i don't trust the dating, but if the data is correct then it stands to reason there is some finagling going on to produce the large time span for both. my point is, that the scientific data is pointing towards the validty of the Bible -all people came from adam and eve, but the details are sketchy considering the source.
The evidence for the date of 200,000; and the evidence for the existence of "mitochondrial eve" are the same evidence. If the date is wrong*, then the technique is flawed and the evidence for "mitochondrial eve" is invalid.
And, in fact, if you read the paper, mitochondrial eve is assumed and the date determined from the evidence.
The point is that you are assuming Mitochondrial-Eve was the first Human woman. Mitochondrial-Eve is the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of all living humans.
Mitochondrial Eve is most certainly not the MRCA, she's the most recent common ancestor if you trace exclusively down the female line. Just as Y-Chromosome Adam is the most recent if you trace exclusively down the male line.
The MRCA is more recent than either of these.
(I think, from what you say later in your post, that you understand this; but I think it's an important misconception to clarify)
i did read some of the paper and saw thatit was all assumption so i stopped reading it. i never trust the dates coming form secualr sources and if they really tried, they would have found that the dna stopped at about 6-10,000 years NOT 200,000. same for the adam side.
Well, those are bold claims.
Could you identify the assumptions present that invalidate the conclusions? Could you explain how these assumptions have led to the date being erroneous by a factor of 30 or so? And, finally, do you have any data that supports the 6-10,000 year date? (Although I'm confused by your 6-10,000 year claim? Surely it should be roughly 4-4.5k years since it would date from the flood not creation).
One of the problems with the mitochondrial Eve date is that its calculation involves making a number of assumptions. Now, if we followed the Creationist fantasy of what Scientists do everyone would now gather round and have a big back patting session about how we've proved the Bible is wrong again. What actually happened is that people have set out to limit the impact of those assumptions.
A very recent paper looked at how the date changes if you vary the assumptions and thus investigate how confident we can be in the date. They found the date was robust under variation of modelling assumptions, the paper in question is here.
except you haven't proven the Bible wrong (ever). you cannot verify your results and no ancient record supports the modern science conclusion thus you are just trying to convince yourselves you are right when you are not and have no hope in proving you are.
That's rather the point, my dear boy. I assure you no working scientist today gives a monkey's flatulent bottom about proving the Bible wrong. That's not the point of science
you do not seem to understand my position at all. secular and evolutionary science is merely the blind leading the blind. you cannot prove your results and your excuse that 'science is not about the turth' undermines any claim you make about the past. if science is not about the truth then what it claims about origins and other unprovable conclusions is not true tus secular science destroys its own self appointed authority.
And, I assure you, dear boy, I've never said Science is not about truth. Because Science is most certainly and definitely about truth. What it cannot do is deliver sure and certain knowledge in the boring philosophical sense for Science is fundamentally a method. And back in the real world far from your fantasies of certainty, there is no method of knowing with sure and certain knowledge in that way that so excites first year philosophy students; as, indeed, any first year philosophy student can tell you.
But, dear boy, we can trust Science in a way we cannot trust anything else because Science is quite open in its methods; for but the price of a few magazine subscriptions or access to a good library one may determine the very methods by which the finest facts of Science have been determined. And, thus, we see the lie in your words. Nothing Science says in unsupported, it is in a myriad ways, tested, challenged and found secure.
Your 6000 years are a joke. Every facet of every living being screams that it is so. The very ground on which you walk tells a tale of countless millennia. But, dear boy, you need not take my word for it, for this is Science and you can find out and test it for your very self. The only thing you need dedicate is your time and energy to learning.
Sadly, of course, you'll first have to dedicate your time and energy to unlearning all the clueless drivel that currently fills your mind.
The YEC position interprets the fossil record differently. Therefore, it is begging the question when you use evolutionnary presuppositions in order to derive an age, and then use this age as proof YEC is wrong, since you had already assumed it was wrong when you based your estimate on evolution.
Apart from your errant use of the word assumed in the last sentence; yes, you're correct. Mitochondrial Eve does not provide additional evidence against a young earth* if the calculation of the date uses existing date measurements.
I decided to have a look at the various papers containing estimates and see what methods they have chosen.
Brown 1 used a previous rate estimate obtained in primates by using known divergence dates between the species (here's exactly how)
Cann et al2 estimated the rate by looking mtDNA divergence within clusters in New Guinea, Australia and the New World for which archaeological evidence evidence provides dates for the split. They compared these estimates to rates known from animal data to sanity check the rates.
1 - Brown, W. M. (1980) Polymorphism in mitochondrial DNA of humans as revealed by restriction endonuclease analysis Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77(6) pp. 3605-3609 Full text (free)
2 - Cann, R.L., Stoneking, M., Wilson, A.C. (1987) Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution Nature325, pp. 31-36 (1 January 1987). link