"PROOF or EVIDENCE" that a woman inherits her genes from her parents?
That was my reaction, too. I think Archaeologist must have a random objection generator. It doesn't matter how basic and fundamental something is, he objects. He reminds me of this Groucho Marx song from the movie Horse Feathers:
Groucho Marx writes:
[Groucho] I don't know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway, Whatever it is, I'm against it. No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it.
Your proposition may be good, But let's have one thing understood, Whatever it is, I'm against it. And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it.
I'm opposed to it, On general principle, I'm opposed to it.
[chorus] He's opposed to it. In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!
[Groucho] For months before my son was born, I used to yell from night to morn, Whatever it is, I'm against it. And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it, I'm against it!
i do not think you know your own suystems or just ignore the many articles that expose the problems that permeate them.
I think what people are looking for is the evidence that would support your claims. For example, in an earlier message you said this:
you mean the same peer review system where scientists do not replicate experiments, do not read the reports or papers sent them, is easily manipulated, biased, prejudiced and does not confirm anything about the original report?
What people would like to know is how you know that "scientists do not replicate experiments?" How were you able to discover that scientists "do not read the reports or papers sent them" for peer review. Where is your evidence that the peer review system is "easily manipulated, biased and prejudiced." And how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction between science's outstanding record of success and these profound failures.
This issue of failing to support your claims is a common problem in your messages. You're fairly clear about what you believe but not very good at providing the evidence and rationale that might convince people that they should believe as you do. Hotjer provided evidence that the original paper is thickly supported by references, which is not consistent with your claims. A valid rebuttal would consist of counter-evidence and argument, but you didn't do that. You instead engaged in ad hominem by accusing Hotjer of "not knowing your own systems or just ignoring the many articles exposing the problems," and of not wanting the truth.
Maybe God is all-knowing, but here on Earth we mere mortals must support our claims with evidence and rational argument.
In case you want more detail, and I'm sure it gets much more sophisticated than this, but you analyze the DNA from a group of people where you know how they are related, usually a family grouping like Mr Jack suggested. That way you'll know who is 1 generation removed (father to son), 2 generations removed (grandfather to grandson, the grandson's will be siblings or cousins), and so forth. You calculate the number of mutations per generation and average over many family groups to get a reliable general estimate.
In the original link given by archaeo, it only says ''scientists know the average rate of mutations'' but doesn't link to any particular study or even give the actual mutation rate they used.
What I'm really asking is, in the study giving a 200k year age to Mit-Eve, what mutation rate did they use, and how was it deduced ?
Mr Jack already provided you a reference, so I'm replying only because I'm curious why you ask. Do you doubt that it can be calculated? Or do you accept that it can be calculated, but doubt that they calculated it? Or do you accept that they calculated it, but doubt that they calculated it correctly? I can't think of any reason you would ask that isn't because you think they're lying or incompetent.
Once any group of scientists gains credit for discovering mitochondrial Eve, other groups would immediately check that research trying to disprove it, some perhaps for no other reason than to gain the credit and attention for themselves. What in the world would lead you to think that the research got out there without the kind of intense vetting that would detect any trivially simple errors like the ones you're asking about?
If you read enough about mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam you'll discover that there isn't unanimous agreement scientists, though these studies are widely accepted. But the studies aren't perfect. For instance, some of the complaints are about data gathering techniques. Some are about the particular markers that were chosen for comparison and analysis. If all you want is an admission that the studies aren't perfect, then you've got it. But if you think imperfect means wrong then you've gone way off the deep end, because no human endeavor is ever perfect and yet our knowledge grows. Science doesn't seek or require perfection. What it seeks is an ever improving understanding of the world we live in.
But what comes out when you use a pedigree based estimations ? There's at least one study who gets a mutation rate 20 times higher, which would bring down Mit-Eve to around 6k years old. (Parsons, T.J. et al ‘A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region’, Nature Genetics Vol. 15: 363–368, 1997)
So it's not the method you're concerned about, it's the answer. You accept that all offspring have mutations that make them different from their parents. And you accept that over many generations there's an average number of mutations per generation that can be used as a clock. And you accept that somewhere back in time there must have been common ancestors, one each on both the male and female lines.
But you reject any answer other than one somewhere roughly around 6000 years ago. And why might that be? Could it be because rather than looking at the evidence you're making an assumption of inerrancy about your interpretation of a story from a 2000 year old book written by desert nomads?
If I'm wrong about this last part then all you need do is explain why Parsons estimate of mitochondrial mutation rates should be used in making the calculation for Mit-Eve. If a properly scientific approach says that Mit-Eve lived just 6000 years ago then I'm sure that's fine by everyone here
Of course, such an answer would be surprising in the extreme. It would require a great deal of research to explain how it fits with all the archeological evidence of human habitation much older than 6000 years, and with what we know of human migration rates and the fact that there was no land connection between Asia and the Americas after about 10,000 years ago. How could anyone who lived a mere 6000 years ago be a common ancestor of all modern people in both the old and new worlds?
Still, if the scientific answer is 6000 years ago then it must be accepted. So what is your argument for the validity of a date for Mit-Eve using Parsons value for the mitochondrial mutation rate?
If I'm wrong about this last part then all you need do is explain why Parsons estimate of mitochondrial mutation rates should be used in making the calculation for Mit-Eve.
Because it is an actual real-time measurement of the rate. It's operational science. This reason should favor the pedigree based approach.
The phylogeny based approach really only gives us a prediction of what the Theory of Evolution says the rate should be. What happens when you go and actually measure what the rate is, and it comes out to be not at all what the theory predicted ? Should you still trust the phylogeny-based rate ??
You should try to understand why the two approaches differ instead of ceasing your investigation as soon as you find a study you like. As bluegenes explains in Message 78, a larger study using the same approach as Parsons' found a lower rate. And as he also explains, much work has been done explain the discrepancy, and we now understand that factors like drift and mutational hotspots and so on are important factors that cause the rate to measure higher when performed on a tiny number of contemporary generations.
So if it really isn't a case of you just liking the 6000 year date better, explain why Parson's value should be accepted, given the additional information that has been provided to you.
This month's issue of American Scientist magazine has an article about the evolution of penguins in Antarctica: Evolution on a Frozen Continent (looks like you need a subscription if you want more than the abstract, sorry). Nesting grounds contain preserved biological material going back more than 40,000 years. The mutation rates can be measured very precisely and are consistent with widely accepted mutation rates in other species.
My main point with regard to Parsons was that we want to understand the discrepancy between various measurement approaches before reaching any conclusions. Without that understanding any choice is likely to be flawed.
As I mentioned earlier, archaeology and human migration patterns are your other big problem with a near-term date, and these factors have nothing to do with evolution.
How did they get their 40k years figure ?
Radiometric dating and the counting of annual nesting layers. Some nesting areas went back some 40,000 years, others only a few thousand years.