Page 17 of 18

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:44 pm
by Jac3510
Gman wrote:Ok, neandertal divergence from modern homo sapiens is technically not scientific. It is an assumption by the evolutionary scientists... The dating might be correct... So I don't think it collides with God's omnipotence, if fact I wouldn't know what would. The age of the earth, imo, does appear to have sound scientific explanations however.
You have totally lost me. What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about whether or not divergence is or is not scientific, if the dating is correct, of if it colides with God's omnipotence? Where did I say anything about the age of th earth? Heck, where did I say anything in this conversation about God's omnipotence at all? What made you think I was questioning no "what God can or can not do . . . [but] what does the scientific evidence reveal?" That debate has nothing to do with this discussion y:-/2

All I've talked about here was the adequacy of two particular models on Neandertal/human evolution with passing thoughts on what the relationship between those two might say about the integrity of journalism and/or the conclusions scientists have drawn from their studies.

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:51 pm
by dayage
WOW!

All I wanted to know was - What do young-earthers think about neanderthals given that the DNA (both mtDNA and nuclear DNA) shows that they were not human?

Much of what has been brought up does show why assuming an evolutionary relationship between different species/genus can cause problems for the data. As I've pointed out before that studies done looking at primate skulls and teeth gave a different evolutionary tree than did looking at their DNA. Well we mostly have skulls and teeth.

Also, I've shown the problems the Cambrian Explosion causes evolutionists when they try to use DNA to find out when the first animals evolved. The DNA says they evolved 100s of millions of years before the fossils say they did or before the ocean's chemistry says they could.

Anyway, back to my question.

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:34 pm
by jlay
Re: Neanderthals.

mtDNA is not a "proven" science. But then no science is, right. I could site articles from science mags, talkorigins, etc.
In fact, studies have occurred and are ongoing and to show that paternal mtDNA does pass in some instances in humans and other vertebrates.

It could really throw a "monkey wrench" in the whole thing.

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:23 pm
by zoegirl
Jac3510 wrote: All I've talked about here was the adequacy of two particular models on Neandertal/human evolution with passing thoughts on what the relationship between those two might say about the integrity of journalism and/or the conclusions scientists have drawn from their studies.
Jac, Just so you can see some of the perplexing issues invovled in interpreting the data. The integrity of the general media may be in question here but I will stand up for much of the scientific journals.
The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these results do not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool. A further concern is that if some Neandertals carried mtDNA sequences similar to contemporaneous humans, such sequences may be erroneously regarded as modern contaminations when retrieved from fossils. Here we address these issues by the analysis of 24 Neandertal and 40 early modern human remains. The biomolecular preservation of four Neandertals and of five early modern humans was good enough to suggest the preservation of DNA. All four Neandertals yielded mtDNA sequences similar to those previously determined from Neandertal individuals, whereas none of the five early modern humans contained such mtDNA sequences. In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.
Also
Despite intense research efforts, no consensus has been reached about the genetic relationship between early modern humans and archaic human forms such as the Neandertals. While supporters of “multiregional evolution” argue for genetic exchange or even continuity between archaic and modern humans (Weidenreich 1943; Wolpoff et al. 1984, Wolpoff et al. 2000; Duarte et al. 1999; Hawks and Wolpoff 2001), proponents of a “single African origin” of contemporary humans claim that negligible genetic interaction took place (Cann et al. 1987; Stringer and Andrews 1988; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000; Stringer 2002). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from early modern humans would in principle be able to resolve the question of a contribution of Neandertal mtDNA to modern humans. However, human DNA is pervasive in palaeontological and archaeological remains as well as in most laboratory environments (e.g., Krings et al. 2000; Hofreiter et al. 2001b; Wandeler et al. 2003). It is therefore currently impossible to differentiate contaminating modern DNA sequences from endogenous human DNA in human remains. Thus, although mtDNA sequences have been reported from remains of early modern humans (Adcock et al. 2001; Caramelli et al. 2003), it is not possible to determine whether such DNA sequences indeed represent endogenous DNA sequences (Abbott 2003). A related problem is that if a Neandertal fossil yields modern human-like DNA sequences, those might be discarded as putative contaminations (Nordborg 1998; Trinkaus 2001), even if they may be endogenous and represent evidence for a close genetic relationship or interbreeding between the two groups.


http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... 20057&ct=1


This is a bit like untangling a ball of yarn made from multiples strands. It doesn't mean that we give up or immediately stop investigating (I know you agree, I'm just restating in general).

