Earlier this afternoon, I responded to Glenn's claim about the New Guinea
mitochondrial Eve data. Upon reflection, I have found that I missed a
stronger objection.
Recall what I said about the original objection to the Mitochondrial Eve
theory? That two of the KUNG! tribeswomen surveyed showed the greatest
level of diversity? Now, evolutionists (including supporters of the Eve theory)
agreed that this was a problem. Why? Because they believe that it is obvious
that the two KUNG! tribeswomen must have had a more recent common ancestor
than all the women done in the survey. Remember also that this pattern
was repeated in Hammer's data (cited by Glenn).
So if a great level of diversity can be measured in an instance when even
evolutionists agree that the common ancestor has to be recent, how reliable
is molecular evidence at all? (i.e. If the two KUNG! tribeswomen vary by
as much as the rest of the race, then how can we use divergence among
the women in New Guinea to tell us anything of human evolution? There
seems to be a flaw in the whole method of extrapolation and this certainly
doesn't bother me as a creationist.)
In Christ,
robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA