Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 7:12 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,663 Year: 6,700/19,786 Month: 1,241/1,581 Week: 63/393 Day: 46/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   secularists do not want the truth
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 16 of 85 (575805)
08-21-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-21-2010 3:08 AM


BUT as you can see in the article NO PROOF or EVIDENCE was offered for such a scenario ...

"PROOF or EVIDENCE" that a woman inherits her genes from her parents?

If your parents have not already explained to you about "the birds and the bees", then I feel that this is their job and not ours.

And until you have grasped this important biological concept, I fear that the more recondite issues in biology discussed on these forums may be somewhat beyond your grasp.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-21-2010 3:08 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 08-21-2010 6:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 64 of 85 (577275)
08-27-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
08-27-2010 1:59 PM


The other method, however seems to be begging the question. They assume that chimps and humans had a common ancestor 6M years ago, then calculate the mutation rate and apply it to humans.

That's not begging the question unless they calculate the date of the chimp-human split using the mitochondrial data, having calculated the rate of mitochondrial mutations given the date of the chimp-human split, which they calculated using the mitochondrial data ...

And since scientists aren't completely stupid, no-one has done that.

So long as they're getting the date of the chimp-human split from somewhere else, such as the fossil record, they are then entitled to use this date to calibrate the mutation rate of ape mtDNA and then use that to calculate the date of mitochondrial Eve.

As it says in the WP article:

A requirement is that the time to the most recent common ancestor(TMRCA) of the sample of lineages must already be known from other independent sources, usually the archeological record.

No circular reasoning there.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2010 1:59 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2010 11:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 68 of 85 (577311)
08-28-2010 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
08-27-2010 11:07 PM


While I see your point, I would say that if I use a tape measure and measure a man to be six feet tall, and if a second person uses this fact to estimate that he takes size 12 shoes, and if a third person uses that estimate to argue that he can't fit inside a matchbox, this does not add up to circular reasoning. Though it is true that the third person would have made the situation clearer by referring to the original measurement rather than to the estimate derived from it.

This situation would not be altered if matchbox proponents claimed to have a different interpretation of measurements made with tape measures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 08-27-2010 11:07 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 80 of 85 (577770)
08-30-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by slevesque
08-29-2010 7:05 PM


But I agree that such dating of mit.-Eve seems unreconciliable with the current evolutionnary-paradigm of human history.

If no-one had ever heard of evolution and everyone believed in fiat creation of species it would still be irreconcilable with archaeology. It's not the ToE that tells us when (for example) Australia was colonized, and there'd be nothing incompatible with the ToE if it had happened last week instead.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by slevesque, posted 08-29-2010 7:05 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 08-30-2010 11:18 AM Dr Adequate 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 © 2019