Jump to content


Photo

Biological Theory: Postmodern Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#101 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 25 November 2008 - 01:03 AM

You can put a tadpole in an aquarium and it will stay a tadpole for years until it has a branch or rock to crawl up on.

View Post


Are you sure about that?

#102 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 November 2008 - 01:09 AM

Thanks nowhereman,

Quote;By my own calculations, this much broader base of data (which includes Parsons'), gives us our most recent "eve" at a minimum of 17,300 years. Ironically, the data does blow out young earth creationism by Andy Nobles' own criteria.

It is not, however, conclusive in relation to Eve because of factors like selection on some areas of mitochondrial DNA, and "hot spots". Donnelly and Co. go into this at some length in a very interesting paper.

I was'nt aware 3 different studies have been done that have all reached different ages.(I guess it's not emperical afterall).

with that much difference i would say that a +/- margin of error still puts it easily in the biblical timeframe,but even at the highest calculation i cant see it supporting the out of africa model.

#103 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 November 2008 - 01:11 AM

Are you sure about that?

View Post

Yup.I had a bullfrog tadpole in my 55 gallon fish tank for 2 years and it never grew legs.

#104 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 25 November 2008 - 02:50 AM

Hilarious, 14,000 years, yes brilliant, not really.  Actually it was assumed to be 14,000 years old, well actually almost everything past human recording is assumed.  So no it was not 14,000 years old, nor are dinosaurs 65 million or 150 million years old.  Nope, sorry, but thats just wishful assuming. 

Ah yes, then you must bring up carbon dating which is a sketchy way of saying that this rock I just found in my back yard has just been dated to 1.2 billion years old.  Sorry, but you cannot just radio carbon date things based on their Half lives. 

Evolutionist simply love carbon dating, because it makes all their fantasies seem to come true.  You could keep on bringing the ages of everything, but carbon dating is a highly inaccurate method of dating rocks.  Besides, you can't put a rock in a machine and get printed results of its age as evolutionist would have you believe.

View Post


Once again, for general public amusement:

Ah yes, then you must bring up carbon dating which is a sketchy way of saying that this rock I just found in my back yard has just been dated to 1.2 billion years old. 


And:

You could keep on bringing the ages of everything, but carbon dating is a highly inaccurate method of dating rocks.


:rolleyes: Absolutely right with that last phrase, scott, and that's why no-one does it.

Why don't you find out exactly what carbon dating is before you privilege the world with your opinions on it?

Rocks! :rolleyes:

#105 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 25 November 2008 - 05:31 AM

Thanks nowhereman,

By my own calculations, this much broader base of data (which includes Parsons'), gives us our most recent "eve" at a minimum of 17,300 years. Ironically, the data does blow out young earth creationism by Andy Nobles' own criteria.

It is not, however, conclusive in relation to Eve because of factors like selection on some areas of mitochondrial DNA, and "hot spots". Donnelly and Co. go into this at some length in a very interesting paper..


I was'nt aware 3 different studies have been done that have all reached different ages.(I guess it's not emperical afterall).


You're welcome. Never trust sites like Nobles'. Do your own checks in the literature. But the data is empirical, by definition, it's just that in measuring the approximate frequency of an rare occurrence, the bigger the database, the more accurate the results.

with that much difference i would say that a +/- margin of error still puts it easily in the biblical timeframe,but even at the highest calculation i cant see it supporting the out of africa model.


There's certainly room for error, and I could generously put it at 33%. That gives you ~17,300yrs = 11,591yrs to 23,009yrs.

~17,500yrs minimum isn't a problem for the out of Africa model, because there are two factors that can extend it considerably. One is negative selection of mutations, but the most important in my opinion is the probability of mutation hotspots. When the mitochondrial DNA of two related populations is compared, a multiple mutation in one location will appear the same as one mutation difference between the groups. Hotspots could explain much of the difference between the phylogenetic estimations of the mutation rate and the direct observations made in the papers we're discussing.

