Proof of Creationism! Refute This!

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by windword

 

Mitochondrial DNA.

However.. a few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported; in other words, Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago, but rather only 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. This favors the Biblical account of Creation.

You must have failed to read the entire article where it makes a reference to the mitchondrial clock dating back to 6,000 years being stated as:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998: 279:29, emphasis added).

Gibbons quickly went on to note, of course, that “no one thinks that’s the case,” (279:29). She concluded her article by discussing the fact that many test results are (to use her exact word) “inconclusive.” She then noted: “And, for now, so are some of the evolutionary results gained by using the mtDNA clock” (279:29).

So, no, this does not favor the biblical account of creation. If anything, it just means we have more to learn about mtDNA and we need to fix the flaws in the dating methods used. Not to mention your article sources data from 20 years ago.

As of now, it's still consistent with 200,000 years.

Mitochondrial Eve
Descendants of a Single Female
Mother of All Humans

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by windword
We don't have a common ancestor with a banana because..

Yes we do. This ancestor predates the split of plants and animals. Every living thing on Earth shares a common ancestor (some more recent than others).

Hehe, I was thinking when I wrote that, "I wonder if someone will call me out on this." Our commonality refers us back to star dust, in reality.

reply to post by iterationzero

Hypocrite.

I'm a hypocrite ? This isn't my thread and I'm sorry that I made you feel the only thing left for you was childish name calling. Not like I'm not used to that tho. I know you can do better. Let 'em fly. :

reply to post by randyvs

Name-calling? Sure, I'll cop to that. I guess calling things by their rightful name is frowned upon these days. But childish? Coming from Mr. "This thread is a testimony to the back slapping bigotry you people embrace."? Hardly.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by randyvs

 

Name-calling? Sure, I'll cop to that. I guess calling things by their rightful name is frowned upon these days. But childish? Coming from Mr. "This thread is a testimony to the back slapping bigotry you people embrace."? Hardly.

And I judged this thread to harshly ? I'll cop to that.

Namecaller !

reply to post by randyvs

At least "namecaller" rolls off the tongue.

Overly-harsh thread judger!

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by windword
We don't have a common ancestor with a banana because..

Yes we do. This ancestor predates the split of plants and animals. Every living thing on Earth shares a common ancestor (some more recent than others).

Hehe, I was thinking when I wrote that, "I wonder if someone will call me out on this." Our commonality refers us back to star dust, in reality.

lol I wonder what star dust tastes like. (licks arm), mmmmmmmm salty.... lol.

Human, Chimp Ancestors May Have Mated, DNA SuggestsBrian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

May 17, 2006
Early human ancestors and chimpanzee ancestors may have mated and produced offspring, according to a new DNA study.

The study suggests that the human and chimp lineages initially split off from a single ape species about ten million years ago. Later, early chimps and early human ancestors may have begun interbreeding, creating hybrids—and complicating and prolonging the evolutionary separation of the two lineages.


The second and final split occurred some four million years after the first one, the report proposes.

"One thing that emerges [from the data] is a reestimate of the date when humans and chimps last exchanged genes," said David Reich, a professor at Harvard Medical School's Department of Genetics in Boston.

"Our data strongly suggest that [the last gene exchange] occurred more recently than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently than 5.4 million years ago," said Reich, senior author of the study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Nature.

"This paper is very interesting, because it provides a hypothesis that is outside of the currently accepted dogma," said Kateryna Makova, a professor at Pennsylvania State University's Center for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics who is unaffiliated with the study.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

personally id rather swap spit with a nude banana
50 percent the asame dna as a human.....nice and sweet
the skin
well anyone whos ever watched slapstick knows ...............thats for the pratfall....

reply to post by Danbones


Looks like now thier saying we shared a lot more than a common ancester.

Thread bones ! Bones do a thread !

What a calamity

reply to post by randyvs


Randy if they would do the math they would realize that the time they have told us that the universe has existed does not give their theory of evolution enough time to justify their claims.

reply to post by Microscopictopic


I think evolution really needs an infinite amount of time just to get started. Pretty observant for a newcomer Scro.

Originally posted by Microscopictopic
reply to post by randyvs

 

Randy if they would do the math they would realize that the time they have told us that the universe has existed does not give their theory of evolution enough time to justify their claims.

