|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2003 : 10:03:38
|
In the most recent publication of AnswersUpdate (vol. 10 no. 6), a publication of the Answers in Genesis Ministries, they proudly note that a 14 year old managed to publish an article in their "In-depth journal of creation," called TJ, formerly Technical Journal. According to the article, TJ "rigorously 'peer review[s]'" all its submissions. (Why they opted to put 'peer review' in quotes is beyond me, unless there's a joke I'm missing out on.) Nevertheless, this kid managed to make publication over PhDs and the like. What this says about the quality of the journal's submissions should be obvious.
Anyhow, anyone interested in reading the article, titled "Genetics and Biblical demographic events," can find it at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_demographics.asp
I'm not an expert in the area to say the least, nor do I have immediate access the references he cites (often mainstream journals/magazines like Discover and Scientific American. However, I did notice that he threw in a few statements that go against the AiG notion of a Young Earth, such as his saying that "[c]ertainly, humankind has undergone a relatively recent (tens of thousands of years at most, within an evolutionary time frame) population bottleneck" (TJ 17 no. 1, 23). It seems to me that even allowing for the earth to be more than ca. 6,000 years old is heretical to the AiG people. But what do I know, right?
I'd be happy to hear from others more in the know on such things what they think about he kid's use/interpretation of the data.
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 10:48:04 [Permalink]
|
Wayull....it looks like a bit of selective reading to me. The word 'recent' crops up a whole lot, but there are no numbers alongside it, leaving one to wonder if that's 'last week' recent or 'within the current geological epoch' recent. He talks about tens of thousands of years at the end, but does not give any clue as to what the cited articles consider recent to mean.
He quotes from Dorit et al:
quote:
‘ … likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes …
which gives four possible explanations for the observed numbers, not just 'recent origin'. (There's that darn recent again.) What about 'male population bottlenecks' (lotsa guys killed in intertribal battles?) or 'small effective male population' (the alpha male gets to do all the mating?). He liked one hypothesis and simply discarded the other three without discussion.
When you get down to it, all the article really says is that all of this genetic research does not disprove either the theory that all humans descended from one couple or the theory that a worldwide flood killed everyone except one couple. The latter theory has long been disproven by Geology. The former theory is not particularly important. It doesn't tell us whether the single point is Adam or Noah or Gormag the Mammoth Killer.
I also noted that his references 4 and 6 to CEN Tech J (Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal) themselves have references to the same articles he references at 3, 5, and 8. In fact, searching for the three referenced Science articles by Ann Gibbons turns up a lot of creationist links. Looks like her work is a favorite for creationist seletive referencing.
- Henry
|
- TW
|
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 11:14:30 [Permalink]
|
| Gee, I much prefered reading Emily Rosas article in Science about Theraputic Touch being a load of crap. Nice kid too. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 13:07:16 [Permalink]
|
| Ah, when I first read the subject to this thread, I actually thought it was a scientific journal. But then I read the rest. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
| Edited by - Maverick on 07/04/2003 13:08:15 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 16:04:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...from a worldwide sample of 38 human males and reported no sequence variation.
Hmm... 38 samples seems a bit low in order be statistically representative of a population of 5 billion. They could at least have gotten 100 samples. I don't know how the study was made, but if I had made it, I would have double checked the genealogy to make sure each of them was not closely related. Otherwise it would be easy to doctor the evidence for a biblical event.
quote:
These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global flood. Evolutionary models of origins did not predict such low human genetic diversity.
Well, perhaps that depends on what number you choose for the mutation rate... The mutation rate is linear over time, but if scientists are not in agreement about the rate, a creationist might say the mutation rate is higher than the average molecular biologist thinks, and so claims that the lack of mutations support a single-parent-origin theory.
quote:
Mutations should have produced much more diversity than 0.1% over millions of years.
This quote sets of my warning siren...
Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens are said to have our common ancestor 500'000 years ago, then called Homo Erectus, who back then just learned how to handle fire (if not creating it). I have yet to see a number on the diversity between us and our late distant cousins, but I feel rather confident that it will be more than 0.1%.
quote:
By comparing DNA from different humans around the world, it has been found that all humans share roughly 99.9% of their genetic material—they are almost completely identical, genetically.
Ah, there it is. He states that there's a 0.1% diversity in current human population.
This is a vital clue that he hasn't done his homework. Prof. Armand Delsemme writes in his book "Our cosmic origins" that Homo Sapiens emerged ~200'000 years ago. That's at least one magnitude off in the time line of human evolution. (note that the history of Homo is not Delsemme's primary field, but I use him as a reference since I read "Our Cosmic Origin" in Astrobiology class)
We must also consider that we had an Ice Age that peaked between 30'k and 10'k years ago. Back and before that, Homo Sapiens had to compete with, amongst others, the Neanderthals in a receding biotope. This is probably why Neanderthal disappeared, they simply weren't fit enough. And it also stands to reason that the population of Homo Sapiens was greatly reduced, both by competition and environment factors.
The article then goes deeper into genetics, "nucleotide polymorphisms", and "Linkage disequilibrium". This is beyond me, I can't say wether or not any of that has merit. But unlike Creation88, I can't just deny the fact that the article might have merit, just because I have trouble believeing that two different chromosomes might swap genes during meiosis. However if it's true, then it's news to me. If anyone knows something about this, please enlighten me.
If genes can be traded between different chromosomes, what mechanism keep track, and make sure that the exact same number of base-pairs are traded between the two?
By accepting this, the Answers in Genesis-people also opens the door for a piece of evidense that contradict their claim that chromosomes (thus genes, and the total genetic material) can not grow due to mutations.
