Sciencescience

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 01:13 PM

Defining mtEve and the flexibility of the Creationist

In a thread started by our colleague ABOUT mtEve, he “understands” the scientific definition of mtEve as:

“Evolution mtEve would have been the first true homo (whether erectus, neandertal sapien) someone had to be the first! “
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32101

When it is pointed out that this is not correct and that mtEve is scientifically defined as the Most Recent Common (Matrilineal) Ancestor (MRCA), he objects and attempts to deflect away from THE THREAD TOPIC (mtEve):

“well as I am not dealing with MCRA
your post is irrelavent
evolutionists talk more than just MRCA they also talking of when lines diverged (like ape and men)
If you want to talk about MRCA let me know
do try to keep up”
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32129

“try to keep up” indeed! And he continues to deflect:

“Just a reminder
MRCA is a generic term that context determines meaning. “
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32161

Indeed, “context determines meaning.” And the context is a THREAD THAT OUR COLLEAGE STARTED ABOUT mtEVE! A pretty well-defined context. Move now to a thread wherein he is provided with multiple versions of the MRCA definition of mtEve from Yale, from Stanford, and elsewhere and his response is:

“Well mt Eve aqnd Biblical Eve are one and the same!
...
And to repeat again I have no problem at all with any of those definitions you put up! Do you???”
https://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=32195

Note his extreme “flexibility” in definitions as he pretends to have agreed with in the past but clearly did not. However, the sad part is that he still doesn’t UNDERSTAND the definition.

Even if every word of Yahweh’s Big Book were literally true, the Biblical Eve would not fit the definition of mtEve. Biblical Eve’s descendants (except for 8) were all destroyed during Yahweh’s Big Genocide. Under a literal interpretation wherein Pork Chop, Scam, and Ring Starr were the proginitors of the races, the argument could be made that Noah’s wife would/could be mtEve.

Note that this is a simplistic interpretation that assumes the three branches did not intermingle. But when one is discussing fairy tales, a little latitude is required. In any case, under no circumstances could Biblical Eve fit the definition of mtEve.

13 replies, 183 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 01:35 PM

1. And 2 + 3 x 4 equals 20

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 01:46 PM

2. If the Noah's Ark story were true, then there would be 3 or fewer mtDNA roots per the son's wives

Only one tree rooted in the recent past if the son's married sisters, in which case the sister's mother would be the mtEve, the MRCFA. If the son's wives weren't sisters, then the tree might be somewhat deeper, depending on their relatedness.

I don't believe there is any mtDNA evidence of a recent female population bottleneck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 02:05 PM

3. You are correct. The three would need to be daughters of Mrs. Noah

in order for her to be the mtEve. OTOH, Noah would be mtAdam under this restrictive scenario.

No studies indicate a genetic bottleneck 5000 years ago. Our colleague has posted another ICR article which latches onto a real scientific paper that indicates an increase in rare allele variations 5100 years ago. Of course the ICR “scientists” jumped on this screaming “Noah’s Flood! Noah’s Flood!”

But the article indicates no such thing. The authors point out that this increase corresponds with the abrupt rise in population that occurred around 3000 BCE, the beginning of the Bronze Age. The article itself is available free online and is quite accessible even to those without specialised knowledge in genetics. It’s well worth the read.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708544/

But that’s the Creationist tactic. Take a real scientific article out of context, extend its focused analysis to something much more general and that can be wedged into some Biblical event, and claim that the findings of those “secular” scientists support their mythical world view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 03:37 PM

5. But there is!

And the wives were not sisters but 7 generations removed from their original mother eve. That would make them 3rd or 4th cousins if my figuring is correct. Cold Warrior is ready to let all know when it is not!

https://www.icr.org/article/new-dna-study-confirms-noah

https://www.icr.org/article/new-genomes-project-data-indicate-young/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 04:53 PM

6. I think this is close to the latest mtDNA phylogeny. I don't see a clean 3 way split.

This shows the time depth of various bifurcations into phylogenetic groups

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322232/



This shows the geographic distribution of phylogenetic groups.

https://isogg.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 25, 2019, 07:35 AM

7. Well the three false assumptions that go into the algorithms

to get to this answer are:

Th interpretations of the fossil record are correct.

Radio dating is accurate,

And the insertion of chimp DNA to get to the requisite age.

