Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A variety of issues

Expand Messages
  • Charles Creager Jr
    ... It is the estimate of the rate of substitution based on the the assumption that we are related to chimps, that is flawed not the number of substitutions.
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment

      >>I did not doubt your claim I merely pointed out that the correction
      >>>involved looking at some recent families (Romanovs) and
      >>>deducing "mutatation rates" which tend to be much higher than the
      >>>relevant "substitution rates" needed to estimate the age. Thus based
      >>>on mutation rates one is likely to estimate too young. 
      >>CC: But since we are not related to chimpanzees, using them and
      >>assuming evolution you are guaranteed to date way too old.  Cc
      >And yet you are willing to use the same data to reach the 6500 yr
      >conclusion.

      It is the estimate of the rate of substitution based on the the assumption that we are related to chimps, that is flawed not the number of substitutions.  

      >If btw you propose that the 6500 year is accurate for
      >mitochondrial Eve then y-chromosome adam provides you with a
      >contradiction of being much older than Eve.

       The date of 59,000 + years for y-chromosome adam (Noah) is base on the same flawed assumption as the old Eve dates. If corrected for this error it would bring the date for y-chromosome adam, in line with the Biblical date for Noah, and there younger than Eve.

      >>CC The fact is that young date is base on direct measurements as
      >>opposed to the indirect estimates the old date is based on. That
      >>makes the young date more reliable. If the substitution rates are
      >>over estimated because of evolutionary assumptions, then they
      >>are notreliable.CC
       >So the 6500 yrs should not be taken too seriously either since they
      >are based on the same data with different mutation rates applied?
       
      Once again it is the rate based on evolutionary assumptions, resulting in the old age that is flawed, the real data was not.

      It is a case of direct measurements vs indirect assumptions.

      >So either you reject all estimates of Mitochondrial eve or you accept
      >the uncerlying assumptions.

       The underlying assumptions in question only pertain to setting a date. If the clock is actually runs faster or slower, it does not harm the other conclusions only the dating.
       
      >But as I have shown the new rates are based on mutation rates not
      >substitution rates and thus likely to be higher than the more
      >relevant substitution rates. This could very well explain the
      >apparant discrepancy.
       
       But these substitution rates were not based on direct measurements. They were based on the assumption that we are related to chimps. Since this assumption is in error, the dates must be in error as well.
       
      -------------------------------------------------------------- 
       
      >CC: From what I have read, dates are often through out and not
      >published if they do not agree, with what evolution says they should
      >be, so I wonder what results did not make publication. CC
      >Perhaps what you read is not what is reality? Why not focus on the
      >published dates? Suggestions of improper behavior do not make for
      >very scientifically satisfying answers.
       I did not in tend to imply improper behavior, but rather honest mistakes made because of the evolutionary model. 
       If a your working with what you think is a well established theory and you get some data that doesn't fit it is easy to assume excremental error or in this case contamination. It does not requiter misconduct, just an error in judgement as to what is considered good results.

      >And how does one explain that C14 has been calibrated with lake
      >varves with high success?
      >http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html to more than 40,000
      >yearsago.

      Could please sent me the correct link. This one mentions nothing about C14 or lake varves
       
      -----------------------------------------
       
      One thing that can accelerated both Alpha and Bata decay is if the nucleus is excited by say an influx of neutrino's.

      The formula for Alpha decay probability is

      ln T = 2AL

               ( 2m(v-k))^(1/2)

      A = ------------------

                     h

      v is the binding energy of the nuclear force.

      k is the kinetic energy of the Alpha Partial

      The larger k is  the greater the probability of escape and the shorter the half-life. It is also known that neutrino's do interact with atomic nuclei, in fact that it how the are detected, but any influx of energy in to the nucleus from any source would accelerate Alpha decay.

      http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/neutrino.html

      >and indeed even if they happened how come that beta decay rate
      >estimates of age coincide with U-Pb dating for instance?

      This has shown me a lot with regards to the significants and meaning of RATE's work as it turns out according to their model. It is clear that the key is a combination between the decay rates at formation and the order a which the individual samples formed.

      ------------------------------------------------------- 
      >we observed from SN1987A (most detectors at
      >the time picked up in the neighborhood 2 to 3 neutrinos a day from
      >the Sun) make your 6000 light-year distance pretty much impossible,
      >unless you'd care to re-write all of nuclear physics. "

      I never said that it was only 6000 ly away.   I don't were you got that idea from.

      I do however want to thank you for the help you have given me on this cosmology. Your input will help me refine it.

      --- Charles Creager Jr
       
       

    • gromit54609@yahoo.com
      ... based ... CC It is the estimate of the rate of substitution based on the the assumption that we are related to chimps, that is flawed not the number of
      Message 2 of 21 , Dec 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@y..., "Charles Creager Jr" <cpcjr9@e...> wrote:

        >>I did not doubt your claim I merely pointed out that the correction
        >>>involved looking at some recent families (Romanovs) and
        >>>deducing "mutatation rates" which tend to be much higher than the
        >>>relevant "substitution rates" needed to estimate the age. Thus
        based
        >>>on mutation rates one is likely to estimate too young.
        >>CC: But since we are not related to chimpanzees, using them and
        >>assuming evolution you are guaranteed to date way too old. Cc
        >And yet you are willing to use the same data to reach the 6500 yr
        >conclusion.

        CC It is the estimate of the rate of substitution based on the the
        assumption that we are related to chimps, that is flawed not the
        number of substitutions. CC

        It's not an assumption but an observation. Fossil evidence, genetic
        evidence, morphological evidence is all quite convincing.


        "Further research on mtDNA evolution should serve to identify and
        eliminate the specific genes which mutate at abnormally fast or slow
        rates. Jody Hey and Eugene Harris of Rutgers University suggest that
        future work should increasingly concentrate on the more complex
        nuclear genes. A recent study by Hey and Harris (1999) on the
        mutation rate of PDHA1 genes in the X Chromosome, thought to have a
        steady rate of mutation, has identified two populations at least
        200,000 years old ancestral to modern humans. To determine the
        mutation rate of the gene, these were compared to the differences
        between human and chimpanzee PDHA1 genes, diverging at least 5-6
        million years ago. They found that prior to 200,000 years ago, one
        form of this gene existed only in Africa and led to types only in
        modern Africans. Another existed only outside of Africa with one
        variant found in some modern Africans and another which split ca.
        200,000 years ago into two haplotypes found in non-Africans. "

        >If btw you propose that the 6500 year is accurate for
        >mitochondrial Eve then y-chromosome adam provides you with a
        >contradiction of being much older than Eve.

