Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've heard so many times about how the following is proof of Creation, and how it puts the boot to Evolution. Here's a very brief summary of the whole account, parts of which are routinely ignored by Christian fundamentalists who, otherwise, conveniently continue use this "science-generated" info.
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. Passed down from mother to offspring, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times. (Ooops... rifleman)
She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania. The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift times.
Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity .
The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple(Sorry guys...). They each may have lived within a large human population at a different time .
So be careful of what you quote-mine, or expect others to blithely believe. (Damned facts... mutter mutter...)
Why would you say the reason for antibiotic resistant is? Just curious.
We've gone over and over anti-biotic resistance. Please look back in the conversation. But as reiteration from my side, anti-biotic resistance predates the introduction of anti-biotics. The information is present in the bacteria. So, no new information is produced to drive this as an evolution thing. The bacteria that is resistant is resistant at a loss of some other atribute like motility. After the anti-biotics are removed the population returns to original proportions and evolution disappears, but its theory is clung to by evolutionary scientists.
We know what a "strawman argument" is. It's a deflective argument meant to distract from the real debate. What does that have to do with our perhaps slightly sarcastic but nonetheless quizzical direct comments?
We look to your greater awareness to explain some of the really really oddball consequences of a literal interpretation of Noah's 450ft Ark. (NIKK says it was several times larger than a modern day cruise ship. The bible says 450 feet. What gives with that?). We doubters look to be patiently convinced, not ridiculed. Remember your thoughts on that other thread about the impressions Christians might erroneously leave by stooping to our level of sarcasm and bitterness?
Christian fables have purpose, but are rarely given truly encompassing literal definition, rather they are accepted by rational Christians for their allegorical or eschatologic value.
So please, what do you mean
I said Noah's Ark was comparable to modern ocean going vessels, not several times the size. Regardless, 450 ft. is a very large vessel. It had to only contain 8 people and members of the original "kinds" of animals created by God during the creation week. That would be snake kind, Dog/wolf kind, Cow kind, horse kind, etc... So, the Ark did not have to carry the billions of species that many of you suggest. All animals also were vegitarian at the begining, so there was no additional animals needed for food. The animals included the T-Rex kind and other animals that we now classify as "dinosaurs". These animals were all created on the same day during the creation week and have all lived together with man at one point in time. Since dinosaurs lived after the flood, in the poorer post flood environment, some of them began to eat meat along with other known meet eating animals like the lion.
Noah did sacrifice animals after the flood, but if we remember he took seven of every clean animal and two of every unclean. So he had several animals to choose from to sacrifice. Also the bible does not say how long after the flood that he made his sacrifices. He could easily have had several litters of each kind of animal before he began sacrificing.
No, there was no need for Noah to bring creatures like insects onto the ark, or fish, or virus' as has been said during the posts. Insects could have suvived on matts of vegetaion during the cataclysmic flood. Fish were fine in the water (all water was less salty in the past, the oceans have become saltyer over time). All the flood water was from the heaven and from the deep when it was "broken up". So all the water returned to where it came from, the ocean water returned to the ocean, the rain from the clouds returned to the clouds. Post flood there was an ice age (As mentioned in the book of Job). So, much of the flood water was precipitated into the polar ice (much of core samples were laid down during this massive climate change).
Actually, Rifleman it is not possible to build a wooden ship 450 feet long and have it actually sea worthy. Even with steel or iron reinforcing no one has built a ship of that length that was in any way successful. The largest successful wooden ships built were the British war ships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey. They were 335 feet long, were reinforced with iron, but pushed the limits of wooden ship building and both suffered structural problems.....Just a bit of trivia from an old mariner.
The ark was more of a barge and less of a ship. It is possible to build, just because we haven't decided to build a wooden barge this size does not prove that Noah didn't!
The ark was more of a barge and less of a ship. It is possible to build, just because we haven't decided to build a wooden barge this size does not prove that Noah didn't!
