Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA and Creationism

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    You could make the case that J haplogroup and clades of E are decent of Shem.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by vinnie View Post
      Ben asked a question to those in this forum who may share his beliefs and then he politely reiterated his request. How about everyone respecting his right to believe what he does and to have a conversation with others who share similar beliefs?
      Sorry, but I signed up for these fora in the belief that they were for debate about the science of genetic genealogy. If somebody wants to discuss how their belief in a particular fairy story relates to the subject then they can just put up with posts from people who disagree with them. If they don't like that then they can go and set up their own forum.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by fbirder View Post
        Sorry, but I signed up for these fora in the belief that they were for debate about the science of genetic genealogy. If somebody wants to discuss how their belief in a particular fairy story relates to the subject then they can just put up with posts from people who disagree with them. If they don't like that then they can go and set up their own forum.
        The title of the topic is creationism. If you want to debate scientific hypothisis, you can create your own thread. Btw this forum is not setup for debate. Maybe your on the wrong forum?
        Last edited by Taz85; 9 July 2012, 12:59 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BenTurin View Post
          Thanks Linda for your thoughts. In reading articles about the CMH (Cohen Modal Haplotype) I found it interesting that the STR values are very similar in the J1 and J2 Cohanim. This seems to suggest the possibility of the Clade split (J1 and J2) somehow coming after the strs. To take this approach would probably mean assuming a clade split amongst multiple people and not just one founder.
          I've wondered about this too (if any SNP mutations have occurred post-STR mutations), but STR motifs are indicative of haplogroups; otherwise, we wouldn't have haplogroup predictors such as Whit Athey's.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LindaT View Post

            One possibility would be that mutation rates were significantly higher than they are today. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence to suggest that was the case.
            But there are varying estimations of mutation rates for individual y-STR markers, and those rates can vary even within particular families. Likewise, the "slow" marker 388 demonstrates much more variability within J1 than it does in other haplgroups. Additionally, the recent Behar paper showed younger ages for mtDNA subclades than had been previously believed; the older estimates were based on what had been current research up to that point. I "predicted" as much about a year ago in another forum, and I expect the trend will continue in that direction as we learn more.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by vinnie View Post
              But there are varying estimations of mutation rates for individual y-STR markers, and those rates can vary even within particular families. Likewise, the "slow" marker 388 demonstrates much more variability within J1 than it does in other haplgroups. Additionally, the recent Behar paper showed younger ages for mtDNA subclades than had been previously believed; the older estimates were based on what had been current research up to that point. I "predicted" as much about a year ago in another forum, and I expect the trend will continue in that direction as we learn more.
              I want to be careful not to make a claim that I don't have the data to support. I'm not an expert in genetics.

              Here is why I was saying I didn't think there was data to support significantly higher mutation rates. If we look at the documented Y- and mt-dna phylotrees there are estimates for when in history those mutations happened. Granted some positions seem to be more susceptible to mutation and some environments might tend to cause more mutations but overall the timeframe for mutations seems to be fairly well understood. Sure, nothing is known with certainty but if humans were 6,000 rather than 100,000 years old wouldn't our understanding of mutation rates have to be off more than current data would suggest?

              Comment


              • #22
                According to scientists we must be evolving at the speed of light. How is it if people have been here as long as they say we have, there isn't more evidence? Why weren't more structures built before Stonehenge or the pyramids? All they seem to find is just old campfires etc. I mean I don't believe we were swinging in the trees six thousand years ago. And then one day dropped out of the trees and discovered and used the concept of pi. People are very prolific. We would have covered the earth way long before now if we had been here as long as scientists say we have. Think about it. It seems like humans just burst upon the scene about six thousand years ago. I know people will bring up carbon dating etc. But I really don't have much faith in it.

                As far as the reason for numerous DNA haplogroups are concerned, I believe the mutation rate may occur much more frequently than geneticists believe. Or something else is at work.

                Don't get me wrong. I find all of this DNA stuff fascinating. Not only would I like to get my DNA tested. I'd like to get my mother's and my father's DNA tested too.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I agree with Vinnie...