        CC The date of 59,000 + years for y-chromosome adam (Noah) is base on
        the same flawed assumption as the old Eve dates. If corrected for
        this error it would bring the date for y-chromosome adam, in line
        with the Biblical date for Noah, and there younger than Eve. CC

        That's of course begging the question.

        >>CC The fact is that young date is base on direct measurements as
        >>opposed to the indirect estimates the old date is based on. That
        >>makes the young date more reliable. If the substitution rates are
        >>over estimated because of evolutionary assumptions, then they
        >>are notreliable.CC
        >So the 6500 yrs should not be taken too seriously either since they
        >are based on the same data with different mutation rates applied?
        CC Once again it is the rate based on evolutionary assumptions,
        resulting in the old age that is flawed, the real data was not. CC

        What is the 'real data'? How was 200,000 years arrived at and why
        should using inappropriate mutation rates for substitution rates give
        a reason to propose 6500 years?

        CC It is a case of direct measurements vs indirect assumptions.
        <http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html>
        CC

        Direct measurements of mutation rates make for poor substitution
        rates as shown.

        >So either you reject all estimates of Mitochondrial eve or you accept
        >the uncerlying assumptions.
        CC The underlying assumptions in question only pertain to setting a
        date. If the clock is actually runs faster or slower, it does not
        harm the other conclusions only the dating. CC
        So now the issue is: Does the clock run slower/faster. How do you
        believe mutation rates are going to help us solve the issue of
        substitution rates?
        >But as I have shown the new rates are based on mutation rates not
        >substitution rates and thus likely to be higher than the more
        >relevant substitution rates. This could very well explain the
        >apparant discrepancy.
        CC But these substitution rates were not based on direct
        measurements. They were based on the assumption that we are related
        to chimps. Since this assumption is in error, the dates must be in
        error as well. CC
        The assumption is not in error. The dates might be in error but the
        do agree nicely with other calculations. 6500 years does not agree
        nicely except of course when imposing a biblical history but that's
        again begging the question.
        --------------------------------------------------------------
        >CC: From what I have read, dates are often through out and not
        >published if they do not agree, with what evolution says they should
        >be, so I wonder what results did not make publication. CC
        >Perhaps what you read is not what is reality? Why not focus on the
        >published dates? Suggestions of improper behavior do not make for
        >very scientifically satisfying answers.
        CC I did not in tend to imply improper behavior, but rather honest
        mistakes made because of the evolutionary model. CC

        Okay then comment on these honest mistakes.

        CC If a your working with what you think is a well established
        theory and you get some data that doesn't fit it is easy to assume
        excremental error or in this case contamination. It does not requiter
        misconduct, just an error in judgement as to what is considered good
        results. CC

        Contamination is not assumed but infered.

        >And how does one explain that C14 has been calibrated with lake
        >varves with high success?
        ><http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html> to more than 40,000
        >yearsago.

        CC Could please sent me the correct link. This one mentions nothing
        about C14 or lake varves Cc

        Oops http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

        CC -----------------------------------------
        One thing that can accelerated both Alpha and Bata decay is if the
        nucleus is excited by say an influx of neutrino's.
        The formula for Alpha decay probability is
        ln T = 2AL
        ( 2m(v-k))^(1/2)
        A = ------------------
        h
        v is the binding energy of the nuclear force.
        k is the kinetic energy of the Alpha Partial
        The larger k is the greater the probability of escape and the shorter
        the half-life. It is also known that neutrino's do interact with
        atomic nuclei, in fact that it how the are detected, but any influx
        of energy in to the nucleus from any source would accelerate Alpha
        decay.
        <http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/neutrino.html> CC

        "The effect of neutrino flux on various isotopes is both measurable
        and
        calculable. It in no way resembles a general speeding up of decays.
        (For an example of such a calculation, see Bahcall, John N(1997)
        'Gallium solar neutrino experiments: absorption cross sections,
        neutrino spectra, and predicted event rates',
        http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9710491 Some basics of neutrino
        physics are discussed (from a different perspective)
        in my Solar FAQ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html
        A neutrino capture is similar to a _reverse_ beta decay. This means
        it'll
        cause the beta-decay-based radiometric methods to run backwards,
        which is not exactly what the creationists want ("appearance of
        youth").
        Alpha decay chains, such as U-Th wouldn't be more than marginally
        affected (U-235 goes to isotopes that beta-decay right back to U-235).
        And various stable isotopes would be converted into other isotopes,
        stable or not, traces of which would be clearly recognizable (IIRC
        this
        method has been used to search for recent supernovae in the
        neighborhood, but I don't have a reference handy.)"

        http://groups.google.com/groups?
        q=decay+rates+neutrinos&hl=en&rnum=3&selm=36888FB2.90458FE7%
        40no.hlk.fucking.hj.spam.se

        See also http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-
        earth/carbon-14/constant_rate.html

        "In a number of occasions, Dr. Plaisted speculates that decay rates
        for radioactive
        isotopes could have been faster in the past than they currently are
        (p. 2).
        Like many creationists, Dr. Plaisted (p. 5) cites Chapter 12 - How
        Old is the Earth, from the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter,
        and claims that radioactive decay rates might have been affected by
        increases in the amount of neutrinos, neutrons, or cosmic rays
        hitting the Earth in the past. This is
        an old creationist claim that was refuted long ago. First of all, any
        radiation that
        would penetrate the crust and change the decay rates of isotopes,
        most certainly would
        have killed every life form on Earth. Now, creationists might invoke
        miracles to magically
        explain how decay rates could change without sterilizing the Earth.
        However, until they
        have scientific proof, they might as well claim that the Earth was
        created last week by
        fairies and that all of our memories are illusions.
        Dalrymple (1984, p. 88-89) refutes in some detail the various
        creationist claims that
        radioactive decay rates may be influenced by neutrinos, neutrons, and
        cosmic radiation,
        including Dudley's "neutrino sea." Dalrymple points out that there is
        no evidence of an
        abundant supply of neutrons to affect radiometric decay. If there had
        been, the neutrons
        would have also noticeably affected the chemistry of the more common
        elements. Because
        neutrinos have no charge and little or no rest mass, they pass
        through the entire Earth
        without leaving significant effects. If they can pass through the
        entire Earth without
        significant effects, they are not likely to interact with atomic
        nuclei and affect
        radioactive decay. As Brush (1983, p. 332) and Dalrymple (1984, p.
        89) state, Dudley's
        neutrino sea violates both relativity and quantum mechanics. Not even
        Dudley himself
        agrees with how creationists have applied his hypothesis (Dalrymple,
        1984, p. 89).
        Even creationist John Morris (1994, p. 52-53) admits that there's no
        convincing evidence
        that radiometric decay rates have significantly changed over time.
        There is simply no known scientific mechanism that could produce such
        changes. Dalrymple (1984, p. 88) states that
        decay rates are essentially unaffected by temperatures between -186°C
        to 2000°C, at pressures
        that range from a vacuum to several thousand atmospheres, and under
        different gravity and
        magnetic fields. Because radioactive decay occurs within the nucleus
        of atoms while
        terrestrial chemical processes only affect the outer electrons, it is
        not surprising that the
        Earth's chemical and biological processes cannot significantly affect
        radioactive decay rates."

