Part II of Human Evolution Part II:
Referring to the Y chromosome studies we have been discussing, Glenn writes:
>The work these guys did hurts the multiregional model but does not hurt the
>competing model. Dorit et al write:
It might just be me, but it seems that your analysis is a little naive. Though
I am not familiar with the genesis of the multiregional hypothesis, it
seems probable to me that it originated as a response to problems with
the "Out of Africa" theory. If the multiregional hypothesis is falsified,
then the problems which it originated to explain remain unsolved. (Didn't
you just send a post responding to Walter Remine in which you made the
claim that most of scientific thought is an attempt to "explain away"
problems with empirical observations? Doesn't your idea support the
contention I am making here?)
Glenn continues: (referring to the study of Dorit et al.)
>I was somewhat puzzled by that study and the citation of it by Hugh Ross.
> There is much evidence that there are more differences in the Y-chromosome
>than would be possible with the YEC/recent global flood model. I have the
>following from my files.
Come on, Glenn. You well know that neither Hugh Ross nor I believe in the
young earth scenario. If the only way you can make evolutionary theory
look good is to compare it to the young earth position, then you should just
acknowledge that evolution is false and have done.
Glenn then cites a couple of studies from 1989 and goes on to say:
>There is much evidence for a lot of variability in the Y-chromosome. The fact
>that Doritt et al selected a non variable area or got unlucky in the 38 men
>they picked does not mean that evolution is wrong.
When citing papers in a field that is changing as rapidly as molecular biology,
one should probably be careful to avoid citing older studies to refute more
recent studies. I am unfamiliar with the studies you mentioned and cannot
even refute your claims about the study cited by Dr. Ross (vol 268 of "Science"
is at the library bindery and will not be back for a few weeks) so for now
all I can say is that Dr. Ross's track record in interpreting scientific
articles is without blemish as far as I am aware. I will research and
refute your claims at a later point.
In Christ,
robert van de water
Associate Researcher