As to the children's books, unfortunately you are facing another beast. Just as the phone game in middle school adn elemnetary school lunches proves, information is lost is tranlation. Combine that with authors that are trying to communicate with young minds, you don't ge the full story. PArt of this is the natre of the beast, part of it is human nature, and of course those who support a naturalistic explanation will write books with that in mind.

What is true, thought, is that these authors are quick to point out the problems in the research. Right in the abstract they bring up the limitations of the current data. They are not trying to imply that there are not contradictions or problems.



Still looking, though

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:23 pm
by Gman
Jac3510 wrote:You have totally lost me. What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about whether or not divergence is or is not scientific, if the dating is correct, of if it colides with God's omnipotence? Where did I say anything about the age of th earth? Heck, where did I say anything in this conversation about God's omnipotence at all? What made you think I was questioning no "what God can or can not do . . . [but] what does the scientific evidence reveal?" That debate has nothing to do with this discussion y:-/2
Ah... Not really. This topic is about the YEC position and how all of this intertwines with their belief system. Many of the presuppositions of the YEC'ers rely on the Biblical framework and the interpretation of scripture (as was discussed). God's omnipotence is certainly alluded to in scripture, and many YEC's use His omnipotence, or their interpretation of His omnipotence, to thwart their objectives over science or the conclusions scientists have drawn from their studies....

Relax Jac.. Did I say you? Did I say this is what you believe? I believe you are not taking any position on OEC or YEC, you are simply asking a question..

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:49 pm
by dayage
jlay,
Re: Neanderthals.

mtDNA is not a "proven" science. But then no science is, right. I could site articles from science mags, talkorigins, etc.
In fact, studies have occurred and are ongoing and to show that paternal mtDNA does pass in some instances in humans and other vertebrates.

It could really throw a "monkey wrench" in the whole thing.
I'm trying to figure out who this refers to. If me, it does not answer my question. This would show problems for molecular clocks (which I also have problems with), but would not explain why their DNA is different than human DNA.

We have more than 12 mtDNA samples from neanderthals. They have been compared to human mtDNA from ~25,000 years ago; ~15,000; 8,000 and modern day humans. All humans group together, All neanderthals group together, but humans and neanderthals do not group together.

Why do neanderthals, Homo erectus, ergaster and the other bipedal primates (including australopithecines) mature at about the same rate as wild chimps? They were not humans.

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:10 pm
by dayage
The many mtDNA sequences from neanderthals and the fact that they read almost identical shows that they are at least 95% pure (see tests in paper below). There has been some work on neanderthal DNA that was shown to be contaminated in the past.

Here is probably the latest on the mtDNA:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Gree ... l_2008.pdf

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:21 pm
by zoegirl
nice reference!

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:27 pm
by Jac3510
Gman wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:You have totally lost me. What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about whether or not divergence is or is not scientific, if the dating is correct, of if it colides with God's omnipotence? Where did I say anything about the age of th earth? Heck, where did I say anything in this conversation about God's omnipotence at all? What made you think I was questioning no "what God can or can not do . . . [but] what does the scientific evidence reveal?" That debate has nothing to do with this discussion y:-/2
Ah... Not really. This topic is about the YEC position and how all of this intertwines with their belief system. Many of the presuppositions of the YEC'ers rely on the Biblical framework and the interpretation of scripture (as was discussed). God's omnipotence is certainly alluded to in scripture, and many YEC's use His omnipotence, or their interpretation of His omnipotence, to thwart their objectives over science or the conclusions scientists have drawn from their studies....