        http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/plaisted-review.html

        "DAP: I'm not sure what the effect of neutrinos on non-radioactive
        elements
        would be. But in general, for something that is unstable, a small
        energy input can cause it to decay, which might have little effect on
        a more stable object (except to heat it a little).
        KRH: For reasons discussed in Brush (1983), neutrinos, neutrons, etc.
        are
        not a serious concern for radioactive decay rates."
        http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/plaisted-review3.html
        >and indeed even if they happened how come that beta decay rate
        >estimates of age coincide with U-Pb dating for instance?
        CC This has shown me a lot with regards to the significants and
        meaning of RATE's work as it turns out according to their model. It
        is clear that the key is a combination between the decay rates at
        formation and the order a which the individual samples formed. CC

        This does not make much sense to me. Are you suggesting that these
        consistencies in age determinations from a variety of sources is all
        coincidental? Why?

        -------------------------------------------------------
        >we observed from SN1987A (most detectors at
        >the time picked up in the neighborhood 2 to 3 neutrinos a day from
        >the Sun) make your 6000 light-year distance pretty much impossible,
        >unless you'd care to re-write all of nuclear physics. "
        CC I never said that it was only 6000 ly away. I don't were you got
        that idea from. CC
        My question to you would be then. If we observe something that
        happened 170,000 light years ago, how does this reconcile with the
        biblical timeline?
        CC I do however want to thank you for the help you have given me on
        this cosmology. Your input will help me refine it. CC

        You're welcome
      • Charles Creager Jr
        ... What fossil evidence may that be? Here is the some interesting fossil evidence for you. (By the way I am using the evolutionary dates for purposes of
        Message 3 of 21 , Dec 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment

          >>CC It is the estimate of the rate of substitution based on the the
          >>assumption that we are related to chimps, that is flawed not the
          >>number of substitutions. CC

          >It's not an assumption but an observation. Fossil evidence
           
          What fossil evidence may that be? Here is the some interesting fossil evidence for you.
           
          (By the way I am using the evolutionary dates for purposes of comparison only.)
          (There is NO implied agreement with those dates. )
           
          A shoe print is was found in "Mid-Cambian" strata, with a squashed trilobite in the heel.  It was found in Antelope Springs, Utah, in June 1968.  Seven other tracks were found in the same area. Evolutionary dating methods would date this a least 240 million years old. Since only humans are known to ware shoes, these means that this print was made by a human being stepping on a trilobite.  http://home.earthlink.net/~cpcjr9/shoe.htm 
           
           
          What looks like a fossilized spark plug was found in a geode that was found near Olancha, California. The fossil shells on the geode's surface date at  at least 500,000 years old.  http://home.earthlink.net/~cpcjr9/SparkPlug.htm
           
          The book Forbidden Archeology : The Hidden History of the Human Race, by Michael A. Cremo, Richard L. Thompson  has numerous references to some interesting discoveries of human remain. It should be noted that these men are NOT creationists. They accept the evolutionary dates.
           
          An anatomically modern human skeleton was found in 1880 at Castenedolo Italy. The strata it was found in is Middle Pliocene date 3-4 million years. The strata showed no sign of disturbance, eliminating the possibility of intrusive burial. pg. 424-426
           
          In 1921 a human jaw was found in Miramar Argentina, It was found  in rock dated 2.5-3 million years ago. Pg 438
           
          In 1862, human bones were found in a coal bed 90 feet below the surface, with no evidence of  intrusive burial. The coal has been dated as between 286-360 million years. Pg 454.

           
          The above discoveries are incomparable with the idea that we have a common ancestor with chimps.

          >genetic evidence,

          I take it that you are referring to the genetic similarities between humans and chimps, actually this proves nothing about having a common ancestor. It may be compatible with that view but it does not prove it. These genetic similarities are also compatible with a the view of a common designer.

          1. Since gene carry instructions for the formation of proteins and the like, similarities in there area is needed so that we don't have to eat each other.

          2. It is a common in computer programming to reuse segments of code in different programs for doing the same thing. It is logical the God would do the same thing in programming the genetic code. 

          http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp

          >morphological evidence

          What do you make of this morphological evidence?

          http://artbell.com/img/skul1c.gif

          http://artbell.com/img/skul2c.gif

          http://artbell.com/img/skul3c.gif

          http://www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml

          Looks like there is more variety is the possible shapes for human skulls than is commonly thought.

          -------------------------------------------- 
           
          >>If btw you propose that the 6500 year is accurate for
          >>mitochondrial Eve then y-chromosome adam provides you with a
          >>contradiction of being much older than Eve.
           >CC The date of 59,000 + years for y-chromosome adam (Noah) is base
          >on the same flawed assumption as the old Eve dates. If corrected for
          >this error it would bring the date for y-chromosome adam, in line
          >with the Biblical date for Noah, and there younger than Eve. CC
           
          >That's of course begging the question.
           
          Actually it is answering the question. Let me try once again.

          Since, both of old date are based on the same indirect method.

          Given that the indirect method is flawed  then a recalculation of both still means that y-chromosome adam (Noah) is younger  than mitochondrial Eve.

          What you were doing was comparing the old age for y-chromosome adam (Noah) to  young age for mitochondrial Eve. So the contradiction you mention does not exist.  

          The only assumption I was making was that the correction would be ruffly the same. I thought I was clear on that. I probably should have said, "If one assumes a similar error in the calculated date, then correcting for this error..." 

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >What is the 'real data'? How was 200,000 years arrived at and why
          >should using inappropriate mutation rates for substitution rates give
          >a reason to propose 6500 years?
          >Direct measurements of mutation rates make for poor substitution
          >rates as shown.
           
          I agree 100%,  but direct substitution rates would be much better than indirect substitution rates fortunately thanks to Thomas J Parsons, we have just that. From the paper in Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367
           

           The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hyper variable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substations were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr.