That's why I say "~17,500yrs minimum" for the last human bottleneck.

For the classical "young earth creationist" model, the last mitchondrial "eve" has to be Noah's wife, and she's usually put at around 4,300 years ago. In terms of the research we're discussing, that means you would have hoped for about 60 mutations in 1221 transmission events, not 14. Then, if there turn out to be no hot spots and no negative selection, you would have the case that you were hoping for.

Don't you think it might be a good idea for you, as a fellow creationist, to write to Andy Nobles, and suggest that he includes all the relevant data on his web page? At present, he's misleading other creationists, which can lead to embarrassment on discussion boards. :rolleyes:

#106 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 November 2008 - 01:02 PM

So your saying that science can easily support multiplying that number by at least 20 times,but it's absurd to divide it in half.

Quote;Don't you think it might be a good idea for you, as a fellow creationist, to write to Andy Nobles, and suggest that he includes all the relevant data on his web page? At present, he's misleading other creationists, which can lead to embarrassment on discussion boards.

I could'nt get your pdf link to work so i sent Nobles' an e-mail.

Thanks.

#107 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 November 2008 - 02:27 PM

Heres some relevant data everyone else might consider including.

If paternal mitochondria was recombined with maternal it would greatly inflate the age,given the original assumption that all mitochondrial dna is maternal.

Heres some evidence of that.

First, let us examine the assumption that mtDNA is derived solely from the mother. In response to a paper that appeared in Science in 1999, anthropologist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah lamented: “There is a cottage industry of making gene trees in anthropology and then interpreting them. This paper will invalidate most of that” (as quoted in Strauss, 1999, 286:2436). Just as women thought they were getting their fair shake in science, the tables turned. As one study noted:

Women have struggled to gain equality in society, but biologists have long thought that females wield absolute power in a sphere far from the public eye: in the mitochondria, cellular organelles whose DNA is thought to pass intact from mother to child with no paternal influence. On page 2524 however, a study by Philip Awadalla of the University of Edinburgh and Adam Eyre-Walker and John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex in Brighton, U.K. finds signs of mixing between maternal and paternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in humans and chimpanzees. Because biologists have used mtDNA as a tool to trace human ancestry and relationships, the finding has implications for everything from the identification of bodies to the existence of a “mitochondrial Eve” 200,000 years ago (Strauss, 286:2436, emphasis added).
One year later, researchers made this startling admission:

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother…. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate…. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA (Morris and Mightowlers, 2000, 355:1290, emphasis added).
In 2002, a study was conducted that concluded:

Nevertheless, even a single validated example of paternal mtDNA transmission suggests that the interpretation of inheritance patterns in other kindreds thought to have mitochondrial disease should not be based on the dogmatic assumption of absolute maternal inheritance of mtDNA…. The unusual case described by Schwartz and Vissing is more than a mere curiosity (Williams, 2002, 347:611, emphasis added).
And now we know that these are more than small “fractional” amounts of mtDNA coming from fathers. The August 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded:

Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited…. Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses…. We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion…. We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).
Ninety percent! And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA!

As scientists have begun to comprehend the fact, and significance, of the “death” of mitochondrial Eve, many have found themselves searching for alternatives that can help them maintain their current beliefs regarding human origins. But this recombination ability in mtDNA makes the entire discussion a moot point. As Strauss noted:

Such recombination could be a blow for researchers who have used mtDNA to trace human evolutionary history and migrations. They have assumed that the mtDNA descends only through the mother, so they could draw a single evolutionary tree of maternal descent—all the way back to an African “mitochondrial Eve,” for example. But “with recombination there is no single tree,” notes Harpending. Instead, different parts of the molecule have different histories. Thus, “there’s not one woman to whom we can trace our mitochondria,” says Eyre-Walker (1999, 286:2436, emphasis added)

www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp - 38k

Now we have evidence why the age is higher than ~4,300 years ago.