When you let the evidence to determine the conclusion without assumptions

You get a c. 6500 year old mtEve and you get a three trunk DNA for humanity. that has been proven by both evolutionary and YEC scientists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 25, 2019, 09:07 AM

9. Well.

1. You don't understsnd algorithms.

2. You don't understand the many ways we know and test the accuracy of the fossil record.

3. You don't understand radiometric dating. You've shown this by constantly proclaiming the diamonds and coal canard, which isn't a mystery to anyone but the loons at ICR.

4. You do not understand DNA, alleles, genes, chromosomes, mutations, genetics, phylogeny or anything else involved with those.

5. You start with the conclusion that God created everything. The the loons scour journals for things they can fool you with. Actually convincing you that what they do is what scientists do.

6. You do not understand even the terminology involved in any of these things.

Three-trunk DNA. The fuck is that?
Despite the fact that mtEve is way older than you continually say she is, you refuse to look and understand why they have that age. You refuse to understand that science corrects itself all the time, but you have to stick to gradeschool science terms and understandings. Not only that, but from when you went to school. I'm sure it's much more accurate and detailed now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 25, 2019, 11:35 AM

10. Our colleague has referred to faulty algorithms as being GIGO

Clearly there can be inaccurate algorithms. However, Garbage In Garbage Out (GIGO) refers to the quality of input data, not to the algorithm itself. Simply one example of his use of terms without fully understanding them. Note the same issue with his shifting definitions of mtEve.

The ICR “scientists” frequently use language highly imprecisely and/or far too generally. They do it because they are actively attempting to sell their snake oil and need to be vague. Our colleague’s imprecise use of language, I’m afraid, doesn’t stem from the same reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 25, 2019, 07:43 AM

8. Well I am back to work so this will take some time to read through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Troll2 (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 25, 2019, 06:16 PM

11. I wish folks like this would publish papers that non specialists in genetics could read easier!

Despite the heavy internal language-- it appears this Genest is attempting to do the following:

Establish an entire new measuring tool in genetics for researching mtDNA the "Copernican" is the new and he wants to revise or downgrade the Cambridge Reference Sequence which has been the standard tool!

He does plug in the accepted assumptions in his research and assumes an ape to human evolution which pushes the clock back to near 200K years!

I am not sure if the "10 Eves" you referred to are in the Homo Sapien Neandertalis or the Homo sapien Sapien modern man!

Either way he runs into historic problems. For now you have either Sapien lineage evolving 10 different times (divergent evolution) Th emutation rates excluding the assumption of evolution and the assumption of ape to man just simply do not allow a 2ooK divergence!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 07:18 AM

12. There is no homo sapien neanderthalensis.

Only homo neanderthalensis.
I struggle to think that some of the people you tell your stuff to actually believe you.
Somewhere down the line you convinced yourself you know what you are talking about.
You don't.
Every post you make in science is full of errors and shows you have no clue about the theory of evolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 03:23 PM

4. Well wrong again my unworthy opponent!

"Even if every word of Yahweh’s Big Book were literally true, the Biblical Eve would not fit the definition of mtEve. Biblical Eve’s descendants (except for 8) were all destroyed during Yahweh’s Big Genocide. Under a literal interpretation wherein Pork Chop, Scam, and Ring Starr were the proginitors of the races, the argument could be made that Noah’s wife would/could be mtEve"

The biblical eve does fit ! She is the progenitor of all living humans! So she is the mrca of shem ham and japheth as well as their wives. The genocide destroyed all who lacked faith in God!

And I have shown-- the scientific evidence without plugging in assumptions and unproven beliefs agree with Yahwehs big book!

We trust them goatherders who were there and wrote down their genealogies and heard from god then scientists who were not there and have to plug in their beliefs!



But if we are talking about the MRCA being the original mom of all- yes it is eve and not some 10 women about 200,000years ago.

If we are talking the MRCA of all the ethnic tribes on earth today- then the science shows they branched off from three specific lines- namely the wives of shem , ham, and japheth.

Once again :

Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago
BY BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. * | TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2010
Share Email Facebook Twitter Google+
Inside a human cell's mitochondria--the tiny organelles that provide energy--there is a small and unique chromosome. This loop of DNA is passed from mother to child in every generation and provides an intriguing source of information about mankind's past. Geneticists are using that information in an attempt to determine exactly when the "mother" of all humans lived.

