Reflectorites
I am trying to wind down my posts on the Reflector. So these two posts on this topic
will be my last unless Huxter can come up with something new.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:39:20 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>But if the "nuclear DNA molecular clock dates" disagrees with the mtDNA
>dates, then someone has a problem!
HX>LOL?
HX>Ahhh - I should have read down a bit farther! WHY? No cop-outs this
>time
I never use (or even need) "cop-outs".
And I have already answered this question in Part 1.
HX>- YOU made a claim, let's hear your rationale. Supported by evidence,
>of course
See Part 1. Huxter seems to be repeating himself.
>>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.
HX>And I asked YOU a question, not the authors of the article.
And I have *answered* Huxter's "question"!
HX>You can keep
>trying to divorce yourself from what you posted,
I am not "trying to divorce yourself from what" I "posted". I *agree* with
the article since I posted it!
But it is *Huxter* whop seems to have a problem with it, although he
keeps `dancing around the ring' without coming out and saying what it is.
If Huxter doesn't disagree with the New Scientist article, then what is his
point?
HX>but YOU posted it for a reason,
I gave my "reason" in my comments before the article at the time. Here
they are again:
==========================================================
=============
On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 06:37:35 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
[...]
==========================================================
=============
HX>iow 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.
What is there to "defend"? And I am still trying to find out what *is* the
other (i.e. Huxter's) "viewpoint" (assuming he has one).
[...]
>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...
SJ>I am *touched* that Huxter is more interested in my "own opinion" rather
>than those dumb old scientific journals! :-)
HX>:) 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.
I am more than happy to "discuss topics" that I "bring up", namely whether
the last common mtDNA ancestor (Mitochondrial Eve) might be even
more recent than previously thought. And therefore might be close to, if
not overlapping, the dates of the antediluvians given in the genealogies in
the early chapters of Genesis.
But to date Huxter has made it a discussion of a topic that *he* brought
up, "What about nuclear DNA mutation rates?" except he has not said
much about these "nuclear DNA mutation rates" but has wasted a lot of
time trying to show that my knowledge of this subject is limited (something
I freely admit).
>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?
>SJ>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.
HX>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?
I had already answered that (see below).
>SJ>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.
HX>Probably so. Nevertheless, with a larger amount of genetic data available,
>one can assume that such idiosyncrasies will be 'smoothed over.'
Not necessarily. If nuclear DNA can be affected by natural selection then
it *all* could have been. Therefore `smoothing over' (e.g. by averages)
could all be affected by selection.
HX>As I
>believe I have mentioned before, protein coding nuclear loci have been used
>to accurately reconstruct known phylogenies.
I have no problem with that.
HX>Since we do not assume a
>uniform mutation rate in nuclear DNA molecular clock analyses, it seems to me
>that such issues are irrelevant
My understanding is that they don't necessarily "assume a uniform mutation
rate in" mitochondrial "DNA molecular clock analyses" either. But because
mtDNA is thought to be selectively neutral, since it doesn't code for body
parts, it is a more reliable record of the neutral mutations and their rate.
>>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.
SJ>But of *course* I did - I am a creationist remember! :-)
HX>Yes, I know. And that is why I was not surprised.
See below.
>>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.
SJ>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.
In fact on checking back there was no "quote" by Huxter for me to "cut
out the context of". Here is Huxter's *entire* post:
==========================================================
=============
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:26:11 EDT, Huxter4441@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/1/00 7:20:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, steve jones
>
><<
>>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 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?
==========================================================
=============
and it can be seen that I didn't cut *anything* out! (but see below).
>>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.
SJ>So my "close attention" has foiled Huxter's attempt to found a new school
>of creationists, the YEWCs! :-)
HX>Curses! I'm found out!
What, no ":-)"?
HX>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"?
See also my repost of Huxter's post.
HX>Clearly, the 'we' I was referring to was not evolutionists,
It seems I misunderstood Huxter. My apologies.
HX>unless you
>consider that evolutionists would have to put a creationist spin on things to
>see them the creationist way.
No. I was referring to "evolutionists" putting "a certain spin on reality" as
well as creationists.
HX>Of course, there is no reason for an
>evolutionist to put a creationist spin on things.
See above.
>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.
SJ>What "`concerns'" were those exactly?
HX>Your words:
Which I had already reposted above.
SJ>\"> 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.
>==================================
These were not "concerns".
And why was Huxter asking me what my "reason" was for posting it?
And why is Huxter claiming they were "on the weak side"?
>SJ>2. the issue is the antiquity of *man* not the antiquity of the Earth.
[...]
>HX>Same thing.
SJ>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.
[...]
HX>But it is the same.
I have already explained why it is *not* "the same"!
HX>Neither the YEC nor the OEC position seems to be helped
>by this selective bit of data.
Huxter does not explain why?
HX>Just out of curiosity, when do OECs believe 'Man' to have been created?
Huxter must already know, if he claims that "Neither the YEC nor the
OEC position seems to be helped by this selective bit of data"!
But to answer Huxter's question, there is AFAIK no consensus among
OECs when man was created. Hugh Ross believes that 60,000 years ago is
about the limit of stretching the Biblical genealogies:
"If the Genesis genealogies are anywhere from 10 to 80 percent
complete, as most conservative scholars suggest, the Adam of Eden
lived between 7,500 and 60,000 years ago." (Ross H, "Searching
For Adam", Facts & Faith, Reasons To Believe: Pasadena CA, Vol.
10, No. 1, First Quarter 1996, p4)
"Given the gaps in some biblical genealogies, the creation of Adam
and Eve could possibly be dated as far back as 60,000 years ago,
less reasonably, even earlier." (Ross H, "The Meaning of Art and
Music", Facts & Faith, Reasons To Believe: Pasadena CA, Vol. 10,
No. 4, Fourth Quarter 1996, p.6)
I personally do not share Ross' view that the genealogies be stretched too
far and I do not personally maintain that Adam and Eve were two literal
people (although I don't rule it out).
The Hebrew word "Adam" literally means "Man" and so I see Adam and
Eve as probably a symbol for original humankind.
The limiting factor to me therefore is the last common ancestor of all
Homo sapiens, as determined by science, ie. ~ 120 kya. That is why I said:
SJ>I would imagine that Hugh Ross and the ICR will *love* these!
and
SJ>Whatever happens, this shows that scientific `fact', especially in the
field of
>human origins, is only as good as the next discovery.
I personally take the position of the Scottish 19th century theologian James
Orr:
"It is argued that the picture of God working like a potter with wet
earth, anthropomorphically breathing life into man, constructing
woman from a rib, with an idyllic garden, trees with theological
significance, and a talking serpent, is the language of theological
symbolism and not of literal prose. The theological truth is there,
and this symbolism is the instrument of inspiration. We are not to
think in terms of scientific and anti-scientific, but in terms of
scientific and pre-scientific. The account is then pre-scientific and in
theological symbolism which is the garment divine inspiration chose
to reveal these truths for their more ready comprehension by the
masses of untutored Christians. This is the view of James Orr who
wrote:
`I do not enter into the question of how we are to interpret the third
chapter of Genesis-whether as history or allegory or myth, or most
probably of all, as old tradition clothed in oriental allegorical dress-
but the truth embodied in that narrative, viz. the fall of man from an
original state of purity, I take to be vital to the Christian view.' (Orr
J., The Christian View of God and the World, 1897, p.185)
(Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," 1967,
p.223)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 29 2000 - 17:35:45 EST