The "Logic" of the creationist....

I must have missed an incredibly important part of this thread. Please thrash me if i have. Isn't most of this overshadowed by what i thought was a widely read paper by Whitfield et al, "Sequence Variation of the Human Y Chromosome" in Nature 378? How many other hominid species were around 50,000 years ago? 1 - Neandertals. How many of us think that Neandertals make a good origin for Homo Sapiens? --don't answer that--Shouldn't we discuss the bigger point? We can toss our respective educations around all we want, but first tell me that this study (which, as studies go, seems to have been fairly simple once the sample population was reached) was full of crap. Then all of the talk about mutation rates becomes relevant, not before.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:homo sapiens, homo erectus and homo neandarthalensis -- three species up until about 30,000 years ago.
[/B][/QUOTE]sorry, wrong answer. Erectus went bye-bye about 300,000 years ago, and Neandertals about 50,000...which doesn't leave much if these gentlemen have done their math correctly. Maybe they haven't, but i think it's a point that needs to be tackled first. [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
I couldn't find this article when searching Nature. Do you have a link for it?[/B][/QUOTE]No, but it's "Whitfield, L.S., J.E. Suston, and P.N. Goodfellow. 1995. Sequence variation of the human Y chromosome. Nature 378: 379-380. "sorry i can't find my link. i'm disorganized like that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:So things seemed until finds of h. erectus near the Soho River in Java were dated the 50,000 kya. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html 404 Not Found And the funeral date for h. neandarthalensis is 30,000 kya, not 50,000.oh... there is h. hedelbergensis too.What is the point actually? I can't tell why you've brought this up?[/B][/QUOTE]Riiight...did you read those links? Our optimistic friends dated animal bones in what they thought was the same sediment as what they believe are Erectus remains. I've seen better studies on the existence of angels. As your own links say, this report has been met with a fairly united skepticism similar to my own.Why don't i generalize to make ends meet...current fossil records put the end of Erectus at LEAST 200,000 years ago. Even confirmed finds of Erectus at 50,000 ago would raise eyebrows, as we don't seem to be able to find any in between. It's nice to find fossils in between.The point rests in that Nature article in my previous post. If the Y chromosome study reported in this article puts Sapiens origins at no more than 50,000 years ago, then we reeeeally need to find an ancestor who was turning into Sapiens at just about that time. Otherwise, you have what OEC's have been saying all along. Creation. Or maybe the study was refuted at a later date. Either way, it's a bit of an important question, isn't it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PercipientFirst, it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about an article only you have access to.
--Percy[/B][/QUOTE]I consider myself sacked for not having the link in hand before the referral. Not having a subscription to Nature, i'm peeling back through all of my old crap in search. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient
Second, you've misunderstood the study. The 50,000 year date for Y-chromosome Adam is not for the origin of Homo sapiens, but for the most recent common ancestor of all male Homo sapiens alive today. There is also a Mitochondrial Eve, the most recent common ancestor of all female Homo sapiens alive today, thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago.The date of the most recent common ancestor is unrelated to the date of emergence of a new species. The age of Y-chromosome Adam is not the same as the age of the Homo sapien species. And neither is the age of Mitochondrial Eve, obviously not since she has a widely divergent date from Y-chromosome Adam. It would be impossible for females to have become Homo sapiens before males, though I grant it makes lots of sense from other perspectives. --Percy[/B][/QUOTE]Sharp as always, master P.I didn't quite round out the point...if this had already been rehashed, i didn't want to waste anyone else's time. I agree with your date for MEve. What stands out to me at this point, in the discussion of the ascent of HSapiens, is a combination of factors. The Y-chromosome study should give us a very careful pause when we consider the timing of the development of modern HSapiens. Moving further, the concentration and abrupt appearance of a host of cultural developments (rapid proliferation and advancement of stone tools, bone/antler carvings and 'jewelry', 'pictorial' art, etc) speak very strongly of an abrupt shift in the cultural and biological makeup of HSapiens.
The other point of the study was simply to reinforce the lack of evidence for interspecie Hominid activity in this era...isolating the abrupt appearance of modern HSapiens.It's more good, solid paleontology that doesn't support the evo paradigm. Abrupt shifts in the makeup of species or the appearance of species bring you closer to a Creator, not further.
Moreover, do you agree that the genetic diversity among current HSapiens neither resembles what we see among living ape species, nor fits what evolution must predict?Or, you can just ignore me until i find that !$^!#$!ing link. (damn, i'm Christian...i can't swear! what the hell am i thinking!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

It's more good, solid paleontology that doesn't support the evo paradigm.

---

What?
[/b][/quote]I won't rebut the upper half of your last posting until i can pony up with a link. Sound fair?
Here, though...i'm a bit confused. The Hominid fossil record is a study in stasis followed by punctuation. That's all i was trying to show. I'm surprised that you would follow

quote:

---

Abrupt shifts in the makeup of species or the appearance of species bring you closer to a Creator, not further.

---

with [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
Not really.
[/b][/quote]Is there some mystical room in evolution theory that allows for species to live in stasis for long periods of time, only to be suddenly replaced or joined by brand new species? [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
There isn't much genetic diversity within h. sapiens. What diversity exists is due to our inhabiting vastely diverse environments. No other primate species shares that great of a range, so the analogy is flawed.
[/b][/quote]Did you mean to contradict yourself? You seem smart, so i'll assume you didn't. What i read from that is that our genetic diversity is due to our diversity of environmental range. This means that less-ranged species will have less diversity. This is the opposite of what we see...which is my point. [QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
I bet Jesus swore when he was trashing those money changers.
[/B][/QUOTE]I bet you'll never catch Jesus calling someone an infidel...