In a message dated 10/1/2000 4:08:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
> Here is a New Scientist article, based on a SCIENCE report, which says
> that molecular clocks, the rate of neutral mtDNA mutation, is possibly 100
> times faster than previously thought.
>
> If this turns out to be really the case, it would bring any "Mitochondrial
> Eve", the last common female genetic ancestor, which has been variously
> dated from ~ 400-60 kya, into closer contact with Biblical time-frames.
>
What are "Biblical time frames"? The young earth time frames? It's quite
obvious that young earth time frames are scientifically not supportable. Nor
is the Mitochondrial Eve necessarily the Biblical Eve. Despite a confusion in
names. Nor does this affect the dating of the humanoid fossils.
> I have also attached another New Scientist article from the same issue,
> which claims that the maximum human life-span might be much longer than the
> current estimate of around 120 years.
>
> If this holds up, it could not be ruled out that the ages of the
> antediluvians
> in Genesis 5 (e.g. "Methuselah lived 969 years" -Gn 5:27); were literally
> true.
>
Again an unproven assertion. That humans could live longer hardly means that
this happened in the past. Why the insistence to merge the Bible and science?
> I would imagine that Hugh Ross and the ICR will *love* these!
>
> Whatever happens, this shows that scientific `fact', especially in the
> field of
> human origins, is only as good as the next discovery.
Huh?
> This may mean that estimates of the divergence between chimpanzees and
> humans, and the emergence of modern man, happened much more
> recently than currently believed, say the team.
>
On time frames supportable by Biblical time frames as Stephen suggested?
It also shows that the time frame of 5 billion years for evolution becomes
longer and longer...
> Age old
> The maximum human life span is increasing, a fact which may cast doubt
> on the idea of a maximum possible age
>
Ah, as I thought, it's increasing. Hardly evidence that this would make
longer life spans in the past possible. Certainly no evidence that 900 year
life spans are within our reach.
False alarm it seems.
More on mitochondrial eve
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/misc/eve.html
"The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT
our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent
common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today w.r.t. matrilineal
descent. "
http://home.flash.net/~mortongr/eve.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/dept/theses/bahon/hamilton.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 19:20:35 EDT