Message 200 of 206 (161039) 11-18-2004 11:21 AM

Reply to: Message 194 by PaulK 11-18-2004 11:01 AM

INSTEAD I WOULD RECOMMED ONE TRY TO FIGURE OUT in its stead HOW PHYSICAL I WOULD DISPUTE THESE TWO LINES OF TEXT rather than trying to pay for making EVC part of every school boys lunch box image.

The philosophy DOES MATTER. Where is any one teaching students what Kant thought of Leibniz AFTER viewing AN INSECT in the microscope? I will go kicking and screaming over the first sentence. While the second is a attempt to parly the creative reading necessary to write the first with a revisionist provision in the second. It matters a mite not if I might explain with programmed cell death how we ate the answer to the spirit needed to disscuss the different IDEAS on time mitocondira might afford the thought speculator but alas even creation science must get practical. Let us not tilt at the marketer's windmill if we insist on the philosophy else we must not dismiss the metaphyical repose that EVC already afFORDANCes society. IT DOES and did! Sure the transfinites in Robinsonian infintesimals might span the formed gap but who knows....

Alos DO NOTE that JAD's TEACHER Crow did not eat this but said IN THES SAME

quote:

---

Wright’s intellectual life extended far beyond the normal range in both directions. He was also a precocious child.

---

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2004 11:22 AM

Message 201 of 206 (161040) 11-18-2004 11:22 AM

Reply to: Message 199 by Coragyps 11-18-2004 11:16 AM

I think that is a very important point and a great one for a thread. Thanks for bringing it up and if you start such I thread I'll try to convince AdminJar to promote it.

Message 203 of 206 (161050) 11-18-2004 11:37 AM

Reply to: Message 202 by dshortt 11-18-2004 11:30 AM

This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-18-2004 11:39 AM

Message 204 of 206 (161051) 11-18-2004 11:39 AM

Reply to: Message 188 by dshortt 11-18-2004 10:37 AM

Yes, you are missing something, which is that it isn't the study saying this, but the Reasons to Believe article about the study (Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists). PaulK referenced this article to point out a few of its serious errors. And so...

...you're just quoting more erroneous statements from the same Reasons to Believe article about the study. I assume that you also uncritically accepted the next sentence that said, "The researchers, apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled...etc...", and so you're at the same time buying into the conspiracy nonsense that the evidence is against evolution, but thousands and thousands of scientists for decades and decades are covering it up and continuing to accept evolution anyway.

Here's the abstract for the actual paper Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome by R. L. Dorit, H. Akashi and W. Gilbert that I found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7761836&dopt=Abstract:

DNA polymorphism in the Y chromosome, examined at a 729-base pair intron located immediately upstream of the ZFY zinc-finger exon, revealed no sequence variation in a worldwide sample of 38 human males. This finding cannot be explained by global constraint on the intron sequence, because interspecific comparisons with other nonhuman primates revealed phylogenetically informative sequence changes. The invariance likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes. A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years).

Note that the paper covers a "729 base-pair intron", while the Y chromosome contains over 50 million base pairs. Even if the study had any contradictory results (which it doesn't), a single study's results on such a tiny portion of the Y chromosome wouldn't be considered stunning. The Reasons to Believe article is wrong to say scientists are stunned, since the results weren't stunning but were fairly consistent with other studies. Note also that Ross mentions only one of the four possibilities that the study lists for the cause of the invariance. And note also that Ross critisizes them for using a statistical approach when no other approach is possible when the sample size is 38. All these types of studies use statistical approaches.

You would be poorly served to put much reliance on Reasons to Believe to accurately represent the results of any genetic study. Magazines and newspapers like the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, the Boston Globe, and so on, all have science sections that love to follow this Adam/Eve research, and I suggest you wait until they report on stunned scientists before believing it.

--Percy

Message 206 of 206 (161057) 11-18-2004 11:54 AM

Reply to: Message 205 by dshortt 11-18-2004 11:41 AM

But look at what Ross REALLY says

quote:

---

...the results of both studies rule out homo erectus (0.5 to 1.5 million years ago) as a possible progenitor of modern humans

---

Which is completely and utterly false.

And Ross explciitly identifies these two individuals as the Biblical Adam and Eve and indicates that he requires them to have lived more recently than the cited studies indicate.

quote:

---

If this is the case, we should see biologists' date for "Adam and Eve" drop from a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date within the biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago.

---