact based... why should I feel a need to distance myself from her?
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Don't change the subject. Her statement is objectively false based on a flawed methodology. Do you agree? If we can't agree on that, then I don't see a reason to answer your question.
Yes. Flawed. Just as evolution theory is flawed.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do not pretend to be an expert or have any special knowledge in this area.

However, I think that for you to call her assertions lies when, to what I do know, there are wide variances into the possibilities of time accumulated in determining mutation for a species. Nobody has yet pinned it down with any certainty and that she is stating what appears to be her forthright hypothesis upon the matter which has yet to be logically, or even reasonably, diminished as yet in this debate... well, your analogy/attempt at what you perceive as equally absurd is what is absurd, so far.

I can't help think that, between the two of you she seems the far more rational, fact based... why should I feel a need to distance myself from her?

Let me try and help you out in understanding her statement, then:

The 100,000-200,000 year number doesn't come from mutations. It comes from radioisotope decay. What is often referred to as "carbon dating." (although carbon dating is actually just one type of radioisotope dating, a point that is used for another creationist lie I come across periodically)

Mitochondrial mutations just aren't involved here. Those are a biological process and really don't make a good method of finding out the age of anything. (because mitochondrial mutation isn't something that occurs at a fixed rate)

She is claiming that mitochondrial mutation rates magically turn radioisotope decay calculations into a new number. It's absurd. Mitochondrial mutations have as much an effect on radioisotope decay rates as they have on my microwave.

Make more sense now? You still want to tell me that she's being more rational here?

Do you think carbon atoms decay based on your mitochondrial mutations? Potassium atoms? Uranium atoms?
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes. Flawed. Just as evolution theory is flawed.

:roll:

No, her statement is objectively, provably false. The same cannot be said for evolution, as you yourself have admitted.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let me try and help you out in understanding her statement, then:

The 100,000-200,000 year number doesn't come from mutations. It comes from radioisotope decay. What is often referred to as "carbon dating." (although carbon dating is actually just one type of radioisotope dating, a point that is used for another creationist lie I come across periodically)

Mitochondrial mutations just aren't involved here. Those are a biological process and really don't make a good method of finding out the age of anything. (because mitochondrial mutation isn't something that occurs at a fixed rate)

She is claiming that mitochondrial mutation rates magically turn radioisotope decay calculations into a new number. It's absurd. Mitochondrial mutations have as much an effect on radioisotope decay rates as they have on my microwave.

Make more sense now? You still want to tell me that she's being more rational here?

Do you think carbon atoms decay based on your mitochondrial mutations? Potassium atoms? Uranium atoms?
First of all she only used the carbon dating as a reference to what others used to date fossils. Tell me her specific line, and the time mark please, regarding this “magical transformation” of numbers you speak of, as I recall none of that in the video. At the two minute mark she starts to go into how they generally try to calibrate the molecular clock using the decay measuring methods and then again at 3:29 she mentions the carbon dating only in pointing out the assumed consensus regarding the dates of these fossils and the other events such as hypothesized rates of change.

Secondly, she really only relates the mitochondrial mutation, with the general posit that all present humans descend from the mitochondrial Eve, maternal most recent ancestor to all living humans. She further indicated, based on a study by Parsons, that the assumed rate of mutation every 12,000 years after we supposedly had diverged from simian/chimp, was in fact, based on this paper, far too long and that the occurrence was more on the rate of every 800 years instead.

From that she arrives at the number of about 6000 years using the events from the onset of Mito- Eve. I am not quite sure how as the video, or the 4 plus minutes given on youtube, does not go on to explain the 327 generational events...

So, could realistically see kicking the tires on the latter, but your actual complaint seems a non event, doesn't come into play as far as one can tell.
 

Sweden

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
5,706
Reaction score
2,368
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't think either the theory of evolution or the biblical 'theory of creation' has been proven. Do you?

Nothing in science is ever finally proven to be true Cabse. Science advances by proving theories to be false; one of the falsities is the biblical theory of creation. In contrast there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. Evidence that is quite properly constantly being examined and tested.

I find it very hard to understand how seemingly fairly sane people can fall for the 'it's in the bibel so it must be true' nonsense.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First of all she only used the carbon dating as a reference to what others used to date fossils. Tell me her specific line, and the time mark please, regarding this “magical transformation” of numbers you speak of, as I recall none of that in the video. At the two minute mark she starts to go into how they generally try to calibrate the molecular clock using the decay measuring methods and then again at 3:29 she mentions the carbon dating only in pointing out the assumed consensus regarding the dates of these fossils and the other events such as hypothesized rates of change.