Once again you are wrong. People have built vessels of this size including barges, but even using iron or steel reinforcing they were failures. the longer a wooden vessel is the more it flexes. When a wooden vessel flexes the planks separate causing leaks...Now I suppose you are going to say that Noah had giant pumps powered by the oxen or some such thing...Face it Niik. it is not possible, any more than having two of every creature that existed at the time on board is possible.
We've gone over and over anti-biotic resistance. Please look back in the conversation. But as reiteration from my side, anti-biotic resistance predates the introduction of anti-biotics. The information is present in the bacteria. So, no new information is produced to drive this as an evolution thing. The bacteria that is resistant is resistant at a loss of some other atribute like motility. After the anti-biotics are removed the population returns to original proportions and evolution disappears, but its theory is clung to by evolutionary scientists.
This is simply not true, NIKK.You're modifying definitions or mis-quoting facts to support your erroneous position. A/B Resistance predates the intro of the modifier drug? Really? Saying it often don't make it so! And your explanations show a vast technical misunderstanding of the dynamics and proven processes of genetics. I'll try to make it simple...
Bacterial resistance to an existing antibiotic is acquired through mass population expression of a functionally useful biochemical mutation. In response to an environmental stressor. DNA-controlled differences such as, but not limited to, a change in the bacteria's cell wall susceptibility to the exact form (shape, etc.) of a protein, which thereby prevents the active attachment point of the antibiotic from latching on. Or through the inability of a cellular breakdown-inducing protein within the antibiotic to attack the bacterial contents, structure or functionality. These processes are proven; no denials or modifications allowed. If these things didn't happen the A/Bs wouldn't work, which they do. Will you deny they work in cases where they do?
Once the bacteria has mutated, it's functioning and successful genotype will continue unabated until there's an environmentally forced reason to exploit another mutation. Mutations occur, observably and with proof, on a fairly constant basis. Genome-mapping projects prove it. Again, no denials accepted. The older pre-mutation bacterial type still exists (proven by the continued success of existing anti-biotics), but the new type co-exists (similarly proven by the failure of existing antibiotics), and will proliferate (as with MRSA superbugs).
[MRSA: Methoxycillin Resistance to Staph. Aureus bacteria; the current superbug that lurks in hospitals and is particularly problematic because it has mutated it's resistance. Permanently). The subsequent removal of antibiotics from a MRSA-invaded environment will NOT result in a reversion of the MRSA bug back to its less virulent form!
How screwy is that idea? It's a postulate that is EASILY disproved. It's also dangerous for you to even tell people that! They could die as a result of this mis-info from a technically untrained Christian. Wait.. that's not historically a new thing... But I digress. Back to our facts!).
Of course some species die off when their niche disappears. Perhaps this is where you're confused? A water buffalo won't be around if all the water suddenly dries up, but the original species form, Pre-Water Buff, didn't dissappear when Water-Buff appeared; it's still there wandering the dry lands, and then wanders back over into the newly dried out but prior home of the now extinct (or simply departed) Water Buff. THAT's not evidence that things revert! Come on!
Mutations that do not benefit an organism are those that are 1) fatal, 2) confer no immediate benefit or 3) confer a lethal or debilitating sensitivity in some later condition or event. Otherwise, as in the well-documented case of MRSA, a mutation that confers some, any, advantage, is here to stay, and will no doubt breed off yet another slightly mutated form that's eventually resistant to vancomycin, the current last-ditch A/B. Until science concocts another super A/B that can attack the latest evolved bacterium strain.
But mutuation and evolution are only valid if they result in an all-new species, some say. Well, MRSA IS a new species distinct from its predecessor, just as a Pre-Water-Buff, in response to a more aqueous environment, for example, is on its way to becoming a different new species of Water Buff. After a suitable number of environment-friendly useful niche-filling mutations. When they can no longer mate, by definition we call them a new species, but on their way there, they're still mutating and evolving to new and wonderful well-adapted organisms. Intermediate forms, sub-species, or, wonderfully, all-new phenotypes. With wings instead of arms, lungs instead of gills. and on and on.