          Later on in the paper:

          The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hyper variable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a.

          Reference: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondria.html

          So now we now have direct observation of substitution rates that gives us an age for mitochondrial Eve of 6,500 years. we are no longer comparing substitution rate to mutation rate, but substitution rate to substitution rate. So we have a direct observation of the substitution rate vs. an indirect estimate of the substitution rate. It looks like the REAL data does say Eve lived 6,500 years ago.

          --------------------------------------------------------------
           
          While I would like to respond to at this time in the area radioactive decay I realized that had a misunderstanding, about RATE's work and its relation ship to the data. I will take some time to go over this, I will post what results at a later time.

          By way the reference neutrinos was just a side thought. I am well aware of what is known and about their interaction with atoms.

           
          --- Charles Creager Jr
           
           

        • gromit54609@yahoo.com
          ... CC What fossil evidence may that be? Here is the some interesting fossil evidence for you. CC Let s first address the fossil evidence and then debunk your
          Message 4 of 21 , Dec 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In OriginsTalk@y..., "Charles Creager Jr" <cpcjr9@e...> wrote:

            >>CC It is the estimate of the rate of substitution based on the the
            >>assumption that we are related to chimps, that is flawed not the
            >>number of substitutions. CC
            >It's not an assumption but an observation. Fossil evidence

            CC What fossil evidence may that be? Here is the some interesting
            fossil evidence for you. CC

            Let's first address the fossil evidence and then debunk
            your 'examples'. It is somewhat disheartening for me as a Christian
            scientist to have to encourage my fellow Christians to perform due
            dilligence when copying 'scientific' information.

            Okay first the evidence

            Pseudogenes:

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molecular-genetics.html

            Human evolution

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html

            Cytochrome C

            http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html
            "Article by Wesley Elsberry
            <http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.htm
            l>. He shows (with nice diagrams) how Denton misunderstood the
            cytochrome issue. Denton thought that the data was not what evolution
            would predict. But in fact, it's exactly what evolution would
            predict. "

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/1/pdf/l_051_06.pdf

            Btw Glenn Morton http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
            has an excellent article on
            http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/hegene.htm

            "The Homo erectus Genes in Us'

            "Many Christian apologists (like Hugh Ross) reject the notion that
            modern man has any genetic connection with the ancient hominids, such
            as Homo erectus. This is normally done based upon theological
            considerations in which they believe that modern man was created
            within the past 60-200,000 years ago.  If the theological
            considerations are correct, then genetic data should show a genetic
            bottleneck, it should show no human genes which require longer than
            60-200,000 years of coalescence time (the time for mutations to
            create the present observed diversity in modern populations) and we
            should have no non-functional retroviral insertions in common with
            the Old World Monkeys and chimps. If we find genes requiring greater
            times than this, it means that there was a genetic input from archaic
            humans into the modern gene pool and it means that we can not clearly
            separate modern humans from the archaics. This has profound
            implications to the above apologetical view."


            CC(By the way I am using the evolutionary dates for purposes of
            comparison only.)
            (There is NO implied agreement with those dates. ) CC

            A shoe print is was found in "Mid-Cambian" strata, with a squashed
            trilobite in the heel. It was found in Antelope Springs, Utah, in
            June 1968. Seven other tracks were found in the same area.
            Evolutionary dating methods would date this a least 240 million years
            old. Since only humans are known to ware shoes, these means that this
            print was made by a human being stepping on a trilobite.
            <http://home.earthlink.net/~cpcjr9/shoe.htm>
            <http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.htm
            l>

            Now the real story. It's embarassing that Strahler already rebutted
            these data in his 1987 excellent work "science and earth history".

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

            "Meister Man: this was a rock, discovered in 1968 by creationist
            William Meister, which showed the outline or a shoe or sandal with a
            trilobite embedded in it. According to mainstream geology,
            trilobites went extinct long before man appeared. The print showed
            none of the criteria by which genuine prints can be recognized, and
            the approximate footlike shape can be explained by normal geological
            processes. (Strahler 1987, see also Glen Kuban's article on The
            Meister
            Print)"

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

            "In short, the trilobites in the specimen are real
            enough, but the "print" itself is dubious. After mainstream
            rebuttals of this find were published in the 1980's (Conrad,
            1981; Stokes, 1986; Strahler, 1987), most creationists
            quietly and wisely ceased promoting this specimen. However,
            a few individuals continue to advocate it as an out-of-order
            fossil."


            CC What looks like a fossilized spark plug was found in a geode that
            was found near Olancha, California. The fossil shells on the geode's
            surface date at at least 500,000 years old.
            <http://home.earthlink.net/~cpcjr9/SparkPlug.htm> CC

            Another embarassing story

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theevolutiondeceit/message/1930

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html


            CC The book Forbidden Archeology : The Hidden History of the Human
            Race <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892132949/genesismissio-
            20/>, by Michael A. Cremo, Richard L. Thompson has numerous
            references to some interesting discoveries of human remain. It should
            be noted that these men are NOT creationists. CC

            http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%
            2Fwww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Fmom%2Fgroves.html

            http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%
            2Fwww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Fmom%2Fgroves.html

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/lepper.html

            CC They accept the evolutionary dates. CC

            Ever heard of old age creationists?

            CC An anatomically modern human skeleton was found in 1880 at
            Castenedolo Italy. The strata it was found in is Middle Pliocene date
            3-4 million years. The strata showed no sign of disturbance,
            eliminating the possibility of intrusive burial. pg. 424-426 CC

            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#castenedolo

            "Castenedolo Man: Morris and Parker
            (1982) say "Fossils of ordinary people in Mid-Tertiary rock
            [i.e. tens of millions of years old; the actual date is about 1.5
            million years] were found in Castenedolo, Italy back in the late
            1800's ...". An official report on these skeletons in 1899
            noted that all the fossils from the deposit were impregnated with
            salt, except the human ones. This implies that they are from
            relatively recent burials. Collagen tests in 1965 and radiocarbon
            dating in 1969 confirmed this. (Conrad 1982)"



            CC In 1921 a human jaw was found in Miramar Argentina, It was found
            in rock dated 2.5-3 million years ago. Pg 438 CC



            CC In 1862, human bones were found in a coal bed 90 feet below the
            surface, with no evidence of intrusive burial. The coal has been
            dated as between 286-360 million years. Pg 454. CC

            http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/tarzia.html

            "Similarly, when the book documents a claim for a modern-type human
            skeleton (reported in a geology journal of 1862) in a coal deposit 90
            feet deep, we learn the authors wrote the Geological Survey to date
            the coal to about 286 million years (p. 454). But we are not treated
            to a contextual discussion of the bones -- how they were found, who
            found them, what was the site like, and how these allegedly 286
            million year old bones came out of the earth with only a loose black
            coating that was easily scraped away to reveal nice white bone, etc.
            The impression left is that, if a tabloid reported Jimmy Hoffa's
            corpse was found in Triassic deposits, then the authors would no
            doubt perform rigorous research to date those deposits and then
            include the data in their next book. At any rate, such credulity as
            does exist in the book strains reader confidence."