Thanks.

#108 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 26 November 2008 - 03:23 AM

So your saying that science can easily support multiplying that number by at least 20 times,but it's absurd to divide it in half.


There's no need to multiply ~17,300yrs 20 times to ~346,000yrs!!! There's actually no reason in evolutionary theory itself why a human bottleneck couldn't happen ~17,500 years ago. However, it clashes with archaeology evidence, so I'd like to take back that date at least about four times (~70,000yrs).

Of course, I can't do that without explanation. As I said before, there are two obvious things that would take the date back: (1)negative selection of detrimental mutations and (2) repeated mutations on the same hotspot loci.

Looking just at the first, creationists frequently point out, correctly, that detrimental mutations are far more common than advantageous mutations. If just three quarters of the mutations occurring in mtDNA are detrimental and the rest neutral, that's enough to take me back to ~70,000yrs. Detrimental mutations in mtDNA that cause noticeable medical problems are known to happen, and many others may be less noticeably disadvantageous, because mtDNA is very important to our phenotypes. It works well in most of us, so change is likely to be bad news more often than not.

Young earth creationists need to argue that the overwhelming majority of mtDNA mutations are actually advantageous and heavily selected for in order to explain modern mtDNA diversity.

Incidentally, I've got good news for you. I just realised that Noah's wife wouldn't have been an "eve" because she only had three sons, so the mtDNA comes from their three wives. That gives you another 2000yrs back to Adam and Eve to explain the modern diversity. It's not enough, but every little helps! ;)

I could'nt get your pdf link to work so i sent Nobles' an e-mail.

Thanks.


You're welcome, and I'll give you the pdf link written out in full in my next post, so you can copy and paste.

#109 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 26 November 2008 - 04:41 AM

[quote name='jason777' date='Nov 25 2008, 02:27 PM']Heres some relevant data everyone else might consider including.

If paternal mitochondria was recombined with maternal it would greatly inflate the age,given the original assumption that all mitochondrial dna is maternal.

Heres some evidence of that.

First, let us examine the assumption that mtDNA is derived solely from the mother.  In response to a paper that appeared in Science in 1999, anthropologist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah lamented: “There is a cottage industry of making gene trees in anthropology and then interpreting them.  This paper will invalidate most of that” (as quoted in Strauss, 1999, 286:2436).  Just as women thought they were getting their fair shake in science, the tables turned.  As one study noted:

Women have struggled to gain equality in society, but biologists have long thought that females wield absolute power in a sphere far from the public eye: in the mitochondria, cellular organelles whose DNA is thought to pass intact from mother to child with no paternal influence.  On page 2524 however, a study by Philip Awadalla of the University of Edinburgh and Adam Eyre-Walker and John Maynard Smith of the University of Sussex in Brighton, U.K.  finds signs of mixing between maternal and paternal mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in humans and chimpanzees.  Because biologists have used mtDNA as a tool to trace human ancestry and relationships, the finding has implications for everything from the identification of bodies to the existence of a “mitochondrial Eve” 200,000 years ago (Strauss, 286:2436, emphasis added).
One year later, researchers made this startling admission:

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother….  Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father.  This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination.  If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate….  If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA (Morris and Mightowlers, 2000, 355:1290, emphasis added).
In 2002, a study was conducted that concluded:

Nevertheless, even a single validated example of paternal mtDNA transmission suggests that the interpretation of inheritance patterns in other kindreds thought to have mitochondrial disease should not be based on the dogmatic assumption of absolute maternal inheritance of mtDNA….  The unusual case described by Schwartz and Vissing is more than a mere curiosity (Williams, 2002, 347:611, emphasis added).
And now we know that these are more than small “fractional” amounts of mtDNA coming from fathers.  The August 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine contained the results of one study, which concluded:

Mammalian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is thought to be strictly maternally inherited….  Very small amounts of paternally inherited mtDNA have been detected by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in mice after several generations of interspecific backcrosses….  We report the case of a 28-year-old man with mitochondrial myopathy due to a novel 2-bp mtDNA deletion….  We determined that the mtDNA harboring the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s muscle mtDNA (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002, 347:576, emphasis added).
Ninety percent!  And all this time, evolutionists have been selectively shaping our family tree using what was alleged to be only maternal mtDNA!