If the flood occured, then all Homo Sapiens' common ancestor would be Noah, 2300 BC (?). Only 4300 years to mutate and diverge into African, Caucaisians, Pygmees, et.c.
Could it happen? I can't tell, because I haven't read enough genetics. My first impression though, is: "no way in hell..."
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/04/2003 16:11:52 |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 20:06:46 [Permalink]
|
Most YEC stuff I have seen on genetics has some strange content. They outright object to evolution on the basis that evolution is "macroevolution." Species don't become new things, they are whatever their "kind" is (never mind that kind is vague and best, and they prefer it that way, leaves wiggle room. They redefine the term to suit their arugment, changing it when it no longer works.).
However, they seem ok with "microevolution", since it is neccesary by some of their theories to make their "noah" stuff work. Turn out they argue that the ark worked by having a pair of each king (never mind the absurdity of creating such a boat (supposedly the size of an oil tanker by some creationsists guess), or the fact of the absuridity of a global flood. Anyway, after the flood, all species "microevolved" from their parent "kind". Never mind that the rate of mutation that this would require is several orders of magnitude higher than what biologists find in nature, or evalute based on natural historical studies. What is truly hilarious is that if that level of mutation was present, macroevolution would most defintley be visible on even human lifespans. Think, over 500,000 thousand species of beatles from one "kind" in the last 3 or 4 k years!
Unforntualy, the YEC's I have talked to have little clue what they are arguing when they repeat such riduclous claims often resort making stuff up to cover the deficiencies of such claims, when they are readily pointed out by those who don't swallow the bull as a big nasty faith pill. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2003 : 21:53:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick
Ah, when I first read the subject to this thread, I actually thought it was a scientific journal. But then I read the rest.
Hey--- come on, man! It's the Technical Journal! It's technical! And it's a journal! What could you have against that?  |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2003 : 06:55:12 [Permalink]
|
This bounced around the E/C forum at Infidels some 2 or 3 weeks ago. It was interesting, for a while.
The long and short of it is that Answers in Genesis has about as much to do with emperical science as Ripley's Believe It or Not has to do with Social Studies. Precious little (ol' Rip was known to - ahem -'streach' his stories a tad).
When the kid gets published in Journal of Nature or similiar, then I'll sit up and take notice.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 08:39:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evidence for a Mitochondrial Eve2,3 suggests that the historical record in Genesis of one man and one woman at the beginning...
Don't the calculations for m-Eve and m-Adam show that they lived 10s of thousands of years apart? Plus, those studies specifically state that m-Eve/Adam were not the first humans.
quote:
Evolutionary models of origins did not predict such low human genetic diversity.
They didn't? Cite?
quote:
Mutations should have produced much more diversity than 0.1% over millions of years.
As was said, H. sapiens is only ~200,000 years old.
Is 0.1% really that small within a single species? How do other species compare? Note that 0.1% encompasses all the different "races" (caucasian, black, american indian, pacific islander, latin american, aboriginal australian, inuit, etc.) Seems that 0.1% can mean A LOT of variation within a species.
quote:
Many humans share large blocks of SNPs (called haplotypes), suggesting that all humans could have descended from a relatively recent demographic event.
How is this statement supported at all? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2003 : 21:27:05 [Permalink]
|
Phobos wrote:quote:
Don't the calculations for m-Eve and m-Adam show that they lived 10s of thousands of years apart?
Since mitochondrial genes are passed from the female only, there is no "m-Adam." But the article's author is still guessing that there was only one man involved. There were probably many, and not all of the same generation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2003 : 06:24:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Hey--- come on, man! It's the Technical Journal! It's technical! And it's a journal! What could you have against that?
[Black Adder]
Apart from my bottom?
[/Black Adder]
 |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 10:38:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since mitochondrial genes are passed from the female only, there is no "m-Adam." But the article's author is still guessing that there was only one man involved. There were probably many, and not all of the same generation.
Ah yes, I think you're right. But I think there is some genetic marker on the y-chromosome too that allows for some calculation of the "Adam". I don't recall the details offhand. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2003 : 13:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Phobos
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Since mitochondrial genes are passed from the female only, there is no "m-Adam." But the article's author is still guessing that there was only one man involved. There were probably many, and not all of the same generation.
Ah yes, I think you're right. But I think there is some genetic marker on the y-chromosome too that allows for some calculation of the "Adam". I don't recall the details offhand.
I recall seeing a program on TV about a black south african tribe that claimed they were jews. By checking the Y-chromosome for markers unique to decendants of one of the "later old testament families", a match was found, and thus evidently they were jews. How strange that might sound. Unfortunatly I don't recall from what biblical person they were supposed to be decendants from, and unfortunatly I don't recall which program it was, though I got the impression that it was believable.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 15:19:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I recall seeing a program on TV about a black south african tribe that claimed they were jews. By checking the Y-chromosome for markers unique to decendants of one of the "later old testament families", a match was found, and thus evidently they were jews. How strange that might sound. Unfortunatly I don't recall from what biblical person they were supposed to be decendants from, and unfortunatly I don't recall which program it was, though I got the impression that it was believable.
Someone needs to educate me. How is it possible to trace a tribe in Africa to a specific individual from 2000+ years ago? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2003 : 16:07:41 [Permalink]
|
| Certain genetic markers are unique to certain heritages. I am sure the test found some common rare or unique markers between the tribe and people of jewish decent. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2003 : 06:41:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
Certain genetic markers are unique to certain heritages. I am sure the test found some common rare or unique markers between the tribe and people of jewish decent.
Thank You. This suggest that they didn't necessarily trace the African tribe to a specific Jewish family from old testament times. Just to Jewish ancestory. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
