Even MORE [sigh] "non-existent evidence ...

[Jorge]

.
.
Even MORE [sigh] "non-existent" supporting evidence for Biblical Creationism. The "sigh" is because of the fanatical denials claiming "there is no evidence for Biblical Creationism" when the fact of the matter is that there is an abundance of supporting evidence. What IS lacking is the honesty of the deniers to admit that this abundant supporting evidence does in fact exist. Examples of that are plentiful right here on TWeb by ... well, let's not embarrass anyone by calling out their names. In any event, nothing can be done about that because morality-ethics cannot be taught, people either have it or they don't.

What is this supporting evidence? It is simply that there appear to be exactly three central "trunks" or nodes of human mitchondrial DNA (mtDNA) --- which is exactly what one would expect given the Bible's account of the Flood (three females leading to all humans alive today). But it doesn't end there. From the article:

"How many mtDNA differences would mutations cause during the 4,365 years since Noah? That depends on generation times. At most, a culture where the women typically give birth near age 15 could have produced 115 mtDNA differences. Adding those to Jeanson’s eight estimated pre-Flood differences gives 123. In a spectacular confirmation of Genesis history, the most diverse human mtDNA on record actually shows 123 differences."

Fudge those numbers 10%, 20% or even 100% if you like, you'll get thousands of years, never millions of years.

So again, this isn't going to prove the case for Biblical Creationism, but it does provide some fairly strong
evidence supporting it -- evidence that the less-than-honest deniers vehemently claim "does not exist".

The article concludes:

"In short, if all peoples descended from three genetically unique mothers, then our mtDNA sequences should trace back to their three nodes. Those nodes should have about eight differences between them. Plus, a strict biblical timeline suggests 123 as the highest number of mtDNA differences that should be observed today. Check, check, and check. These three mtDNA trends trace all of humanity back to Noah’s sons’ three wives—a striking intersection of biblical history and modern genetics."

Sorry to once again rain on your parade. Hehe .....


Complete article here: http://www.icr.org/article/9400

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

.
.
Even MORE [sigh] "non-existent" supporting evidence for Biblical Creationism.

Good one Clucky! Another lie-filled fantasy article from a YEC source that has zero connection to reality.

BTW Clucky the single scientific source quote-mined by that latest lie-fest is here

Poor man’s 1000 genome project: recent human population expansion confounds the detection of disease alleles in 7,098 complete mitochondrial genomes

Introduction

The human population has recently expanded to about seven billion, according to the last census (Roberts, 2011). Studies inferring the demographic history of human populations from genetic data have also shown an increase in effective population size, especially for Europeans and Asians (Gutenkunst et al., 2009; Gravel et al., 2011). Interestingly, the estimated growth rate of effective population size increased as the number of samples analyzed increased (Keinan and Clark, 2012). This finding supports the concept that larger samples can better capture the rare variants in the population, and thus, that sample size could affect the estimation of the demographic history of the human population. Broad sampling is therefore necessary to the accuracy of any study of the history of modern humans.

The data is based on this

Demographic Models

In order to determine a suitable demographic model for the human mt population, we tested three human demography models (Marth et al., 2004; Voight et al., 2005; Gutenkunst et al., 2009), using the ms coalescent simulation program (Hudson, 2002). We tuned the simulation parameters based on the assumption that the effective population size of the human mt genome was a quarter of that of the human nuclear genome (Hartl and Clark, 2007). (See Figure A1 in Appendix for the parameters and the ms command lines). For each model, we simulated 1,000 sets of 7,098 genomes. The sample size of each population was identical to the number of genomes in each haplogroup.

and

The African demographic model contained only one population expansion (Ne from 1,825 to 3,075) 8,800 generations ago, and no demographic event up to that time point. The time of 8,800 generations is longer than the fixation time (2Ne = 6,150 generations) of a neutral mutation in a population. Because a deleterious mutation is eliminated within a population in less time than a neutral mutation, 8,800 generations is long enough to trace the frequency of any deleterious mutation. Therefore, we simulated an ancestral population of Ne = 3,075, and ignored history prior to 8,800 generations

8800 generations between now and 4,365 years ago. One generation every two years. Those Noah's Ark survivors were sure some randy buggers.

ETA: From the paper here is the Best Fit model for human MtDNA variations.

fgene-04-00013-g004.jpg

Figure 4. The best-fit demographic model for the human mt genomes. The parameters of the model are illustrated in the figure: passage of time is shown in the left side bars, with the most recent at the bottom. The population growth for ASI and EUR starts 848 generations ago from the present. The growth rate is also shown in the figure: the width of bars represents the size of the effective population. The population size was adjusted for mt genomes, under an assumption that the sex ratio is 1:1.

Sure doesn't look like 123 generation to me. Why did your ICR source lie about the results of the scientific study?

[Jorge]

Good one Clucky! Another lie-filled fantasy article from a YEC source that has zero connection to reality.

BTW Clucky the single scientific source quote-mined by that latest lie-fest is here



The data is based on this



and



8800 generations between now and 4,365 years ago. One generation every two years. Those Noah's Ark survivors were sure some randy buggers.

ETA: From the paper here is the Best Fit model for human MtDNA variations.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16751[/ATTACH]


Sure doesn't look like 123 generation to me. Why did your ICR source lie about the results of the scientific study?

Your post is as predictable as it is stupid.