Relax Jac.. Did I say you? Did I say this is what you believe? I believe you are not taking any position on OEC or YEC, you are simply asking a question..
I haven't commented on any YEC or OEC beliefs as it relates to Neandertals. I saw a comment about DNA being extracted from Neanderatals, was intrigued, did a quick google search, found a discrepancy, and asked about it. Nothing more. Then you come here and address me specifically with a point about what God can or cannot do, a discussion of which I had no part. I asked, and you further went on to defend/explain your statements to me.

All this is what I don't get. Perhaps you just misread me or thought I was involved in the conversation when I wasn't?

As far as "relaxing" goes, there is nothing to relax or not relax about. The only reason I'm questioning you is because it seems like you unfairly attributed a position to me. And the only reason I would care even the slightest about that is for the simple reason of honesty in discussion. How, for example, can I, or anyone (including you), expect to have honest discussion if others can hold them to positions they either do not espouse or have not defended? What if, for instance, I started talking about Zoe's view on predestination (whether I knew it or not) in response to any of her points to me? Clearly, such a point would be totally irrelevant and counterproductive.

SO - all that said, I have had nothing to do with the conversation about what God could or could not do, much less what He could or could do with respect to Neandertals, and so I would appreciate it if you would not impose that thought process on me.

Many thanks :)

And Zoe, thank you for the links. I have not had a chance to read them, but I will tomorrow. Thanks to both you and Canuckster for dealing with my question.

God bless

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:57 pm
by Gman
Jac3510 wrote:All this is what I don't get. Perhaps you just misread me or thought I was involved in the conversation when I wasn't?
I knew you were asking a question.... We all know your position on OEC/YEC. Or at least we think we do.
Jac3510 wrote:SO - all that said, I have had nothing to do with the conversation about what God could or could not do, much less what He could or could do with respect to Neandertals, and so I would appreciate it if you would not impose that thought process on me.

Many thanks :)
No problema here... ;)

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:48 am
by jlay
Here is the link in regards to paternal DNA
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 5449/2436a
dayage wrote:jlay,
Re: Neanderthals.

We have more than 12 mtDNA samples from neanderthals. They have been compared to human mtDNA from ~25,000 years ago; ~15,000; 8,000 and modern day humans. All humans group together, All neanderthals group together, but humans and neanderthals do not group together.

Why do neanderthals, Homo erectus, ergaster and the other bipedal primates (including australopithecines) mature at about the same rate as wild chimps? They were not humans.
First, no one has witnessed a neanderthal, ergaster or homo erectus mature.

I wish I could find the study that compared alleged human remains to modern day humans, and they found similar discrepencies. "there are a few modern humans who differ by 16 substitutions from the modern human average—two substitutions inside the range of the Neandertal individual. Would not logic demand that those few modern humans living today should also be placed in a separate species? To state the question is to reveal the absurdity of using such differences as a measure of species distinctions"

The samples do not PROVE that a neanderthal is a seperate class on homo genus. You say all humans group together, but that is not tested or proven. Science has attempted and failed many times to extract DNA from neanderthal. It is a difficult task to say the least. Your statements don't take into account any of the criticisms in the statiscal averages and how they were arrived at.

"Theologically, if Christians use this to say that Neanderthals are not human, then that is equivalent to saying that humanity is determined by mitochondrial DNA." http://home.entouch.net/dmd/neandna.htm

Originally I was responding to Zoe.

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:10 am
by Jac3510
Gman wrote:We all know your position on OEC/YEC. Or at least we think we do.
I don't have a position. I have issues I disagree with on both sides, exegetically speaking. I have no interest in the scientific side of things. I am honest when I say that I am neither YEC nor OEC. I do not agree with several of Rich's central arguments nor with several of his primary critiques of YEC theology, but neither do I agree with several central points of YEC theology, either.

So, if you figure out my position, please let me know. It would be a great help to me. ;)

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:24 pm
by Gman
Jac3510 wrote:I don't have a position. I have issues I disagree with on both sides, exegetically speaking. I have no interest in the scientific side of things. I am honest when I say that I am neither YEC nor OEC. I do not agree with several of Rich's central arguments nor with several of his primary critiques of YEC theology, but neither do I agree with several central points of YEC theology, either.