Secondly, she really only relates the mitochondrial mutation, with the general posit that all present humans descend from the mitochondrial Eve, maternal most recent ancestor to all living humans. She further indicated, based on a study by Parsons, that the assumed rate of mutation every 12,000 years after we supposedly had diverged from simian/chimp, was in fact, based on this paper, far too long and that the occurrence was more on the rate of every 800 years instead.

From that she arrives at the number of about 6000 years using the events from the onset of Mito- Eve. I am not quite sure how as the video, or the 4 plus minutes given on youtube, does not go on to explain the 327 generational events...

So, could realistically see kicking the tires on the latter, but your actual complaint seems a non event, doesn't come into play as far as one can tell.

Um, yes it does. If radioisotopes say the fossil is 100,000 years old, that's an issue for a 6000 year old Eve. It's not an "assumed consensus." Radioisotope decay isn't a hypothesized rate. It's a measurable one.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Um, yes it does. If radioisotopes say the fossil is 100,000 years old, that's an issue for a 6000 year old Eve. It's not an "assumed consensus." Radioisotope decay isn't a hypothesized rate. It's a measurable one.
To my understanding we do not have the "fossil" of the mitochondrial Eve, and that fossil would be your 100-200 thousand year old fossil to which you would have to be referencing for this to be relevant. So whatever is in the fossil record is at odds with the changes and scope of time of those changes with M Eve. Nobody magically converted one into the other, just that M Eve, based on the changes and their rate, never truly fully explained in the video, come to differ in time taken from whatever is postulated from the fossil record.

What is the fossil record referencing since it is not referencing M Eve?
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
:roll:

No, her statement is objectively, provably false. The same cannot be said for evolution, as you yourself have admitted.
Don't put words into my mouth. I have never advocated for the theory of evolution to explain man's 'creation'. I don't think there is ANY credible theory right now. Since there is no credible 'creation' theory right now, one can either discount all 'creation' theories or discount no 'creation' theories but one cannot discredit one while praising another. That is prejudice and, well, not science.

Where is the missing link to man, then? That abominable yeti that no one has ever found traces of?

Mutations of a species is quite different than evolution of a species.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To my understanding we do not have the "fossil" of the mitochondrial Eve, and that fossil would be your 100-200 thousand year old fossil to which you would have to be referencing for this to be relevant. So whatever is in the fossil record is at odds with the changes and scope of time of those changes with M Eve. Nobody magically converted one into the other, just that M Eve, based on the changes and their rate, never truly fully explained in the video, come to differ in time taken from whatever is postulated from the fossil record.

What is the fossil record referencing since it is not referencing M Eve?

She referenced that timeframe, not me. And human fossils have been found older than that even.

And we haven't even started on all the other problems with M Eve: she wasn't the only woman, isn't a fixed individual in the first place, and Y-chromosomal Adam wasn't her sexual partner. Oops.
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
She referenced that timeframe, not me. And human fossils have been found older than that even.

And we haven't even started on all the other problems with M Eve: she wasn't the only woman, isn't a fixed individual in the first place, and Y-chromosomal Adam wasn't her sexual partner. Oops.
Are you actually saying the speaker is wrong because the Bible is wrong? Sounds like neither you nor her are using science, objectively.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,226
Reaction score
35,339
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't put words into my mouth. I have never advocated for the theory of evolution to explain man's 'creation'. I don't think there is ANY credible theory right now. Since there is no credible 'creation' theory right now, one can either discount all 'creation' theories or discount no 'creation' theories but one cannot discredit one while praising another. That is prejudice and, well, not science.
I didn't say you advocated it. I said you can't disprove it.

Where is the missing link to man, then?
Homo erectus? Let me cut you off here: (skip to 1 minute mark)


That abominable yeti that no one has ever found traces of?
Are you asking me to prove the existence of a mythical creature?

Mutations of a species is quite different than evolution of a species.
On a sufficiently large time scale, no. Not that different.
 

cabse5

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
22,624
Reaction score
2,293
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I didn't say you advocated it. I said you can't disprove it.


Homo erectus? Let me cut you off here: (skip to 1 minute mark)



Are you asking me to prove the existence of a mythical creature?


On a sufficiently large time scale, no. Not that different.
I'm asking you to prove when, where and how the closest relative to man, the chimp, started turning human. You don't even have to go back millions of years. Wouldn't the evolution process be ongoing? Where's a current-day example of the missing link like, for example, the yeti?

This post is far less rhetorical than your post I quoted. I don't think you want a rational discussion on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom