- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,543
- Reaction score
- 680
- Location
- East Coast USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Can anyone decipher this ?
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.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 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.
I don't think either the theory of evolution or the biblical 'theory of creation' has been proven. Do you?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?
I don't think that is even close to being an apt analogy here. Wanna start over and try again?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 either the theory of evolution or the biblical 'theory of creation' has been proven. Do you?
Can anyone decipher this ?
I don't think that is even close to being an apt analogy here. Wanna start over and try again?
I do not pretend to be an expert or have any special knowledge in this area.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.
Yes. Flawed. Just as evolution theory is flawed.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.
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?
Yes. Flawed. Just as evolution theory is flawed.
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.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?
I don't think either the theory of evolution or the biblical 'theory of creation' has been proven. Do you?
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.
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.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.
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.:roll:
No, her statement is objectively, provably false. The same cannot be said for evolution, as you yourself have admitted.
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?
Are you actually saying the speaker is wrong because the Bible is wrong? Sounds like neither you nor her are using science, objectively.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.
I didn't say you advocated it. I said you can't disprove it.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.
Homo erectus? Let me cut you off here: (skip to 1 minute mark)Where is the missing link to man, then?
Are you asking me to prove the existence of a mythical creature?That abominable yeti that no one has ever found traces of?
On a sufficiently large time scale, no. Not that different.Mutations of a species is quite different than evolution of a species.
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?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.