            CC The above discoveries are incomparable with the idea that we have
            a common ancestor with chimps. CC

            Not at all they merely show sloppy research and reporting. More
            importantly how does it show that we do NOT have a common ancestor
            with chimps?



            >genetic evidence,

            CC I take it that you are referring to the genetic similarities
            between humans and chimps, actually this proves nothing about having
            a common ancestor. It may be compatible with that view but it does
            not prove it. These genetic similarities are also compatible with a
            the view of a common designer. CC

            Why would a common designer user hierarchically nested design? Why
            not use the best design available? Even worse, we see lots of poor
            design as well, does this mean that the designer was sloppy or is the
            evidence much better explained by another mechanism.


            CC 1. Since gene carry instructions for the formation of proteins and
            the like, similarities in there area is needed so that we don't have
            to eat each other. CC

            Huh? Please explain. And explain why we cannot generate our own
            vitamin C for instance?

            CC 2. It is a common in computer programming to reuse segments of
            code in different programs for doing the same thing. It is logical
            the God would do the same thing in programming the genetic code. CC

            Why? Do we claim to know God's methods? Do we trivialize God's
            creation to merely reuse of some code? And why would God insert
            useless code?


            <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2453.asp>

            >morphological evidence

            CC What do you make of this morphological evidence? CC

            CC <http://artbell.com/img/skul1c.gif>
            <http://artbell.com/img/skul2c.gif>
            <http://artbell.com/img/skul3c.gif>
            <http://www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml>
            Looks like there is more variety is the possible shapes for human
            skulls than is commonly thought. CC

            Nice strawman. Do you even understand the fossil evidence? But
            morphology refers to homologies

            http://home.talkcity.com/librarydr/eztoamuse/webdoc12.htm

            http://www.life.uiuc.edu/plantbio/common/faculty/robertson.html

            http://www.life.uiuc.edu/plantbio/common/faculty/robertson.html

            And more

            Geographic distribution
            Embryology
            Vestigial organs



            --------------------------------------------
            >>If btw you propose that the 6500 year is accurate for
            >>mitochondrial Eve then y-chromosome adam provides you with a
            >>contradiction of being much older than Eve.
            >CC The date of 59,000 + years for y-chromosome adam (Noah) is base
            >on the same flawed assumption as the old Eve dates. If corrected for
            >this error it would bring the date for y-chromosome adam, in line
            >with the Biblical date for Noah, and there younger than Eve. CC

            >That's of course begging the question.

            CC Actually it is answering the question. Let me try once again.
            Since, both of old date are based on the same indirect method. CC

            Are they? Is y-chromosome adam based on a similar method? And is
            there evidence that the y-chromosome mutation rates should be much
            larger?

            http://john.hynes.net/y.html



            CC Given that the indirect method is flawed then a recalculation of
            both still means that y-chromosome adam (Noah) is younger than
            mitochondrial Eve. CC

            You should perhaps realize that 1) not the same methods were used 2)
            mitochondrial DNA and y-chromosome DNA is quite a bit different.


            CC What you were doing was comparing the old age for y-chromosome
            adam (Noah) to young age for mitochondrial Eve. So the contradiction
            you mention does not exist. CC

            So far it does. Except you want to change the y-chromosome estimates
            using mitochondrial DNA values for mutations rates. Can we say apples
            and oranges?

            CC The only assumption I was making was that the correction would be
            ruffly the same. I thought I was clear on that. I probably should
            have said, "If one assumes a similar error in the calculated date,
            then correcting for this error..." CC

            Ah, an assumption but what evidence is there for this?

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            -------------------------------
            >What is the 'real data'? How was 200,000 years arrived at and why
            >should using inappropriate mutation rates for substitution rates give
            >a reason to propose 6500 years?
            >Direct measurements of mutation rates make for poor substitution
            >rates as shown.

            CC I agree 100%, but direct substitution rates would be much better
            than indirect substitution rates fortunately thanks to Thomas J
            Parsons, we have just that. From the paper in Nature Genetics vol.
            15, April 1997, pp. 363-367
            The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial
            DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies
            of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report
            a direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in
            the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hyper variable
            segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA
            lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substations were
            observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or
            2.5/site/Myr.
            Later on in the paper:
            The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to
            rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR
            substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies,
            spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals.
            A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution
            rate of the CR hyper variable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr.
            Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600
            generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our
            observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-
            fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using
            our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would
            result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a.
            Reference: <http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mitochondria.html> CC

            While he calls it substitution rates, they are actually mutation
            rates.

            http://groups.google.com/groups?
            q=Parsons+mutation+substitution+mitochondrial&hl=en&rnum=1&selm=3B2F6B
            9F.53EC3AF2%40mail.uark.edu


            "I have to slap myself on the wrist. One of my pet peeves is that in
            mitochondrial research people confuse mutation with rate of
            substitution. When I said "determine rates of mutation" I meant
            rates of substitution at those positions. This is important at two
            levels: 1.) there are many mitochondrial genomes per cell and in
            each human. Mutation rate is expected to be much higher than the
            observed substitution rate. 2.) at the species level it takes quite
            a while for a mutation to be fixed in the population, and the
            differences that we see between species is the result of a series of
            such fixation events. If you think about it all but one of the
            mitochondrial lineages tested in this study are destined for
            extinction. Maybe all of them if they didn't happen to pick the one
            that will define the human species in the next million years.
            Therefore, we know very little about the average time span that these
            mutant lineages will persist in the population. Under the selection
            conditions of 1.5 million years ago many of them
            may have been rapidly removed from the population. You can't
            calibrate your clocks with this data."


            CC So now we now have direct observation of substitution rates that
            gives us an age for mitochondrial Eve of 6,500 years. we are no
            longer comparing substitution rate to mutation rate, but substitution
            rate to substitution rate.CC

            If you had read the paper you would have realized that they were
            confusing mutation rates and substitution rates.

