(Ron) Human origin

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

jepler@inetnebr.com wrote:

> 

> On Wed, Apr 01, 1998 at 01:49:11AM -0000, J. Michael McGill wrote:

> > Actually "Mitochondrial Eve" is classified as archaic Homo sapiens and

> > dated about 200,000 years ago, found in Africa. "Lucy" is classified as

> > Australopithecus afarensis and is dated at 3.2 million years ago.

> 

> I read an interesting article in a french science mag recently---It says

> that new evidence about mutation of mitochondrial DNA calls into question

> these claims about the age of "Mitochondrial Eve", and suggests that a date

> of about 6,000 years ago might be closer to the true figure (ie mutation of

> mitochondrial DNA is much faster than formerly believed).  I wonder if

> young-earth creationists have grabbed onto this yet, or whether it was

> YEC-influenced research from the start.  Obviously, a 6000-year old M.Eve

> poses quite a few problems, not the least of which are explaining the other

> indications of a much longer separation between north american and

> european/african/asian groups...  (But, then, YEC must have their own

> explanation for that)

> 

> Anyone see anything about this in a US science mag?  I haven't read much of

> this mag here, so I can't tell exactly how sensational or level-headed it

> is...

> 

> Jeff


LARRY
Why would a earlier date for Mitochondrial Eve be a problem? It would
simply mean that a particular lineage converged earlier than expected.
So what? Scientific Creationist whackos will hang their hat on anything
to 'prove' their case. They often seem to think they know more about
thermodynamics, probability and genetics than the actual scientists
doing the work.

Larry D. Enger
    Eternity is a really, really long time.

• Previous message: (Ron) Human origin
• Next message: I don't get it
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]