So, if you figure out my position, please let me know. It would be a great help to me. ;)
Jac, we have been over this many times before. You and I have been debating YEC/OEC a few years now. We know you are neither YEC nor OEC. I don't know what would make you change your position unless you looked at the cold facts of science. Perhaps you might want to consider what Bart, Zoe are trying to explain to you... That's all..

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:39 pm
by Jac3510
It's been considered, and I don't think the three of us have very different views on science at all? I'm simply not going to base a biblical position on any given persons', or any consensus of given persons', interpretation of scientific data. Sorry. Humans are fallible. The Bible is not. You may need science to support your position (although I doubt it, but maybe! Who knows?). I'm just not going to go down that route.

Anyway, you and I have debated long enough. Frankly, I still don't know how you and I got into anything this time around. Que sera.

Zoe - I've still not forgotten about you. Just doing the work thing. :)

Re: Curious about YEC position

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:13 pm
by Jac3510
Ok, Zoe - back to you.

I have no qualms with difficulties in interpretation. Just the opposite, I make a pretty big deal out of it when discussing these issues more generally. I have said this a million times before: facts are objective; their interpretation is not. Of course, the fact that interpretation is subjective does not mean it is not true, nor does it mean that we cannot know it is true. But it is an extremely important distinction to make, for just because someone says "science says this" or "no, science says that" doesn't make it so. In large part, one's philosophy of science will have as much to do with what "science says" (in popular vernacular) as anything else.

So, we have the example we've been working with here. We have two separate models (read: interpretation of a given set of data), both dealing with the divergence of Neandertals from modern homo sapiens. One model is based on the fossil record. The other model is based on nuclear DNA record (here, excluding the mtDNA model as it is in broad conformity with the fossil model). Neither model claims to be 100% accurate. Both come with the caveat in the first paragraph. I have no problem with that. But, I do have a problem in general:

Both can't be true. One model places the divergence 200+K years before the other. So, we seem to have only four logical possibilities here to explain this:

1. One of the models is wrong while the other is right;
2. Both models are wrong;
3. At least one model has an excessive error rate;
4. The models are wrong in that they are not universal, but correct in that they could refer only to the particular populations from which the sample came.

Considering these (1) seems the most obvious, but of course, if (1) is true, (2) may just as well be true. Thus the entire problem with an inductive science, because if A is wrong, then how long before another study comes along and calls into question B? While we don't want to fall into absolute skepticism, the difficulties in interpretation you mention make our ability to differentiate between the two limited at best.

The third is, to me, simply unacceptable, and was my primary motivator for asking the question. If this is what people mean by "science," then my already low respect for it just went out the window. I can hardly believe an error rate of 50% is anything like acceptable, and so am forced to conclude that any rational scientist would take one of the other options.

Which leaves us with (4). I am not a scientist, so I can't comment if it is even scientifically possible (just talking about the logic here). But if that is the case, it calls into question our ability to EVER know when a universal divergence occurred, because, it would seem to me, every human being comes from a local population. There is no "universal man." So this idea also goes out the window.

Then, is (1) or (2) the correct response? I don't know, and unless someone here has a Ph.D. in molecular biology AND paleontology, I'd politely suggest that no one here does, either. The best any of us here can do is take what these scientists say on their personal authority. Fine. But, in admitting as much, you can surely see why I am absolutely unimpressed and not in any way inclined to make a personal judgment on the issue. As I, then, will not make a judgment on the issue, I will hardly use it in judging issues which I am qualified to judge.

Concerning textbooks, that's an argument I'd rather not get into here. Suffice it to say here, I personally do not believe it is a matter of bad communication; I think it is outright indoctrination and purposeful misinformation. My question, which lends to my general incredulity, is if "they" are willing to do that to our children, why not to us as well? As I said, though, that's a separate issue worth it's own thread, so you can have any last words you want on that subject.

God bless, and thank you for the information you've supplied. :)