            CC So we have a direct observation of the substitution rate vs. an
            indirect estimate of the substitution rate. It looks like the REAL
            data does say Eve lived 6,500 years ago.CC

            Wouldn't that have been nice. But again it pays of to read more
            carefully. I realize your enthusiasm since I ran across the same
            paper...

            "From what I've been reading, I've gathered that substitution rates
            and mutation rates are not the same thing because selection
            determines if a mutation will result in a substitution. Is this
            correct? How are
            substitution rates calculated?

            Mutation rate = the rate at which a mutation occurs per individual
            per generation

            Substitution rate = the rate at which a mutant allele rises to fix
            within a lineage

            Substitution rates can be measured by comparing the number of
            sequence differences between two groups. For example, if species X
            and species Y have 10 nucleotide differences in 1000 sites and have
            evolved separately from a common ancestor that lived 10^6 years ago,
            then the inferred substitution rate would be 1/2*10^(-8) per year per
            basepair (the 1/2 arises because there are two branches eminating
            from the common ancestor along which subsitutions could occur).
            If selection is absent, then (based on the neutral model of
            evolution) the substitution rate is expected to equal the mutation
            rate. So in practise, mutation rates are often estimated from
            substitution rates."



            ""Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected,
            prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling
            questions about the dating of evolutionary events. ...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."
            Ann Gibbons, "Mitochondrial Eve: Wounded, But Not Dead Yet", Science,
            Vol. 257, 14 August 1992, p. 873"

            Also see

            http://www.athenapub.com/molclock.htm
          • Charles Creager Jr
            ... Actually, I posted the material in question, to seeing if it could be refuted. Thanks. ... Wrong - more and more studies show so called pseudo genes, have
            Message 5 of 21 , Dec 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment

              >Let's first address the fossil evidence and then debunk your 'examples'.
               
              Actually, I posted the material in question, to seeing if it could be refuted. Thanks.
               
              Wrong - more and more studies show so called pseudo genes, have functions and there for are not mistakes inherited through evolution.

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n3pseudogene_pj.asp

              How about these:

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJv13n2_human_non-transitions.asp

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1163.asp

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1136.asp

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1409.asp

              Here are some specific examples:

              Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

              Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/263.asp

              >Cytochrome C

               
              While it is an interesting link it proves nothing. In fact the olny place I  have seen the fist "tree" is on this site. In fact the tree he has presented is exactly what creationists have been refuting.
               

               Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

              -----------------------------------------------

              >Even worse, we see lots of poor design as well,
              >does this mean that the designer was sloppy or is the
              >evidence much better explained by another mechanism.

              The supposed evidence of poor or sloppy design, is the result of deterioration, of the original deign. 
              >CC 1. Since gene carry instructions for the formation of proteins and
              >the like, similarities in this area is needed so that we don't have
              >to eat each other. CC
              >Huh? Please explain.

              If we had no similarity to other life forms, we could not use what they produce as food.

              >CC 2. It is a common in computer programming to reuse segments of
              >code in different programs for doing the same thing. It is logical
              >the God would do the same thing in programming the genetic code. CC

              >why would God insert useless code?
              He didn't.

              1. It results from mutation.

              2. It has a use but has not been discovered yet.

              >morphology homologies.

              Similar design for a similar use.  

              >Embryology

              The alleged similarity between embryos in their early stages has been proven wrong along with recapitulation. so what evidence are you referring to.

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp

              >Vestigial organs

              Many supposably vestigial organs actually have uses.

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/446.asp

               --------------------------------------------

              >CC Actually it is answering the question. Let me try once again.
              >Since, both of old date are based on the same indirect method. CC
              >Are they? Is y-chromosome adam based on a similar method?

              For example, Mike Hammer at the University of Arizona, having sequenced 2,400 bases in the same Y chromosome region from 16 ethnically diverse humans and four chimpanzees, was able to date the common ancestral human Y chromosome at 188,000 years with a 95 percent confidence interval from 51,000 to 411,000 years. The YAP+ insert was dated to 141,000 years before present, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 29,000 years to 340,000 years. In a different study published in the same issue of Nature, Whitfield et al. in Cambridge interpreted data from sequencing 18,300 bases obtained from five ethnically diverse humans and a chimpanzee to give an MRCA time of between 37,000 and 49,000 years before present; in other words, those five men had a common great, great....great-grandfather some 40,000 or 50,000 years ago.

              http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ScienceSpectra-pages/SciSpect-14-98.html

              This clearly show that the rate is based on a comparison with chimps. Same method for determining the rate with Eve.

              >And is there evidence that the y-chromosome mutation rates
              >should be much larger?

              First off I was not trying to prove that the  y-chromosome date was younger than 6500 year, only that it could be. There is a difference. It is reasonable that since both dates were based on the same error, that a similar error would have be made.

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/216.asp

              ----------------------------
              >What is the 'real data'? How was 200,000 years arrived at and why
              >should using inappropriate mutation rates for substitution rates give
              >a reason to propose 6500 years?
              >Direct measurements of mutation rates make for poor substitution
              >rates as shown.
              >>CC I agree 100%, but direct substitution rates would be much better
              >>than indirect substitution rates fortunately thanks to Thomas J
              >>Parsons, we have just that. From the paper in Nature Genetics vol.
              >>15, April 1997, pp. 363-367
               
              >While he calls it substitution rates, they are actually mutation rates.
               
              I know that is what is claimed by those of you find the 6500 year date going against evolution, but  the article plainly says substitution rates. To me it sounds like an attempt to dismiss the evidence, by mudding the water.  
               
              --- Charles Creager Jr
               
               

            • gromit54609
              ... More later. Just some info on y-chromosome and mitochondria. Especially the issue mutation versus substitution rates. ... CC For example, Mike Hammer at
              Message 6 of 21 , Dec 4, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In OriginsTalk@y..., "Charles Creager Jr" <cpcjr9@e...> wrote:

                More later. Just some info on y-chromosome and mitochondria.
                Especially the issue mutation versus substitution rates.


                >CC Actually it is answering the question. Let me try once again.
                >Since, both of old date are based on the same indirect method. CC

                >Are they? Is y-chromosome adam based on a similar method?