                  Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                  Ben asked a question to those in this forum who may share his beliefs and then he politely reiterated his request. How about everyone respecting his right to believe what he does and to have a conversation with others who share similar beliefs? For those who don't share his beliefs, most posts in most genetic genealogy forums presuppose yours, so why not just give it a rest for once?
                  It is incredibly rude to ignore the OP's desire in this regard.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Taz85 View Post
                    The title of the topic is creationism. If you want to debate scientific hypothisis, you can create your own thread. Btw this forum is not setup for debate. Maybe your on the wrong forum?
                    I would suggest that creationism is totally incompatible with genetic genealogy as a science, and that is not, therefore, me that is in the wrong forum.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by twang View Post
                      According to scientists we must be evolving at the speed of light. How is it if people have been here as long as they say we have, there isn't more evidence? Why weren't more structures built before Stonehenge or the pyramids? All they seem to find is just old campfires etc. I mean I don't believe we were swinging in the trees six thousand years ago. And then one day dropped out of the trees and discovered and used the concept of pi. People are very prolific. We would have covered the earth way long before now if we had been here as long as scientists say we have. Think about it. It seems like humans just burst upon the scene about six thousand years ago. I know people will bring up carbon dating etc. But I really don't have much faith in it.

                      As far as the reason for numerous DNA haplogroups are concerned, I believe the mutation rate may occur much more frequently than geneticists believe. Or something else is at work.

                      Don't get me wrong. I find all of this DNA stuff fascinating. Not only would I like to get my DNA tested. I'd like to get my mother's and my father's DNA tested too.

                      People have been on Earth for billions of years here is a man made mountain of clay in Canada and it is a Native American 70 million years old

                      here is the Google Earth coordinates 50.010552,-110.113821
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LindaT View Post
                        I want to be careful not to make a claim that I don't have the data to support. I'm not an expert in genetics.

                        Here is why I was saying I didn't think there was data to support significantly higher mutation rates. If we look at the documented Y- and mt-dna phylotrees there are estimates for when in history those mutations happened. Granted some positions seem to be more susceptible to mutation and some environments might tend to cause more mutations but overall the timeframe for mutations seems to be fairly well understood. Sure, nothing is known with certainty but if humans were 6,000 rather than 100,000 years old wouldn't our understanding of mutation rates have to be off more than current data would suggest?
                        Hi Linda,

                        Believe me, I'm no expert in genetics - Italian cooking, yes (in my opinion) - genetics, no.

                        One thing that has bothered me since first getting involved with genetic genealogy is what effect, if any, does the presupposition of evolution have on the field? In other words, if Darwinian evolution were not accepted as a given by those who do the analyses, would mutation rates, for example, be found to be different? Perhaps not, but I think it's worth asking that question.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by vinnie View Post
                          Hi Linda,

                          Believe me, I'm no expert in genetics - Italian cooking, yes (in my opinion) - genetics, no.

                          One thing that has bothered me since first getting involved with genetic genealogy is what effect, if any, does the presupposition of evolution have on the field? In other words, if Darwinian evolution were not accepted as a given by those who do the analyses, would mutation rates, for example, be found to be different? Perhaps not, but I think it's worth asking that question.
                          Perfect! I'm an expert in eating Italian food!

                          Seems like a fair question to ask. Unfortunately, I can't answer it because I don't know enough about how the theory was arrived at.

                          The way it should work is the results of one should be used to to test the other. If they disagree then one or both as currently formulated would be wrong. If they agree then it adds weight to the odds that both are right (or at least form a better model to describe reality than what we knew before).

                          When you combine things like cosmology which gives us an idea of the age of the universe, geology which gives us an idea of the age of the earth, paleontology and genetics they all add up to give a pretty self consistent picture. It's still an incomplete picture and many of the questions are still unanswered and not everyone agrees on the details.

                          For example, an earlier poster asked about why we don't see human artifacts from truly ancient times. For the vast majority of human history we lived on a subsistence basis. We didn't build anything that would last. It's only in the last 10% of our existence (roughly) that we developed agriculture allowing for the development of higher culture.

                          It's extremely rare for any sort of remains from long ago to be preserved. The vast majority of flora and fauna does not last to be discovered. It's broken down and recycled. We end up trying to reconstruct what happened with only a small fraction of pieces.

                          It is probably not coincidental that the biblical age of the earth of around 6,000 years is roughly the same age as the rise of civilization. I wonder if anyone has done any research on that subject. I might pose the theory that the biblical age of the earth is rooted in the rise of agriculture and the ability to pass larger amounts of information from generation to generation. From their perspective of someone hundreds or a few thousand years after the fact this might well look like the beginning of the world.

