Sorry, I did misunderstand your question about the y-chromosome study. But I
gave you some reasons why Hugh Ross's view of that study might be wrong..
Robert wrote:
>>>Note also the conclusion of this secular (?) author. Homo sapiens did not
>"coevolve" from many different homo erectus populations. How much of the
>fossil evidence for human evolution does this effectively eliminate,
>I wonder?
So, Glenn, I think you missed MY point rather than me missing the author's
point. What this says about my writing is rather distressing. I will try to
clarify my position. (and respond to Jim Foley's post at the same time)<<
I don't think I miss read this one. The elimination of the idea that lots
of H.erectus populations co-evolved into modern man does not eliminate any
fossil evidence for human evolution.
Robert wrote:
>>
When evolutionists try and establish the "fact" of evolution, they show
fossils exhibiting a gradual change from a creature that existed long ago
to a creature that exists today. "See", they cry, "these species form
a chain from primitive to advanced that could only be the result of evolution
or a 'lying god'. Unless your god is a liar, evolution must be true."
(see the talk.origins archive on the world wide web for more
on the 'lying god' theory)<<
During your absence, Robert, I cited several facts which you need to be aware
of. To me the most important fact is that today, one earth only one creature
speaks--mankind. In order to accomplish this amazing feat of speech, an area
of the brain, called Broca's area is required. Broca's area leaves an
impression on the inside of the skull of you and I. Thus when we die,
someone can look inside our skulls and tell that we were able to speak.
Speech is a most characteristic feature of humankind. So guess what?
Broca's area is also found in Neanderthal, Homo erectus, and Homo habilis.
Thus there is evidence for creatures on earth with the characteristically
human potential for speech for the past 2 million years.
I raise this point because there is more to the evolutionist's lineage than
you are mentioning. This feature of Broca's brain unites us clearly in the
same category (creatures with broca's area) as Homo habilis.
Secondly, there IS a gradual transition in morphological form from Homo
erectus to Homo sapiens. There are no gaps which can be drawn. They start
calling certain fossils archaic Homo sapiens about 4-500 thousand years ago
Modern man appears 115-120,000 years ago. In between these times is a
gradational scale.
Robert wrote:
>>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.<<
This almost seems to be an oxymoron. You say my analysis is naive, critique
it and admit that you are not familiar with the theory.
Robert wrote:
>>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.<<
I know you don't hold that, but others on the reflector do. But by the way,
there is more genetic variation than can be accounted for by Hugh Ross's
maximal 60,000 year creation of man also. That is what the Mitochrondrial
Eve and Y-chromosome Adam data is saying which was recently reported in the
New York Times..
Robert wrote:
>>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. <<
Two observations: 1. Since you have not looked at the articles, how can you
be sure that they are wrong? Your research methods are unique! Also 1989 is
not that old.
2. You write: I will research and refute your claims at a later point.<
I am glad you already have the conclusion in hand and we will be sure that
the data does not get in the way. This reminds me of the Queen in Alice in
Wonderland. To paraphrase her, "Conclusion first, data afterwards." Welcome
to Wonderland!
glenn