RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Date: Fri Feb 24 2006 - 12:16:52 EST

Jack wrote:
 
So either Ross needs to address this new data and alter his
model, or he will just ignore it and will be another of the many
apologists
that are selective in the data that they put forth to prove their model.
 
He already belongs in the latter group. He totally ignores the genetic
evidence that ties human beings to the rest of the animal kingdom. How
does Ross, or any PC, address retroposons and processed pseudogenes in
human DNA at the same locus points in Chimpanzees?
 
Ross is just as guilty of selecting data that supports his line of
reasoning while ignoring all counter evidence as the YECs he denigrates.
It's the old log in the eye trick.
 
Dick Fischer
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of jack syme
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 6:22 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu; Mansar
Subject: Re: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity
 
In 2005 Hugh Ross and Fuzz Rana of the Reasons to Believe Ministry
presented
their model for the origin of humanity. In November it was published in
a
book titled "Who was Adam"
http://www.reasons.org/shop/customer/product.php?productid=690&cat=1
 
Hugh Ross's goal is to develop a testable model of creation. He is a
"day-age" creationist, or progressive creationist. He believes that the

days in Genesis are long periods of time, ages, and that each species,
especially homo sapiens, are specially created by God at the appropriate

time.
 
So the RTB (reasons to believe model) model for human origin, is that
Adam
(they believe in a literal Adam) was specially created by God roughly
100,000 years ago. And that Adam and his ancestors then went forth and
multiplied and displaced the archaic homo species that were in existence
at
the time. So homo neanderthalis, homo erectus, and homo florensis, were
not
human, only modern human.
 
And he uses a lot of scientific data to support this hypothesis. Some of
it
anthropological, and claims that there is evidence for an "explosive"
change
in human behavior, technology, culture about this time. And he also
refers
to genetic data, mostly mitochondrial DNA s tudies. And he has chosen
sides on one of the big debates in the anthropoligical scientific
literature, he has chosen the Out of Africa (OOA) model over the multi
regional hypothesis (MRH). The OOA theory is the "mitochondrial Eve"
theory, that all humans can be traced back to one woman that lived in
Africa
about 100,000 years ago.
 
But this theory is much debated in the scientific literature. What
Terry is
saying is that it is too soon to make the claim that the recent data
from
Templeton is the end of that scientific debate.
 
I am saying that the Templeton data, even if it doesnt end the OOA MRH
debate, does disprove the RTB model because this model requires genetic
distinction between modern humans, and all other homo species. But the
Templeton data refutes this because it shows evidence of genetic linkage

between modern humans, and species from 1.5 milllion years ago, most
likely
homo erectus. So either Ross needs to address this new data and alter
his
model, or he will just ignore it and will be another of the many
apologists
that are selective in the data that they put forth to prove their model.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mansar" <niai@hush.ai>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity
 
 
>
> I have been following this discussion with interest. Could someone
> enlighten me as to what the RTB model is? Also I must ask for
forgiveness
> of my total ignorance but could someone give me a mtDNA Eve for
Dummies
> breakdown? What exactly is the theory/story? What is the science
behind
> it? I know little about science but enough to be suspicious of a
10,000
> year old earth.
>
> Also, I have read what Dick Fischer and others have written on the
problem
> of Adam given the problems in time frames.
>
> Could someone or someones point me to a collection of articles or
> information on-line (or off but given I live in the boonies on-line
would
> be best) describing the more popular theories on how to explain Adam
or
> describe who he is etc as is being discussed here. Or posit your own
> beliefs or summaries?
>
> Also, what is the take on answers in genesis?
>
> Humbly,
>
> The Other less Knowledgeable Iain
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 24 12:17:00 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 24 2006 - 12:17:00 EST