Timing of Various Eves and Adams

In "Explaining Common Ancestry" the side topic of a mitochondial eve came up. This started to get a bit off topic.Refer to: Message 59 as the last in that off topic chain.This is a response to that: I don't know if I agree with the statement or not. You have offered exactly no evidence that it is true. It sounds like another one of many nonsense things that various sites make up.When you supply the research that has been done to show this then I can decide if it has any value at all.Do you have any?The totality of the evidence supports the existance of a mitochondial eve a bit less than 200,000 years ago, an adam at about 60,000 years ago and other adam and eves based on other parts of the genome. There have been various bottlenecks or stochastic events over time that have winowed some of the genome down to a lineage from single individuals.There is however, that I know of, ZERO objective evidence for an Eve 6,000 years ago. There is, in fact, a large amount of data that demonstrates this to be utterly false.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Ned, I've explained how mutations would be accelerated because mutations are not being corrected through natural selection. C-14 dating is not all that accurate, but evolutionists say human fossils are millions of years old.Are now are not the evolutionists saying Australian human fossils are 30,000 years old. Thus they "assumed" a steady mutation rate of 1 in a thousand years, and that will make African human fossils 200,000 years old. Right?Are these African human fossils 200,000 years old or millions of years old? What do you believe: the fossils 200,000 years old or millions of years old?Is not the limit to tree ring dating approximately 11,000 years? If humans were around for 30,000 years how come scientists can only go back 11,000 years by tree ring fossils?Based off tree ring direct dating, the African Michondrial Eve fossils can not be older than 11,000 years. Based off direct scientific dating (tree ring dating) supports the creationists premise of accelerated mutation rates.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-14-2005 02:01 AM

You are making a number of factual claims here, could you please provide some references to allow for their verification.Thank you very much.TTFN,AW

I don't actually recall you explaining anything. The portions of DNA chosen for dating are those not selected so the background mutation rate isn't scewed by selection. There is that tiny core of fact in what you say. It does NOT accelerate anything. What do you mean by "not all that accurate". It is, in fact, accurate to within a few percent. C-14 is not used to date things millions of years old. There are several other ways of doing that. The two phrases in your sentence there don't have any logical connection. Again, what exactly do those two sentences have to do with each other? The mutation rate is assumed to be steady and then it is checked in a number of ways to be sure the assumption is reasonable. That is a big part of what the paper referenced is about. Yes. Please demonstrate the feat of logic used to ask that last question. Have you considered the fact that wood rots? Tree ring dating is useful over the 11,000 or so years that it has been calibrated for. If you can't find wood to match up older than that you don't use it. That is where C-14 and other dating methods come in.You had some reason to believe that the dates for various adams and eves are not right. I am waiting for you to give those reasons.The fact that you are asking the above question shows that you can't critize the dates since you don't know how they are derived.

i checked both pubmed and google for information linking kosher diets with mutation rates and still haven't found anything.Maybe you're thinking of the affect of red meat on cancer susceptibility. since red meat and other substances can break down into chemicals (xenobiotics) that increase the risk by generating mutations. these mutations are somatic, however, and so would have no effect on overall mutation rates. and, as far as i know, jewish peoples aren't strictly vegetarian.it also seems to me (from what i've read of yours) that you think that mitochondrial eve is based on fossil evidence. It is not. Easily noticeable by virtue of the prefix: "Mitochondrial". It is based on the coalescence dates of the mitochondrial genome i.e. DNA.
Its age does however correspond with the finding of H. sapiens sapiens fossils in africa dated similarly. This is what you call corroborating evidence.
The fossils dated to millions of yrs, while hominid, are not modern human. They are, evidently, the ancestors of modern humans.If an iraqi dispersion of the human race, after the flood, were true, all traces of african specific lineages would have been wiped out. This is clearly not the case.The Genographic Project has a map of human dispersals based on the Mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA. i suggest you take a look.https://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

---

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

quote:

---

Are these African human fossils 200,000 years old or millions of years old? What do you believe: the fossils 200,000 years old or millions of years old?

---

Just to clarify this for you, you are equivocating on the word "humans." If you are referring to our species Homo sapiens, then the fossil and genetic evidence point to about 200,000 years."Humans" is also sometimes used to refer to "hominid," which are upright walking "apes" (with the definitin of ape being broad enough to encompass us). Some of these are millions of years old, such as Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, A. garhi, Homo rudolphensis, H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, etc.

Ned, Are we in agreement that michondrial DNA is not self corrected by natural selection? Is this the tiny core your in agreement with?Do you agree that C14 dating is not used directly to date african fossils 200,000 years? Is not this date determined by an "assumed" mutation rate? For fossils primates not human they have no problem dating them by other indirect dating methods to be millions of years old. Is it not true no fossil is directly dated to be 200,000 years old or millions of years old? This is the problem creationist have with your dating methods. Without direct evidence you only have dates based on assumptions.The only direct evidence you have to the age of any living thing is C14 dating of tree rings which only indicate the beginnings around 11,000 years instead of 30,000 years.You do agree that fossil rotting could of easily caused the data to infer Australian aboriginees migrated 30,000 years ago? Is not this how the evolutionists determined the mutation rate by "assuming" C14 dating of these fossils was accurate?I agree with you the trees that rot can not be directly dated any more than fossil remains that are rotted (this is why some fossils can only be indirectly dated).I think were in agreement that unrotted trees can be dated that didn't rot but were preserved by cold or burial preservation. This only indicate trees have been around for 11,000 years and has not this been correlated with C-14 dating?Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986).