As scientists have begun to comprehend the fact, and significance, of the “death” of mitochondrial Eve, many have found themselves searching for alternatives that can help them maintain their current beliefs regarding human origins.  But this recombination ability in mtDNA makes the entire discussion a moot point.  As Strauss noted:

Such recombination could be a blow for researchers who have used mtDNA to trace human evolutionary history and migrations.  They have assumed that the mtDNA descends only through the mother, so they could draw a single evolutionary tree of maternal descent—all the way back to an African “mitochondrial Eve,” for example.  But “with recombination there is no single tree,” notes Harpending.  Instead, different parts of the molecule have different histories.  Thus, “there’s not one woman to whom we can trace our mitochondria,” says Eyre-Walker (1999, 286:2436, emphasis added)

www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp - 38k

Now we have evidence why the age is higher than ~4,300 years ago.

Thanks.

View Post

[/quote]

I know there's paternal inheritance of mtDNA, and it's quite common in some animals. In humans, it appears to be very rare, as there's only one confirmed case that I know of. It may be in the region of one in 10,000 transmission events, like one study I know of in mice.

It's a good idea on your part, but it doesn't really help you much. Remember that the surveys we're discussing identified 14 single mutations in 1221 transmission events. This is like 14 children out of 1221 having a single difference from their mothers. The rate is one single change in 87. There was no evidence of any change due to paternal leakage.

Now, we're only about 300 generations away from Eve in your model. Tracing anyone's maternal line back to Eve, you would have had an average of one mutation every 87 generations, giving an average of about 4 for each of us, therefore an average of eight differences between random individuals. Only a small minority would have a paternal transfer of DNA in our lineages (1 in 30 if it's a one in 10,000 happening, and remember, nearly all of the father's mtDNA would be identical to the mothers).

So, you don't have enough generations to account for the difference between random individuals, which should average 8 (4 ancestral mutations each) but I think is something like 50.

Then you have the further problem of negative selection and hotspots, which count against you.

The conclusion is that homo sapiens, on the present known evidence relating to current mtDNA mutation rates and modern diversity, cannot be 6,300 years old as a species, and would have to be older than ~17,000yrs unless negative mutations in mtDNA are extremely rare and there are no significant mutation hotspots.

Here's the pdf on the rates written in full for easy copying/pasting, and the link again. (About 10 seconds to download on broadband). I've got some interesting stuff on mtDNA hotspots, as well, but I'll save it for later. ;)

http://www.pubmedcen...10&blobtype=pdf

(ignore bracketed words!)http://www.pubmedcen...10&blobtype=pdf

Incidentally, Jason, putting quote and /quote in [brackets] like that gives you the quote boxes on this site. And [quote=charlie] at the beginning gives the person's name.

Cheers.

#110 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2008 - 01:12 PM

There's no need to multiply ~17,300yrs 20 times to ~346,000yrs!!! There's actually no reason in evolutionary theory itself why a human bottleneck couldn't happen ~17,500 years ago.


Sure there is.It requires evidence.A population increase of just 2% a year gives us 6,000,000,000 peope in just 1100 years,that makes it hard to beleive a bottleneck occured 4,300 year ago.

However, it clashes with archaeology evidence, so I'd like to take back that date at least about four times (~70,000yrs).


I hope your not talking about carbon dating here.If a neanderthal fossil carbon dates 36,000 years old it's a good date,but if a dinosaur fossil dates 36,000 years old it's machine background.Absurd i know,but it's the truth.

Thanks for the pdf link i'll read it some time today.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users