SJ:But if the "nuclear DNA molecular clock dates" disagrees with the mtDNA
dates, then someone has a problem!
==================================
LOL! Ahhh - I should have read down a bit farther! WHY? No cop-outs this
time - YOU made a claim, let's hear your rationale. Supported by evidence,
of course…
===================================
>HX>Do we just ignore that much larger amount of information
SJ>See above. It was the above scientific journals who Huxter is claiming is
>"ignore that much larger amount of information". I just posted what New
>Scientist said.
===================================
And I asked YOU a question, not the authors of the article. You can keep
trying to divorce yourself from what you posted, but YOU posted it for a
reason. Now I am having a hard time seeing WHY you posted it, if you have no
intention of defending it or using to support one viewpoint or another.
====================================
[...]
HX>I see. I thought maybe you could formulate your own opinion. I didn't
>realize that you were simply a 'reporter' for this list, busily scribbling
>down and quoting what others have written...
I am *touched* that Huxter is more interested in my "own opinion" rather
than those dumb old scientific journals! :-)
========================================
:) Of course, I did not seem to get the same thing you had hoped everyone
would get from the article. I was under the impression that this is a
'discussion' group, not a 'let's post articles and refuse to discuss them'
group. If you are unprepared or unwilling to discuss topics YOU bring up,
then perhaps you should think twice about posting them.
=========================================
SJ>And anyway, what "larger amount of information" is that exactly?
[...]
HX>Surely you recognize that the nuclear genome is many orders of magnitude
>larger than the mitochondrial genome?
Huxter is right on that one.
But that was not what Huxter said. It does not follow that just because "the
nuclear genome is many orders of magnitude larger than the mitochondrial
genome" there will be a "larger amount of information" regarding
*molecular clock* studies.
================================
Why not? Since DNA sequence data is what is used in these analyses, why
wouldn't there be more of it to use in the nuclear genome?
================================
As I said before, the problem as I understand it, with any part of the
nuclear genome that it is thought to be more likely than the mitochondrial
genome to have been affected by natural selection.
=====================================
Probably so. Nevertheless, with a larger amount of genetic data available,
one can assume that such idiosyncrasies will be 'smoothed over.' As I
believe I have mentioned before, protein coding nuclear loci have been used
to accurately reconstruct known phylogenies. Since we do not assume a
uniform mutation rate in nuclear DNA molecular clock analyses, it seems to me
that such issues are irrelevant.
===================================
>HX>because if we put a certain spin on reality,
SJ>I am glad Huxter said "we"! Claims about putting a "spin on reality" cut
>both ways.
[...]
HX>It is a shame you cut out the context of my quote.
But of *course* I did - I am a creationist remember! :-)
========================================
Yes, I know. And that is why I was not surprised.
========================================
>HX>I understand creationists
>of all stripes have a distinct tendancy to do so such that a statement can
>appear to mean something it originally did not.
See! :-)
But seriously, if Huxter thinks I have "cut out the context of" his "quote"
he can repost it and say why he thinks I did.
>HX>the YEWC framework looks peachy?
SJ>What is the "YEWC framework"?
[...]
HX>It is a typo. You see, on my keyboard, the 'w' and the 'e' are next to
each
>other, and when typing hurriedly one can often hit more than one key at a
>time. Not doing a spell check allows them to slip through. But I'm glad
you
>paid such close attention.
So my "close attention" has foiled Huxter's attempt to found a new school
of creationists, the YEWCs! :-)
===================================
Curses! I'm found out!
But here is what I had originally posted:
"What about nuclear DNA mutation rates?
Do we just ignore that much larger amount of information because if we put a
certain spin on reality, the YEWC framework looks peachy?"
Here is your dissection:
HX>because if we put a certain spin on reality,
I am glad Huxter said "we"! Claims about putting a "spin on reality" cut
both ways.
HX>the YEWC framework looks peachy?
What is the "YEWC framework"?
Clearly, the 'we' I was referring to was not evolutionists, unless you
consider that evolutionists would have to put a creationist spin on things to
see them the creationist way. Of course, there is no reason for an
evolutionist to put a creationist spin on things.
==================================
SJ>If it is anything to do with YEC then Huxter is barking up the wrong tree
>on two counts:
>
>1. I am an *old*-Earth creationist; and
[...]
HX>Well, pardon me. Either way, it seems that your 'concerns' about the
mtDNA
>molecular clock are a bit on the weak side.
What "`concerns'" were those exactly?
========================================
Your words:
\"> 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.
> >>"
It seems you are presenting the article as support for a biblical timeframe.
Even if your interpretation were accurate, I fail to see how 400-69 kya is
closer to biblical timeframes.
==================================
SJ>2. the issue is the antiquity of *man* not the antiquity of the Earth.
[...]
HX>Same thing.
Not really. YECs believe the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour periods,
so to YECs the "antiquity of the Earth" is effectively the same as the
"antiquity of man".
But OECs do not believe the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24-hour periods,
so to OECs the "antiquity of the Earth" and the "antiquity of man" are two
entirely separate issues.
Steve
====================================
But it is the same. Neither the YEC nor the OEC position seems to be helped
by this selective bit of data.
Just out of curiosity, when do OECs believe 'Man' to have been created?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 07:39:42 EDT