Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Glenn Morton <glenn_morton@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Feb 15 2006 - 16:41:39 EST

I apologize if this got posted, but it didn't come back to me and it didn't make the archive. This is my 3rd try in 2 days to send this.
   
  This is for David, Terry and Dick
  DAvid wrote:
  
>Who said anything about the "appearance" of a genetic link? What I suggested is that perhaps the "dust of the ground" >in Gen. 2:7 included genetic / biological material from "protohuman" hominids. This would mean there is a real, not
>apparent, genetic link between us and them. If "dust of the ground" isn't merely a metaphorical phrase, then "special
>creation" of Adam doesn't preclude the use of pre-existing created matter in God's "construction" of Adam. Certainly
>ordinary "dust" often includes organic material such as sluffed off skin cells. Of course, this may be reading too much into >the little phrase "dust of the ground," but who knows? There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of
>in your (or my) philosophy.
  This is effectively what I do with my view of how to explain the data http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm. But this doesn't work for the RTB model because they actually have all the archaic hominids go extinct prior to the appearance of man on earth (it seems that God likes to kill things off en masse). Indeed, they specifically argue that there is no connection.
  ¬“The extent and nature of the genetic differences make a powerful case that Neanderthals and humans are distinct species. Neanderthals did not make any genetic (and hence evolutionary) contribution to humanity, not even to Europeans as the multiregional model predicts. In fact, using the HVI for DNA estimate and the combined HVI and HVII DNA sequences for another, the Max Planck researchers found (from an evolutionary perspective) that Neanderthals and modern humans are so genetically diverse that they diverged from a common ancestor between 690,000 and 550,000 years ago and between 741,000 and 317,000 years ago, respectively.¬” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam?, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2005), p. 184
   
  But then have to back track with Mungo man:
   
  ¬“Although the specific DNA sequence for Lake Mungo Man does not occur in the contemporary human gene pool, it still is characteristically a human DNA sequence. Neanderthal DNA sequences do not possess the telltale features of human DNA.¬” Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam?, (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2005), p. 188
   
  Terry wrote:
>My "simplistic" reference had nothing to do with the volume of your library or even the depth of your knowledge in this
>area. It has to do with the observation that you take the latest result and find it to be decisive result from which you can
>proclaim "victory" in the debate. Personally, I don't care who wins this one.
  Let me do an analogy. When people observed that starlight was bent by the sun, it was both the latest result and taken as proof that other theories were wrong. I would claim that this statistical analysis is along those lines. How does one resurrect a theory after it has been rejected at such a level?????
   
  Dick Fischer wrote:
>Templeton was interviewed for the article published on the Washington University web site. Templeton is a teaching professor at WU. > On the same web page is Templeton¬’s name and email address. His picture is in the article. Gosh, how would somebody get the
>impression that he knew what was in the article? Cut me some slack, good buddy.
   Would quotations help???? By the way, if you come to Texas I can get you all the scorpion you could want.

glenn
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
                
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Received on Wed Feb 15 16:42:51 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 15 2006 - 16:42:51 EST