By all means. Please post the evidence behind this claim. What math are you referring to? Why is there not enough time for evolution when we've seen it happen in multiple scenarios? Show me the proof.

reply to post by Danbones


Fascinating, a resonable hypothesis if possible, except extremely rare. So not only is the Y chromosome "horrendously different" The X chromosome has a few surprises as well.

Reich also explained that the new study doesn't prove that hybridization occurred.

"It's the only explanation that we could imagine," he said. "But there may be others that we can't imagine."

Star!

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Microscopictopic

 

I think evolution really needs an infinite amount of time just to get started. Pretty observant for a newcomer Scro.

Thanks Randy. Infinite? Hmmm. That would be close.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Microscopictopic
reply to post by randyvs

 

Randy if they would do the math they would realize that the time they have told us that the universe has existed does not give their theory of evolution enough time to justify their claims.

By all means. Please post the evidence behind this claim. What math are you referring to? Why is there not enough time for evolution when we've seen it happen in multiple scenarios? Show me the proof.

edit on 18-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Okay. 6 billion Dna that they search. Mutated Dna between generations. What would you say the rate would be. Lets go with 100. Probably lower, but we will use 100. 100 is what percent of 6 billion? Lets say .000000166667% Now a generation is generally labeled what....25 years? Now. How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today? From this perspective it would take 150 million years to change one percent of our human dna. Cut the number of Dna in half double the number of years and well it is just doesn't add up to a logical assessment.

reply to post by Microscopictopic

The assumptions upon which you base your math are a bit off.

Okay. 6 billion Dna that they search.

I think you mean 6B bases or 3B base pairs. "6 billion Dna" is a meaningless phrase.

Mutated Dna between generations. What would you say the rate would be. Lets go with 100. Probably lower, but we will use 100. 100 is what percent of 6 billion? Lets say .000000166667%

Actually you're a little low on the number of mutations from generation to generation in humans. The average is closer to 150 distinct differences between a child and its parents. You go on to make a very common mistake here -- you're treating the process as a single lineage mutating from generation to generation. You're not taking into account population size. So while you're saying that only 1.7E-6 of our DNA is changing, you're forgetting that there are 7B people on the face of the Earth, so that's 105B mutations to select from at a given moment in our species alone.

Now a generation is generally labeled what....25 years?

In our species, yes. In other organisms? Hardly. It's why we're able to observe evolution occurring both in the lab and in nature. E. coli, for example, can go through 5k generations in a year. And even in the case of a longer generational span in a species like ours, all it takes is a little bit of genetic bottleneck for a change to spread throughout a population. We're actually hindering our evolution as a species by having effectively no isolation of populations and by overcoming traits that wouldn't be selected for in the wild.

Now. How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today? From this perspective it would take 150 million years to change one percent of our human dna. Cut the number of Dna in half double the number of years and well it is just doesn't add up to a logical assessment.

Given the above, it's obviously not as long as you had originally calculated.

Originally posted by windword
OMG! It is sooooooo simple. Right in front of our faces! This kid has GOT it! Hair gel and hair spray! Of course! Why did I ever believe dinosaurs bones were millions of years old? How stupid am I.
WARNING, a lot of "F bombs!"
youtu.be...

/Sarcasm off

I found this guy's evidence fascinating.
youtu.be...

Nothing here that shows "proof".
Just another religious freak pretending to know it all.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Originally posted by Microscopictopic
Okay. 6 billion Dna that they search. Mutated Dna between generations. What would you say the rate would be. Lets go with 100. Probably lower, but we will use 100. 100 is what percent of 6 billion? Lets say .000000166667% Now a generation is generally labeled what....25 years? Now. How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today? From this perspective it would take 150 million years to change one percent of our human dna. Cut the number of Dna in half double the number of years and well it is just doesn't add up to a logical assessment.

I'll ask again. Where is your source? Are you just assuming these numbers? I've looked into human mutation rates, and if anything a case can be made for them being faster than they should be. Not slower. Please give me the scientific research involved with your conclusion.

Originally posted by windword
OMG! It is sooooooo simple. Right in front of our faces! This kid has GOT it! Hair gel and hair spray! Of course! Why did I ever believe dinosaurs bones were millions of years old? How stupid am I.
WARNING, a lot of "F bombs!"
youtu.be...

/Sarcasm off

I found this guy's evidence fascinating.
youtu.be...

I love it when these religious crackpots offer proof.
They can so easily be shot down, it ain't funny.
No wondert that the churches lose members.