If you REALLY TRULY want to know the answer to your questions (which, of course, we know you do NOT), then why don't you directly contact the author of the article? He's very accessible - just go to the ICR website and PM him. Nah, you'll never do that - better for you to remain anonymous and toss rocks from behind the bushes, like a good-little-Beagle-Boy-coward.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

Sorry to once again rain on your parade. Hehe .....

I've pointed out the rather significant scientific error that the person keeps making each time you post links to one of his articles here. You've never addressed or acknowledged the error (it takes the mtDNA mutation rate and then assumes ever one of those mutations would end up fixed). Yet you keep hyping them as if they're somehow scientific.

Do you just not care about science?

[rogue06]

Your post is as predictable as it is stupid.

If you REALLY TRULY want to know the answer to your questions (which, of course, we know you do NOT), then why don't you directly contact the author of the article? He's very accessible - just go to the ICR website and PM him. Nah, you'll never do that - better for you to remain anonymous and toss rocks from behind the bushes, like a good-little-Beagle-Boy-coward.

Jorge

I sent an e-mail to Brian Thomas at ICR. I'll let you know if I get a response (I also invited him here).

[Jorge]

I sent an e-mail to Brian Thomas at ICR. I'll let you know if I get a response (I also invited him here).

Great - you're FINALLY taking some honest action.

Be sure to report accurately; I'll be following-up on your reporting.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I've pointed out the rather significant scientific error that the person keeps making each time you post links to one of his articles here. You've never addressed or acknowledged the error (it takes the mtDNA mutation rate and then assumes ever one of those mutations would end up fixed). Yet you keep hyping them as if they're somehow scientific.

Do you just not care about science?

I care the WORLD about science! That is precisely why - for decades - I've taken on the mission to seek out and expose science pretenders, pseudo-scientists and those that wish to promote Materialistic and other anti-Christian ideologies under the guise of "science". There is a tremendous - TREMENDOUS!!! - amount of that going on. Sadly, the vast majority of people do not openly admit this either due to ignorance or as part of a dishonest stealth strategy.

But, honestly, I do not expect you to accept any of that so go ahead and return to watching The Oprah Show.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

I care the WORLD about science!

Then why do you keep promoting work that's fundamentally scientifically flawed?

There's nothing ideological about this. We can measure a mutation rate for mitochondria. But the historic mutation rate will be much lower, because most of those mutations will be lost at random or selected against because it's harmful. This is a phenomenon we've tracked in the lab. Nothing to do with ideology, everything to do with valid science. Yet you don't seem to actually care.

[Jorge]

Then why do you keep promoting work that's fundamentally scientifically flawed?

You are certainly entitled to your OPINION - be it right, wrong or "not even wrong".
If I am aware that something is "fundamentally scientifically flawed" then I do not promote it - PERIOD!
Do as R06 is doing - contact ICR and get the scoop straight from the horse's mouth.
Determine FOR YOURSELF if your opinion has any merit to it.
Wouldn't you agree that that is the proper, honest and scholarly thing to do?

There's nothing ideological about this. We can measure a mutation rate for mitochondria. But the historic mutation rate will be much lower, because most of those mutations will be lost at random or selected against because it's harmful. This is a phenomenon we've tracked in the lab. Nothing to do with ideology, everything to do with valid science. Yet you don't seem to actually care.

Above you have my reply and recommendation. The ball is in your court now.

Jorge

[TheLurch]

If I am aware that something is "fundamentally scientifically flawed" then I do not promote it - PERIOD!

So, does that mean you're incapable of evaluating fairly basic biology? Because this really isn't that complicated.

[Jorge]

So, does that mean you're incapable of evaluating fairly basic biology? Because this really isn't that complicated.

Was there any particular word in my last post that you could not understand?

Get the scoop straight from the horse's mouth.

Basic rule # 1 of any investigation: the primary source is always the best.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Was there any particular word in my last post that you could not understand?

Get the scoop straight from the horse's mouth.

Basic rule # 1 of any investigation: the primary source is always the best.

Jorge

Jorge to English Translation: "I don't understand a word of the YEC horsecrap I post. I just C&P anything that says evolution is wrong no matter how stupid or dishonest it may be, then make excuses and run the other way when questioned."

[rogue06]

Was there any particular word in my last post that you could not understand?

Get the scoop straight from the horse's mouth.

Basic rule # 1 of any investigation: the primary source is always the best.

Jorge

Agree wholeheartedly about primary sources especially wrt science news, but it would be nice if you could provide a coherent summary or review of what you posting to at the very minimum demonstrate that you understand what they're saying and not just mindlessly regurgitation.

Please note that I'm not saying you're mindlessly regurgitating but rather providing a summary in your own words removes any question of it.

[rogue06]

Do as R06 is doing - contact ICR and get the scoop straight from the horse's mouth.

I haven't heard back but then it has only been a day and this is a holiday weekend so I wasn't expecting to.

Still, considering my experiences requesting clarification of something I had with AnswersinGenesis (no response whatsoever) I'm not going to hold my breath.

Maybe if you wrote him and invited him to post something himself?

[oxmixmudd]

You are certainly entitled to your OPINION - be it right, wrong or "not even wrong".
If I am aware that something is "fundamentally scientifically flawed" then I do not promote it - PERIOD!
Do as R06 is doing - contact ICR and get the scoop straight from the horse's mouth.
Determine FOR YOURSELF if your opinion has any merit to it.
Wouldn't you agree that that is the proper, honest and scholarly thing to do?



Above you have my reply and recommendation. The ball is in your court now.

Jorge

Jorge thinks that if he is really obnoxious that's as good as knowing what he is talking about. The implications are he ascribes to a version of 'might makes right'.


Jim