                CC For example, Mike Hammer at the University of Arizona, having
                sequenced 2,400 bases in the same Y chromosome region from 16
                ethnically diverse humans and four chimpanzees, was able to date the
                common ancestral human Y chromosome at 188,000 years with a 95
                percent confidence interval from 51,000 to 411,000 years. The YAP+
                insert was dated to 141,000 years before present, with a 95 percent
                confidence interval of 29,000 years to 340,000 years. In a different
                study published in the same issue of Nature, Whitfield et al. in
                Cambridge interpreted data from sequencing 18,300 bases obtained from
                five ethnically diverse humans and a chimpanzee to give an MRCA time
                of between 37,000 and 49,000 years before present; in other words,
                those five men had a common great, great....great-grandfather some
                40,000 or 50,000 years ago. CC

                CC http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/ScienceSpectra-pages/SciSpect-14-98.html
                CC


                CC This clearly show that the rate is based on a comparison with
                chimps. Same method for determining the rate with Eve. CC

                But is this the only way y-chromosome rates have been established?
                And has it been shown that y-chromosome mutation rates are much
                higher?

                http://www.hhmi.org/news/page4.html

                'Mutation Rate of Male Sex Chromosome Lower than Expected"

                http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/216.asp

                http://john.hynes.net/y.html


                >And is there evidence that the y-chromosome mutation rates
                >should be much larger?

                CC First off I was not trying to prove that the y-chromosome date
                was younger than 6500 year, only that it could be. There is a
                difference. It is reasonable that since both dates were based on the
                same error, that a similar error would have be made.
                http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/216.asp CC

                What same error? You presume that substitution rates for y-chromosome
                are much higher based on mitochondrial mutation rates.


                ----------------------------
                >What is the 'real data'? How was 200,000 years arrived at and why
                >should using inappropriate mutation rates for substitution rates give
                >a reason to propose 6500 years?
                >Direct measurements of mutation rates make for poor substitution
                >rates as shown.
                >>CC I agree 100%, but direct substitution rates would be much better
                >>than indirect substitution rates fortunately thanks to Thomas J
                >>Parsons, we have just that. From the paper in Nature Genetics vol.
                >>15, April 1997, pp. 363-367

                >While he calls it substitution rates, they are actually mutation
                rates.

                CC I know that is what is claimed by those of you find the 6500 year
                date going against evolution, but the article plainly says
                substitution rates. To me it sounds like an attempt to dismiss the
                evidence, by mudding the water. CC

                Have you read the article? I have not but others seem to have done so.

                "Recently, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly
                (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in
                the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15,
                April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the
                control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by
                comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their
                offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times
                faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation
                (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section
                of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans
                typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple
                mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations
                old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this
                gives an age of about 6000 years"

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/1967

                Notice how they are talking about intergeneration mutation rates.
                Intergenerational comparissons are NOT good for substitution rates
                which are based on selection.

                Also
                "I have this paper in my file cabinet. They explicitly state that
                they are observing a region of the mitochondrial genome known to
                mutate as a faster rate than other portions of the mitochondrial
                genome. Basing all estimates on this will bias the resulting
                calculations. A creationist would fail to mention this and neglect
                the rest of the genome that accumulates mutations at a much slower
                rate."

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/1998

                "A direct observation of hypervariability in the mtDNA control region
                comes from Howell et al. (1996). They detected mutations in the NADH-
                dehydrogenase 6 gene in relatives afflicted with Lebers hereditary
                optic neuropathy, which resulted in estimates of mutation rate up to
                200-fold higher than those estimated from phylogenetic inference.
                Whether or not this increase represents a localized abnormality in
                mitochondrial metabolism that would be selected against and, thereby,
                not appear to be significant in phylogenetic analyses, is not known
                (Pääbo, 1996). This study was also important in highlighting the
                realistic possibility for intra-individual variation in mtDNA. A
                similar result comes from Parsons et al. (1997), with implications on
                interpreting alternative scenarios of human evolution discussed in
                Loewe and Scherer (1997)."

                http://www.unm.edu/~gurven/_mutate/mutpap.pdf


                "Oops! My earlier reference to Eyre-Walker was a mistake, or rather,
                incomplete. The primary reference for the factor of perhaps 20 error
                in mtDNA mutation rates is Parsons, T.J. et al., "A High Observed
                Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,"
                Nature Genetics, 15:363-367 (April 1997). That study applies to
                non-coding DNA. A troublingly high estimate of mutation rates in
                coding DNA (troubling for those trying to explain the creation in
                evolutionary terms alone) is given by Eyre-Walker, A. and Keightley,
                P.D., "High Genomic Deleterious Mutation Rates in Hominids," Nature,
                Jan. 28, 1999, p. 344-347."




                http://groups.google.com/groups?
                q=parsons+substitution+mitochondrial&hl=en&rnum=4&selm=466eadc3.010831
                1557.452e66f7%40posting.google.com
              • Charles Creager Jr
                ... Did you even read this article? The scientists selected as a target for their study a portion of the highly homologous regions—composed of about 38,600
                Message 7 of 21 , Dec 5, 2001
                • 0 Attachment

                  >CC This clearly show that the rate is based on a comparison with
                  >chimps. Same method for determining the rate with Eve. CC
                   
                  >But is this the only way y-chromosome rates have been established?
                  >And has it been shown that y-chromosome mutation rates are much
                  >higher?
                   
                   
                  >'Mutation Rate of Male Sex Chromosome Lower than Expected"
                   
                  Did you even read this article?

                  The scientists selected as a target for their study a portion of the highly homologous regions�composed of about 38,600 nucleotides�that was found in the human X and Y chromosomes and in the chimpanzee and gorilla X chromosomes. Their sequencing and comparison revealed that this segment of the human X and Y chromosomes differed in only 441 nucleotides.

                  The scientists then pinpointed the mutations in human sex chromosome by comparing each nucleotide variation with sequence data from the chimpanzee and gorilla X chromosome sequences. For example, if a particular nucleotide alteration was found on the human Y chromosome, but not on the human, chimpanzee or gorilla X chromosome, the mutation was presumed to have taken place on the human Y chromosome.

                  Using this technique, the scientists were able to infer which human sex chromosome originally harbored a given nucleotide substitution. From these data, they calculated a male-female mutation rate ratio of about 1.7�much lower than the previously suggested ratio of 5.

                  Proven right again! They compared humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.  
                   
                  ------------------------------------
                   
                  >CC First off I was not trying to prove that the  y-chromosome date
                  >was younger than 6500 year, only that it could be. There is a
                  >difference. It is reasonable that since both dates were based on the
                  >same error, that a similar error would have be made.
                   
                  >What same error? You presume that substitution rates for y-chromosome
                  >are much higher based on mitochondrial mutation rates.
                   
                  Both the old Eve date and the  y-chromosome dates are based on the error of comparing humans and chimpanzees.
                   