But resistance to A/Bs? Pure and simple evidence of mutation-driven evolution into a new sustainable species. Yep, EVOLUTION , unless YOU choose to change the definition mid-argument. Sorry, but it's true and whats more it's intuitively obvious and technically simple to explain. And document.
There. Understand it now? No more misunderstandings, right?
And on and on we go. Gotta go now to feed my temporarily and conveniently downsized, penned-up vegetarian T-Rex. That's funny!
I have a question for you Niik...I noticed that in your post above you said that Noah took seven of every clean animal and two of every unclean. First could you define what is meant by the terms "clean" and "unclean" and second why seven "clean animals" rather than just two?
I've heard so many times about how the following is proof of Creation, and how it puts the boot to Evolution. Here's a very brief summary of the whole account, parts of which are routinely ignored by Christian fundamentalists who, otherwise, conveniently continue use this "science-generated" info.
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all currently living humans. Passed down from mother to offspring, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times. (Ooops... rifleman)
She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania. The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift times.
Mitochondrial Eve is the MRCA of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve is defined via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived at least as long, though likely much longer, ago than the MRCA of all humanity .
The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple(Sorry guys...). They each may have lived within a large human population at a different time .
So be careful of what you quote-mine, or expect others to blithely believe. (Damned facts... mutter mutter...)
I agree, mitochondrial Eve is not necessarily the Eve of the bible. The evidence for a mitochondrial Eve however supports the account of creation given in the bible, but do not prove it.
The dating for mitochondrial eve is full of evolutionary based assumption to give the inflated dates. These inflations occur by assuming the date that humans and apes diverged from a comon ancestor (that they diverged) and how many substitutions occur in a given amount of time. Some studies have shown that the rates can be 20 times greater than previously thought giving a date for mitochondrial Eve at 6500 years ago. (See: Gibbons, A. ‘Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock’. Science 279(5347):28–29, January 2, 1998.)
So, I would not use mitochondrial eve as a smoking gun that proves creation, but she is another example in support of a recent creation.
I agree, mitochondrial Eve is not necessarily the Eve of the bible. The evidence for a mitochondrial Eve however supports the account of creation given in the bible, but do not prove it.
The dating for mitochondrial eve is full of evolutionary based assumption to give the inflated dates. These inflations occur by assuming the date that humans and apes diverged from a comon ancestor (that they diverged) and how many substitutions occur in a given amount of time. Some studies have shown that the rates can be 20 times greater than previously thought giving a date for mitochondrial Eve at 6500 years ago. (See: Gibbons, A. ‘Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock’. Science 279(5347):28–29, January 2, 1998.)
So, I would not use mitochondrial eve as a smoking gun that proves creation, but she is another example in support of a recent creation.
Here is an page of Ann Gibbons book "First Human".....I hardly think she was a good choice to bolster your young earth theory...
Natural selection and adaptation are NOT speciation. (Is that a word?)
A question to the evolutionists:
Which races of humans do you think are higher and/or lower evolved?
Obviously (per Evolutionists) different races are going out on different branches, so which race is more advanced? What is your speculation on the evolution of humans? Wings? Telepathy? Webbed feet? Lungs that can breath carbon monoxide?
Please, share with us your views. I'm sure they won't look as ridiculous as you claim believers in Creation look.
Waiting with anticipation......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
). They each may have lived within a large human population at a different time .
to explain some of the really really oddball consequences of a literal interpretation of Noah's 450ft Ark. (NIKK says it was several times larger than a modern day cruise ship. The bible says 450 feet. What gives with that?). We doubters look to be patiently convinced, not ridiculed. Remember your thoughts on that other thread about the impressions Christians might erroneously leave by stooping to our level of sarcasm and bitterness?
Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh yeah!
, unless YOU choose to change the definition mid-argument. Sorry, but it's true and whats more it's intuitively obvious and technically simple to explain. And document. 
)