Re: [asa] Fw: What Darwin Didn't Know article by Dr. Fuz Rana

Oh, I quite agree - if it WAS a mistake (as I suggest it was) to use "mitochondrial Eve" as a descriptive due to its potential for confusion then somebody like Rana - who KNOWS the science and KNOWS the biblical story - is doubly culpable for propagating rather than rectifying the confusion.

I was thinking, rather, in terms of broad public perception and that the reason such comments have an audience is because somebody adopted a label which is just a bit too evocative!

It might, additionally, simply reinforce my remarks about conservative Christians not having categories for certain types of statement - after all, those who have some appreciation of non-literal statements would hardly fall into the trap of assuming that "mitochondrial Eve" means "the first truly human woman from whom we are all directly descended".

Have you noticed that, when it comes to the origins debate, scientists can't win....

Blessings,
Murray

David Opderbeck wrote:
> True, except that Rana is a microbiologist, has read the relevant
> literature, and knows better.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au
> <mailto:muzhogg@netspace.net.au>> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> I was reflecting about this overnight and it struck me that
> scientists probably only have themeselves to blame when they choose
> to engage in fanciful comments about "mitochondrial Eve".
> Personally, I'd have thought the potential for misunderstanding and
> misrepresentation would be obvious.
>
> It's probably one for filing under "What on earth were they thinking!"
>
> Blessings,
> Murray.
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> It's truly disappointing and frustrating that Rana continues to
> popularize the notion that mitochondrial DNA studies "attest[]
> to" what Rana would offer as the Biblical notion of Adam and
> Eve. He knows better. He knows that mDNA studies don't
> establish a single Adam or Eve who were contemporary with each
> other, he knows that both mitchondrial Eve certainly lived among
> a population of many other breeding pairs, and he knows of
> Ayala's "Myth of Mitochondrial Eve" paper and other similar
> population genetics studies. Any popular article or talk that
> makes such claims and doesn't address the foregoing is simply
> misleading.
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:13 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> <dfsiemensjr@juno.com <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>>> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:07:01 -0800 (PST) John Walley
> <john_walley@yahoo.com <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
> <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>>>
> writes:
> >
> > FYI..
> >
> > >
> > > Dr. Fuz Rana has a very good article in the latest Charisma
> > > magazine entitled What Darwin Didn't
> > > Know. Here is the link to it.
> > >
> > > http://charismamag.com/issues/index.php/cm209
> > >
> There are two matters that I didn't note having comments. The
> first:
> "But some of the most recent advances related to hominid-human
> relationships raise questions about evolution's validity. In 1997
> fragments of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA from a 40,000- to
> 100,000-year-old skeleton were found in West Germany. When
> scientists
> compared them with the corresponding fragment of human DNA, the
> researchers discovered that Neanderthals made no contribution
> to human
> genetics."
>
> What does a lack of contribution from contemporaries have to
> do with
> evolution? The claim is that Homo sapiens, H.
> neanderthalensis and
> now H.
> floresiensis (?) all share ancestry, not that one is the
> ancestor of the
> others. Since H.s. and H.n. had overlapping ranges, I suggest
> that some
> modern Europeans could still have Neanderthal inheritance.
> Mitochondrial
> DNA is inherited only though the mother. So, if a H.s. male
> fathered a
> son with a H.n. female, and the son fathered offspring with a
> H.s.
> female, there would be no evidence in the mitochondria of the
> H.n.
> genetics, though the chromosomal inheritence might be retained.
>
> The second:
> "Scientific consensus confirms that humanity originated about
> 100,000
> years ago in east Africa near the location ascribed to the
> Garden of
> Eden."
>
> I'll not use the vulgar but appropriate term to describe the
> claim that
> East Africa is the Near East.
> Dave (ASA)
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click now to find a divorce attorney near you!
>
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw3dbS2LRPIKXN9Lfzf71potiktczkzafb3a1VQUal5LDeMC5/
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>> with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 28 18:21:55 2009