Studies involving this mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, raise a number of questions. First, is it possible to reconstruct a putative first mother's mtDNA sequence? And if so, how does it compare to that of modern humans--her many descendants? Also, is there enough information in today's mtDNA to deduce when the figurative first mother--named "Mitochondrial Eve"--lived?

When investigations into these questions began a few decades ago, optimism was high regarding the possibility of pinpointing that first mother's date. But studies have since shown that the data alone are not enough to provide an answer. A certain number of starting assumptions are required, and when researchers' different assumptions are applied, the data can yield very different "ages" for Mitochondrial Eve. A review of the earliest calculations, published in the evolutionary journal Science in 1998, showed that:

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 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other?1

So, to align the age with current evolutionary theories of human origins, subsequent calculations have started with assumptions that ensure at the outset that Mitochondrial Eve would have lived more than 100,000 years ago. Thus, evolution-inspired Mitochondrial Eve research is largely characterized by circular reasoning--evolutionary assumptions of deep time are used as an interpretive filter that (not surprisingly) then yields deep-time results.

This was made abundantly clear in a Rice University press release regarding the latest attempt to determine when Mitochondrial Eve lived. Researchers used a new statistical method that supposedly assured that the "Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago."2

But in explaining how they obtained this number, the researchers inadvertently admitted their bias that partially determined the outcome before they even began calculating. The press release described some of the steps required to interpret DNA base differences "into a measure of time."2

"And how they evolved in time depends upon the model of evolution that you use,"2 according to study co-author Krzysztof Cyran of Poland's Institute of Informatics at Silesian University of Technology. Of course, when one begins with an evolutionary model, one must expect evolutionary results.

Each model added coefficients that are numerically expressed answers to key questions, such as the rate of DNA base change, the effect of mutational hot spots, what DNA sequence to use for comparison (which, for evolutionists, is often from the chimpanzee), and the time between each generation.3 But many of those numbers were assumed:

Each model has its own assumptions, and each assumption has mathematical implications. To further complicate matters, some of the assumptions are not valid for human populations. For example, some models assume that population size never changes.2

But the best available data are still most consistent with the earlier studies that showed that the age of Mitochondrial Eve coincided well with the biblical age of the historical Eve.

For example, a 2008 study of the mitochondrial chromosome found that "on average, the individuals in our dataset differed from the Eve consensus by 21.6 nucleotides."4 The investigators did not expect to find so few differences between their over 800 samples of modern DNA and the calculated sequence for "Eve."

Further, for so few--only 21.6 nucleotides out of 16,569--DNA differences to have accumulated at anything near the measured mutation rates, a much shorter time than "200,000 years" must have transpired since Mitochondrial Eve arrived on the scene.

To stretch out across evolutionary time the occurrences of so few DNA changes requires a gymnastic juggling of the coefficients used in the various models, and appears to require a biologically unrealistic, super-slow mutation rate. Making the data fit vast timescales requires the use of a broken, circular-reasoning-based, evolutionary "clock."

References

Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock. Science. 279 (5347):28-29.
Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago. Rice University press release, August 17, 2010, reporting on research published in Cyran, K. A. and M. Kimmel. Alternatives to the Wright-Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating. Theoretical Population Biology. Published online ahead of print June 19, 2010.
Mutational hot spots are areas in the mitochondrial chromosome that experience base changes between generations so rapidly that all four DNA bases may have cycled through in only thousands of years, thus skewing attempts at reconstructing mitochondrial DNA clocks. See Galtier, N. et al. 2006. Mutation hot spots in mammalian mitochondrial DNA. Genome Research. 16 (2): 215-222.
Carter, R. W., D. Criswell, and J. Sanford. 2008. The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. Snelling, A. A, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 111-116.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on September 7, 2010.

I may not keep up with your subtle changes but then again as you are more interested in finding my fallibilities than addressing the topic, it still gives a platform to show why though I may be mortal (and not live on Olympus as you must think of yourself) I atr least have truth on my side in the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 26, 2019, 08:05 AM

13. You have no truth.

The loon you referenced doesn't even understand what scientists use control models for or he's being deliberately dishonest.
He uses a control model "no population change" as evidence of a bad model.
It's not, he knows better.
You don't though, and that's what loons like that fucking idiot rely on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience