Re: Genetic evidence for the origins of Mankind

John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:00 am, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[M]adman wrote:
Genetic evidence that Noah and his sons
repopulated the earth.
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p265.html
Wow. That is illiterate in so manyways. Did you
write it? Here's my favorite bit: "However, we
now know that the mitochondria are directly
responsible for the mutations of the human
genetic structure. It inserts into active genes
and causes mutation. " You can't make this
stuff up.
Of course, it is understood that anything
written which disagrees with you, the king of
evolution, would be ridiculed.
you havent addressed the issue:

how do mitochondria cause mutations in nuclear
DNA? this would be a revolutionary
discovery...even by a creationist. yet it's
tossed off without comment.
I think it may be a garbled understanding of
mitochondrially originating pseudogenes (numts).
But it's hard to tell what the author thinks he's
talking about.
The paper clearly shows how Noah's sons could have
repopulated the earth.
"Clearly" isn't a word I would have used in
connection with that thing. It's an illiterate
mess. I doubt you have actually read it. I doubt
you understand what it's saying; the author
obviously doesn't. But if you have read and
understood it, what do the quoted sentences mean?
Here they are again: "However, we now know that the
mitochondria are directly responsible for the
mutations of the human genetic structure. It
inserts into active genes and causes mutation."
It means exactly what it says.
Nice evasion. I conclude you have no idea. I notice
that you have also evaded my questions about the
nature of DNA and mutation. I conclude you know
nothing about the biology of the various items you
post.
I know enough to understand the article without asking
questions like you.
And there's yet another evasion strategy. They're
inexhaustible, aren't they? When evasion is all you can
do, it's lucky to have so many options. Then again, each
evasion is more evidence that you can't actually answer
any of the questions.
And this is how you evaded the entire article.
Ah, so you'd like to discuss the article? I thought it was
gibberish. For example, it says "However, we now know that
the mitochondria are directly responsible for the
mutations of the human genetic structure. It inserts into
active genes and causes mutation." Whatever do you think
that means?
Do you wish to discuss the fact that Noah and His sons (and
with their wives) could have been adequate to repopulate
the earth? WHICH IS WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT.
No, that's not actually what it's about. We all agree that
the human population could grow rapidly under ideal
conditions. It's about whether the data can actually be
made to fit such a scenario. And there you have to get into
the data. But thanks for adding the girls, finally.
I thought the simplest of minds would assume the wives in the
mix. Obviously more credit was given then credit was due


So: what do you think that means? I'll put it in again so
you can't miss it: "However, we now know that the
mitochondria are directly responsible for the mutations of
the human genetic structure. It inserts into active genes
and causes mutation."
I would disagree with this part.
On what basis would you disagree?

But not with the entire paper.
On what basis would you agree with the entire paper?

Now what

More games?

Or did you have an actual opinion on the overall assertion of
the paper.
What is the overall assertion? It's too rambling and
disorganized to get anything from it other than "Genesis is
true because I think it must be". The "supporting evidence" is
all misunderstood nonsense.
You would obviously like to play 20 questions rather then
discuss the paper. Perhaps it is you that did not understand it
So far, several objections have been raised by me and others to
various essential points of the paper. You have ignored most of
them, and agreed with the one just above. That last alone should
tell you (if you understood it) that the author of the paper is
ignorant of biology.
Tell me something important the paper says that is true, and
perhaps we could discuss that.
I said that in the beginning:

"Noah and his sons could have repopulated the earth" based on
what I read in this paper.

Now, if you disagree, why not state your reasons?
1. Noah and his sons were all male.
Please do the obvious and ASSUME they had wives because wives are
mentioned in their story
Sure. I'm just pointing out that you consistently ignore their
(hypothetical but necessary) existence, as if women didn't count.

A reasonable person would make a reasonable assumption.

Only if we assume that you are in turn a reasonable person, and that
assumption isn't reasonable.

2. Noah and his sons did not really exist.
Trace the languages backwards. You will be amazed at where they
lead. Which languages? Why?

they will lead right back to Noa's three sons. (i'll leave the wives
out again, but please assume that the wives spoke the same language
as their hubbys!)

I would have thought that all three sons would have spoken the same
language. Again, whatever do you imagine you're talking about here?
Please state the linguistic evidence for Noah and his sons having
existed.
Look for root words, etc...
I don't need to do this. Historical linguists have done it. Though
there is considerable controversy about the deeper branches of the
linguistic tree, I don't find anything that points to Noah.

All of it does.

How, exactly?

3. This would require a single Y-chromosome lineage only 4-5000
ears ago, which the evidence precludes.
4. This would require a maximum of 4 mitochondrial lineages only
4-5000 years ago, which the evidence precludes.
Your interpretation?
That was my interpretation. What's wrong with it?

It is wrong

Evidently. But what is wrong with it? Do you have an argument here?

Why did you make an argument you knew was wrong?



5. There was no flood.
There were many floods
I agree. But there was no worldwide flood. The various floods were
all local, and all happened at different times. At no time, ever,
has all land been under water at once.

You cannot make such a claim. A world wide flood would have
destroyed and distorted evidence as well as much of the earth.

No, it would have created a great deal of evidence. There would be a
worldwide layer of marine sediment. Getting the geological record to
agree with a worldwide flood takes enough handwaving to power all the
world's wind generators and eliminate our dependence on oil.

You cannot get the geological record to agree with the geological record.

It is an incomplete.



6. The author presents no evidence for his hypothesis, merely
rambling nonsense which only serves to show he understands
nothing.
Some of it seems to be a summary of other scientific papers
Yes, but always highly garbled, as in the example I began all this
with. He doesn't understand what he reads, and you don't understand
what he wrote. How do you expect to deal with this at all?

It sounds reasonable. And we have established you tend to /not/ be
resonable by wanting the wives specifically mentioned in a
conversation that should have assumed the wives (and children) as
well. Perhaps you are unreasonable regarding this as too?

Start writing English so we can understand just what nonsense you're
spouting. Why do you feel this need to consistently ignore women? And
"it sounds reasonable" is still not an argument.

heh.. what part of "should have assumed the wives (and children)" was so
diffcult?


You know i am not a scientist. So why ask me questions you know i
cannot answer?
If you can't answer the questions you have no business claiming
that the paper you cited means anything.
I said you asked questions I could not answer. As in a game. I
understand the page well enough to know that it makes sense. You
have not demonstrated otherwise.
How could I, when you don't understand any of it?

I understand enough to realize that it is you that may be wrong.

Where is the evidence that you understand any of it? You won't discuss
any specifics.

Neither will you. In fact, for a scientist, you have offered nothing to
refute the OP



Because you want to play a silly game. Thats why

As of now it looks like none of you cannot refute the information
other then to pluck out a few differences of opinions written in
the paper..
I agree none of us cannot refute the information. We can all
refute it, easily. There is little point going into detail with
you because by your own admission you don't understand the
evidence. How would you evaluate a critique?
Maybe I wanted your educated opinion and take on it.

Judging by your list above ---> i would guess you are too bias to
give an accurate take on it.
That was an accurate take.

An accurately bias take --is seems.

Maybe you work too close to the topic to give an objectionable
answer.

Do you know what "objectionable" means? Hint: not what you think.

Your opinion is bias regardless of my personal command of the english
language


.

Relevant Pages
Loading