U can call me Cookie, Non-Kosher foods causing mutations is more in the christian holistic movement. There concerned about the heavy metals in respect to mutations. Heres a link about the clean verses the unclean creatures.http://godkind.org/clean-foods.htmlIt shouldn't be surprising that a vast amount of the world's food supplies are unclean foods. From a scientific standpoint, you can support the issue of a food being "unclean." Most of the unclean foods can be demonstrated to be, literally, unclean.Most of these foods are considered to be "scavenger" animals that eat the wastes of other animals, and help to clean up the environment. Lobster, shrimp, shell fish and other water scavengers contain high levels of heavy metals. Pigs, as you well know, scavenge the land and will eat literally anything they come into contact with.The issue here, however, isn't whether we can prove whether or not the unclean creatures listed in the Bible are, in scientific fact, "unclean," but whether we are willing to believe what God tells us, along with everything else He has told us through the pages of the Bible. We can't reject what we don't like or don't agree with.----------------------------------------------The Food Laws (No. 015)heres another link getting into the heavy metal correlations to the unclean creatures.
--------------------------------------------------------------heres a article about concern about heavy metals in respect to one believed genetic disease (Autism)Heavy Metal Exposures, Developmental Milestones, and Physical Symptoms in Children with Autism
1, C.E. Holloway1, M. Margolis2, F. George3IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found------------------------------------------------What this all means is that mutations are not random things, but related to heavy metals in the diet. This all supports that life is devolving, as mutations are not an increase in information.The only factor buffering this is natural selection, the problem is the food industry is based also on the unclean creatures high in heavy metals. This is causing an increase in genetic disease in spite of natural selection to be passed on to offspring.In respect to Michondrial Eve the mutations are only accumulative not self correcting because its not a sharing of genetic information.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-14-2005 10:01 AM

deletedThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2005 10:05 AM

Some parts of all DNA, including mitochondrial, is not subject to selection. "Self-corrected" imples to me something other than what happens but other wise we are paritally in agreement there. Of course, 200,000 years is older than C-14 dating is good for. No, the date that the latest living ancestor with the DNA lived is dated by the mutation rate. The fossils are dated with other completely independent methods. Totally wrong! There are a number of different, independent dating methods. Please refer to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. for one. If you are concerned about the dating then please take it to that thread or others. The C14 dating itself is not assumed to be accurate, it is checked out to be. Please see the thread given above. Or one specifically on C14.The dating of particular fossils is subject to a great deal of care and checking to try to get it right. That is also a bit too big to take as a topic here.I have no idea what you mean by "fossil rotting". This seems to miss the point I was making about trees rotting entirely. You wondered why there were no tree rings dates older than this. The reason is that there are no sequenced of matchable trees found yet to go back further.Most fossils are "indirectly" dated in that they don't contain material that can be dated through the various methods. Most often a layer with dateable material above and below the fossil is dated giving a date range. Only trees that can be matched up (please goggle tree ring dating or "Dendochronology" for how it is done) can be used to add to the sequence.It does NOT indicate that trees have been around for only 11,000 years at all. This is not logical if you know how dendochronology is done.Yes, tree ring dates correlate well with c-14 dates.

you do know that mitochondrial dna is not related to the dna in a cell, right? mitochondria divide by themselves much like... resident symbiotic organisms.

Would you care to support that with a scientific rationale? No one is maintaining that mutations are completely random. Genetic mutation is a stochastic process and the cellular environment, including heavy metal ions, is an important factor in this process. It is still random to the extent that any stochastic process is, predictable in a generalised but not a specific context. What I mean by this is that while you can reliably predict that a population exposed to an increased heavy metal dosage will suffer a specific level of increase in mutation you cannot predict for 1 single organism whther it will have that average elevated level of mutation or what those mutations will actually be.TTFN,WK

Ned, Fossil rotting is not a correct term, but too Creationists its where Carbon 14 is either diluded by water environment(marine life innaccuracies) or its carbon essenses is mineralized (replaced) or bacterially decomposed.It appears were in agreement in respect to natural selection.Bacteria constantly are eating on fossil remains, so in a sense rotting the Carbon remains of the fossil is similar to rotting wood.If they dated the fossil 30,000 years old, using other dating methods. Then likely they did what you said sandwiched the fossil between believed ages of the earth. If this is true then no direct evidence the fossil was 30,000 years old.I agree accelerated mutations are based on indirect evidences that the creationists disagrees with. Its like dating varves that have been contaminated by carbonates (why a seal dates old even though its still alive). You do agree cabonate contaminations the reason scientists don't agree with C-14 in respect to marine dating?We're in agreement then that the evolutionists never directly dated any fossil when its said to be 200,000 years. Are we in agreement that Fossils remains not preserved will have little to no C-14 after short periods of time due to bacterial decay?Creationists agree with your statement of not enough organic remains to date most fossils by direct means. Do you believe its by the indirect dating method that Michondrial mutation rate were determined?

In an appropriate thread, would be nice.If dietary exposure to heavy metals resulted in any significant increase in mutations, the vast majority of these would be somatic anyway. If germinal mutations did result, these could be eliminated downstream by selection (or drift), but it seems trivially obvious that further dietary constraints would have no purging effect (that horse being already out of the barn). I find this question utterly incoherent.