                  -----------------------------------
                   
                  >>CC I know that is what is claimed by those of you find the 6500 year
                  >>date going against evolution, but  the article plainly says
                  >>substitution rates. To me it sounds like an attempt to dismiss the
                  >>evidence, by mudding the water.   CC
                   
                   
                  >Notice how they are talking about intergeneration mutation rates.
                  >Intergenerational comparisons are NOT good for substitution rates
                  >which are based on selection.
                   
                  Noted but, Thomas J Parsons' Nature Genetics article dealt with substitution rates, not mutation rates.
                   
                   
                  Interesting but it proves nothing about Thomas J Parsons' work.
                   
                  Nothing you have shown here shows that Parsons made a mistake, only that evolutionists assume that he must have made one, because after all his work agrees with the Biblical time scale. This is just more mud for the water.
                   
                  --- Charles Creager Jr
                   
                   

                • gromit54609
                  ... CC Did you even read this article? CC Yes, it seems that the mutation rate of the y-chromosome is lower rather than higher.... Snip... I do not argue that
                  Message 8 of 21 , Dec 5, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In OriginsTalk@y..., "Charles Creager Jr" <cpcjr9@e...> wrote:
                    >


                    >CC This clearly show that the rate is based on a comparison with
                    >chimps. Same method for determining the rate with Eve. CC

                    >But is this the only way y-chromosome rates have been established?
                    >And has it been shown that y-chromosome mutation rates are much
                    >higher?

                    >http://www.hhmi.org/news/page4.html

                    >'Mutation Rate of Male Sex Chromosome Lower than Expected"

                    CC Did you even read this article? CC

                    Yes, it seems that the mutation rate of the y-chromosome is lower
                    rather than higher....

                    Snip... I do not argue that some methods use chimpanzees but I am
                    asking, do all methods do this and what's wrong with such an approach?

                    >What same error? You presume that substitution rates for y-
                    chromosome
                    >are much higher based on mitochondrial mutation rates.

                    CC Both the old Eve date and the y-chromosome dates are based on the
                    error of comparing humans and chimpanzees. CC

                    Fine but you adjusted the Eve date based on higher observed mutation
                    rates (not substitution rates). Where is the evidence that such an
                    adjustment can be applied to y-chromosomes?

                    -----------------------------------

                    >>CC I know that is what is claimed by those of you find the 6500
                    year
                    >>date going against evolution, but the article plainly says
                    >>substitution rates. To me it sounds like an attempt to dismiss the
                    >>evidence, by mudding the water. CC

                    >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/message/1967

                    >Notice how they are talking about intergeneration mutation rates.
                    >Intergenerational comparisons are NOT good for substitution rates
                    >which are based on selection.

                    CC Noted but, Thomas J Parsons' Nature Genetics article dealt with
                    substitution rates, not mutation rates. CC

                    Parsons uses the term substitution rates but you cannot obtain
                    substitution rates from intergenerational comparissons. Selection
                    needs to have time to act.


                    CC http://www.unm.edu/~gurven/_mutate/mutpap.pdf

                    Interesting but it proves nothing about Thomas J Parsons' work.

                    Nothing you have shown here shows that Parsons made a mistake, only
                    that evolutionists assume that he must have made one, because after
                    all his work agrees with the Biblical time scale. This is just more
                    mud for the water. CC

                    I have shown you what Parsons did, comparing intergenerational
                    mutation rates. That approach does not make for necessarily good
                    substitution rates.

                    It's as simple as that.


                    "One solution may lie in much higher mutation rates. Most estimates
                    have rested on molecular clocks which, in turn, have rested on
                    evolutionary assumptions. Until recently, we have not had good
                    empirical measures of the mutation rates in humans. The situation
                    improved when geneticists were able to analyze DNA from individuals
                    with well-established family trees going back several generations.
                    One study found that mutation rates in mitochondrial DNA are 18 times
                    higher than previous estimates (Parsons, et al., 1997). If this new
                    rate were applied to the "mitochondrial Eve" research, it would turn
                    out that this hypothetical woman lived 6,000 years ago. "No one
                    thinks that's the case," science writer Ann Gibbons is quick to point
                    out (1998, 279:29). Still, if these new estimates hold, evolutionary
                    anthropologists will have to do some fancy footwork around their
                    dates for key events in the development of modern humans. Most
                    important, the new data may put a biblical empirical model in closer
                    reach."
                    http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9802c.htm


                    "It is interesting that a recent study has shown that mitochondrial
                    DNA in humans mutates 20 times faster than previously thought, which
                    would give rise to the current 3 percent difference in mitochondrial
                    DNA among humans in about 6000 years. See Parsons, Thomas J., et
                    al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA
                    control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367."

                    http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/problem.html
                  • Charles Creager Jr
                    ... I did a net search and the only articles I found that say how they estimated mutation rates, did so by comparing humans to chimpanzees or some other ape.
                    Message 9 of 21 , Dec 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment

                      >Snip... I do not argue that some methods use chimpanzees but I am
                      >asking, do all methods do this and

                      I did a net search and the only articles I found that say how they estimated mutation rates, did so by comparing humans to chimpanzees or some other ape.

                      >what's wrong with such an approach?

                      We are not related to chimps or any other ape, that is what is wrong with that approach.
                       
                      Not being related to them, makes any dates based on comparison with them erroneous.
                       
                      -----------------------------------
                       
                      >>CC Noted but, Thomas J Parsons' Nature Genetics article dealt with
                      >>substitution rates, not mutation rates. CC
                      >Parsons uses the term substitution rates but you cannot obtain
                      >substitution rates from intergenerational comparisons. Selection
                      >needs to have time to act.
                       
                      1. A woman's mtDNA is passed down in total or not at all. The only difference is mutations.
                       
                      2. Every human being has an uninterrupted mtDNA line back to Eve.
                       
                      3. The mtDNA for every human being was selected for survival in each passed generation, with the exception of mutations occurring in that individual.
                       
                      4. Any mutation that prevents the mtDNA from being passed on, ends with that individual
                       
                      5. Any mutation surviving its first generation is more likely to survive each successive generation. This is particularly true because of the increase in the number of people carrying that mutation.
                       
                      6. Because any mutation surviving past its fist generation is increasingly likely to survive successive generations, the first generation is the most likely one in which a mutation will be selected out.
                       
                      Conclusion:  Intergenerational comparisons are valid because the likely hood of a mutation being selected out is greatest in its first generation, and becomes increasingly less likely to be selected out in successive generations. This means that selection dose take place fast enough for intergenerational comparisons to result in substitution rates.
                       
                      --- Charles Creager Jr
                       
                       

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.