Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
180 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 177 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,778 Year: 2,526/23,288 Month: 717/1,809 Week: 149/225 Day: 8/44 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 3 of 66 (351829)
09-24-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
09-24-2006 2:39 PM


Re: written in the Year 5767
There is one well known place where we can look to see if there is ANY reality to the assertion of some super-genome and that is with Oetzi the Iceman.
What do we know about Oetzi?

First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.

I would say, no, this is definitely not something you could KNOW about a mummified man, this is obviously interpretation. What is actually KNOWN about him? Perhaps that he was a certain height, had eaten certain foods, was dressed in a certain kind of garb, was found with certain items, these are the sort of things that can be actually KNOWN and even in these things there is room for error.

Age you cannot know, you can only speculate based on certain physical facts. What are those facts?

This is the most frustrating thing about reports from the sciences that follow the ToE, that the sheer facts are often not given but only the interpretation of them.

He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.

You cannot KNOW this, but only infer it from what are probably rather scanty facts. Please give all the kinds of evidence that were used to determine how long ago he lived.

His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.

What does this mean and what are the implications of this classification? What condition was his DNA in? Were good samples obtainable or only fragments? How certain are the results of the analysis?

He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.

This is clearly quite complex interpretation of some simple physical facts. What are the simple physical facts and how did they lead to this complex interpretation? How can anybody think about what you are saying if you don't give the foundations of your interpretation? All this does is create mystification in the reader.

He was around 40-50 years old when he died.

This is no doubt based on particular physical facts too. Please provide. It shouldn't be hard to give good evidence in this case.

He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.

Yes, I read a discussion of this. Analysis of stomach contents. Not absolutely certain nevertheless, but likely.

His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.

Now THAT is an actual fact for a change. I knew you had it in you! It could be more precisely stated of course -- "On his feet were found ... " etc. But I'll let you get away with that. A real fact! I'm SO happy.

There was blood from four other people on him.

Um, does this mean that there were minuscule spots and splotches of something found on and about him that when analyzed in a laboratory appeared to be human blood of four different types?

Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.

Plausible but still interpretive. How can you be sure that the pollen got into his stomach while he was eating his meal or had perhaps traveled some distance with him first?

The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.

But it is more likely that the dating of him was WAY off.

So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?

Well, the idea of the super genome is simply the most likely interpretation based on what we know from the Bible, but it could of course be wrong and need rethinking. But Oetzi doesn't prove much really since it's just the usual imaginative construction from who knows what.

How would you know what "animals, plants, spores and pollen" were "contemporary with Adam" anyway? Nothing in the above even discusses the age of these items or how they were analyzed. Nothing. Perhaps you could supply some discussion of the thinking that arrived at this conclusion, and the facts that were taken into account.

ALSO, other bodies have been found in this same glacier that were dated much later. A discussion of the differences between them and Oetzi -- the actual physical facts I mean -- might be most illuminating.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 2:39 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 5:23 PM Faith has responded
 Message 28 by Equinox, posted 09-26-2006 1:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 7 of 66 (351838)
09-24-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-24-2006 5:23 PM


Re: written in the Year 5767
This is the Year 5767. Oetzi lived about 5300 years ago. That certainly makes him contemporary with Adam.

Oh I see. So they also found on his person a document dated 467 Adam Time or something like that? Well why didn't you SAY so?

Again, the age of this mummy is sheer speculation. What are the actual facts from which it was inferred?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 5:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 5:32 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 9 of 66 (351846)
09-24-2006 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
09-24-2006 5:32 PM


Re: written in the Year 5767
They can't possibly know how old this mummy is.

Why NOT Faith.

Well, theoretically they could possibly have a good idea, but you haven't shown that there is any reason to accept this. I reworded it to say that the statement about age is nothing but speculation. Interpretation. As I originally said in my first post. Your OP was almost nothing but interpretation, almost nothing in the way of actual fact. That was the whole point of my answer to you. Please supply the actual physical evidence upon which the age calculation is based and how the inference was made from it. Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 5:32 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 5:49 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 11 of 66 (351858)
09-24-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
09-24-2006 5:49 PM


Re: written in the Year 5767
Sigh. Radiocarbon dating. That's all. Oh well. I'm not surprised. I'd hoped for something more along the lines of forensic deduction from the facts. Sorry, there's nothing to discuss here I guess. I just don't accept radiocarbon dating. That in itself is simply based on assumptions that can't be proved, about regular rates of decay through unknown conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 5:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 6:05 PM Faith has responded
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 09-24-2006 6:14 PM Faith has responded
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2006 2:43 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 11-17-2007 12:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 13 of 66 (351868)
09-24-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
09-24-2006 6:05 PM


No proof of how old this mummy is
You haven't proved he was a contemporary of Adam. Prove that and then we'll discuss the super genome and whether or not he has it and what it would look like. But there is no reason to believe he is a contemporary of Adam. Maybe a few hundred years old or a couple thousand, but no way to know that I can see since radiocarbon dating is as good as wild guessing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 6:05 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 6:19 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 15 of 66 (351872)
09-24-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
09-24-2006 6:14 PM


Re: OT on dating
Huh?

Jar wrote a whole OP with about 2% of facts and all the rest speculation and you are getting on MY case? Carbon dating has about the same degree of plausibility as all that speculation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 09-24-2006 6:14 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 09-24-2006 6:18 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 18 of 66 (351885)
09-24-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
09-24-2006 6:19 PM


No evidence from you yet, jar. Please provide
I didn't give a hard and fast date and you know it. I said a few hundred years or a couple thousand because so far no real evidence has been given to work from.

Oh except those shoes. But nothing about what culture those shoes suggest either. I think those shoes are very interesting. Perhaps they were a creation of his very own.

As usual you are simply avoiding the points I made in my first post about your lack of evidence for all those interpretations that you were palming off as known facts.

Again, please provide the evidence that was so sorely lacking in your OP.

Until then, end of discussion.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 6:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-24-2006 7:40 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 21 by jar, posted 09-24-2006 8:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34647
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 19 of 66 (351890)
09-24-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
09-24-2006 6:18 PM


Re: OT on dating
I don't accept carbon dating, never have. It proves nothing. I have said, however, that I don't understand it well enough to discuss it and will concede the point when the discussion gets technical.

But I know enough to distrust it on the ground that decay rates can't be known for sure in the past in all conditions. If that's a new position, then it's the one I hold on this thread.

Since it's off topic, there should be nothing more to say about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 09-24-2006 6:18 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-25-2006 3:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020