                          On the other hand if I try the theory that the world is 6,000 years old I have to do a great deal of work to explain how the universe looks to be 14-18 billion years old and how our sun appears to be 4 billion years old with the earth just a bit younger than that.

                          There is a principle called Occam's Razor that roughly says that all other things being equal then the simplest explanation is usually correct (not strictly true but close enough for our discussion). In order to make the earth be 6,000 years old and to get from nothing to a populated planet in 6 days *and* come up with reasoning to explain the evidence that suggests a different answer I have to do some pretty convoluted logic or I just have to wave my hands and say that it was created that way.

                          Convoluted logic is usually a sign that something is wrong with a theory and the latter isn't a testable theory.

                          Belief isn't a rational process; it's an emotional one. Science can't deal in belief (though unfortunately it often does and often deals with ego). In the ideal, a scientist should always be willing to abandon a theory in the face of contradictory evidence but scientists are human and get emotionally attached to their theories but eventually the evidence wins out.

                          Belief isn't a bad thing but it's not part of the scientific process which is about posing theories and testing them. When someone asks me if I "believe in evolution," I tell that that evolution appears to be the best model for how life changes but the word "believe" often gets used as a convenient substitute.

                          I suspect I'm starting to ramble so I'll stop for now. Have a great night!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Lincoln View Post
                            It is incredibly rude to ignore the OP's desire in this regard.
                            I totally and completely disagree. This site was established for Family Tree DNA customers to discuss issues related to their genomes with a view toward improving their ability to identify their relatives and ancestors. There are many free forums on the Internet--several of which cater to crackpot and/ore speculative science. This site is not free. We are able to participate in this forum because we paid a hefty sum to FT DNA for our genetic profiles.

                            No one can carve out an area of discussion and proscribe the nature of the discussion. To allow such behavior would be to turn this forum into a sort of Animal Farm where all customers are equal, but some customers are more equal than others.

                            Make no mistake. Nothing that I have said should be interpreted to mean that I support being disruptive or off-topic. If the OP wants to discuss fanciful topics, then I believe that many of the most no-nonsense scientific among us would probably support setting-up an area devoted to fanciful topics like the genomes of hybrids of humans and other primates, those of supernatural birth, alien-human hybrids, etc.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by twang View Post
                              According to scientists we must be evolving at the speed of light. How is it if people have been here as long as they say we have, there isn't more evidence? Why weren't more structures built before Stonehenge or the pyramids? All they seem to find is just old campfires etc. I mean I don't believe we were swinging in the trees six thousand years ago. And then one day dropped out of the trees and discovered and used the concept of pi. People are very prolific. We would have covered the earth way long before now if we had been here as long as scientists say we have. Think about it. It seems like humans just burst upon the scene about six thousand years ago. I know people will bring up carbon dating etc. But I really don't have much faith in it.
                              Aborigines in Australia have left no buildings, many cultures were/are nomadic and dont build permament structures.
                              Not all cultures had stone to use, so many wooden structures etc would not survive. The only thing visible today would be rements of fires.

                              By the way the Australian Aborigine dreamtime says they have been around for ~50,000 years. They didnt have a large population, but Australia is a very harsh environment, so it wouldnt have supported one.
                              I doubt the Bible even mentions them, as they would not have been known to the "World" at that stage. The Bible is only one cultures version of the origins of men on earth.
                              Last edited by rivergirl; 10 July 2012, 01:36 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by BenTurin View Post
                                It seems to me that the only possible answer (if you accept the biblical genealogy) is that at some point in history G-d caused the major branches to form (and maybe even many subclades) on an accelerated timeline.
                                ....
                                I would be interested to hear you thoughts on this.
                                I don't think there was an accelerated timeline.

                                I think we simply have no idea what happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and between Genesis 1:2 and 2:3, and I think there are even other periods of time hidden in there too.

                                I know that the earth was not created in six 24-hour days; I know that. It doesn't say that either. It says God created it - period. When, how long ago, etc., we have no way of knowing. Read just the first verse in Genesis 1 and stop, then after some period of time, read verse 2 as that is how it started to take place. We are not told what happened between verse 1 and 2 and we are not told how long time existed between them.

                                If you have scientific proof, you really don't need faith. If you have faith, you really don't need scientific proof.

                                God brings His Word to pass, that is about all the proof you'll get.

                                Matt.
                                Last edited by mkdexter; 10 July 2012, 04:25 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X