Re: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

From: <>
Date: Sat Feb 25 2006 - 13:01:03 EST

Boy, how talented Fuz is.  To be able to reply to an article 2 years BEFORE it is published is utterly and truly amazing.  Wish I could do that

Now MRH is the only way to explain the amount of variation in the non-recombining areas of the nuclear genome. ooA doesn't have a very good explanation for how such diversity made it through the bottleneck ooA requires.

Having read both articles, the new article is more solid, but the old one was not refuted by Fuz's feeble arguments. These guys have to deny any ancient connection of their theology is falsified.

On Fri Feb 24 14:32 , "jack syme" sent:

I was sent a private message saying that Fuz Rana replied to the new Templeton data on a radio show, saying that he addressed this issue a couple of years ago.
Here is a link to the Web broadcast where he responds to the  Templeton's March 17 2002 in Nature titled "out of Africa again and again."
The link is halfway down the page and is titled: Fossilized evidence of the earliest life, or fossilized dirt?  (you need to be registered)
Rana's comments are summarized as follows: 
Templeton's article is data used to support the MRH and if it was true the MRH would not be compatible with RTB's biblical model.
Rana makes the claim that (at least in 2002) that the MRH was not living up to most of the data and that it was held only by a minority.
His refutation of the Templeton data is that it is just a "mishmash" of data from 10 or 11 studies that he analyzes using his own technique.
Rana claims that Templeton's data is not as valid as mtDNA or YChromosome DNA studies because Templeton's data contains autosomal DNA studies.  Rana is not clear on why the autosomal DNA data is not as rigorous as mtDNA or Y chromosomal DNA.  In fact he makes the claim that the mtDNA and the Ychromosomal DNA plugged into the Templeton algorithm supports the OOA hypothesis.
He also says that Templeton's data is not as convincing as it sounds because it is a small sample size, small in geographic distribution, etc.   It is not clear to me if the newest data would answer some of these concerns.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: mtDNA Eve and the determination of humanity

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.  Itís the old log in the eye trick.


Dick Fischer

~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History



-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of jack syme
Friday, February 24, 2006 6:22 AM
To:; 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"


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



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" <>

To: <>

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 Sat Feb 25 13:08:16 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 25 2006 - 13:08:17 EST