Subscribe: Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Australian Aborigines, Europeans Share African Roo...
http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/feeds/5570311932442573609/comments/default
Preview: Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Australian Aborigines, Europeans Share African Roo...

Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Australian Aborigines, Europeans Share African Roots, DNA Suggests





Updated: 2016-03-09T22:52:30.786+08:00

 



ForrestThanks for your comments.>DNA and mtDNA ...

2009-02-07T15:31:00.000+09:00

Forrest

Thanks for your comments.

>DNA and mtDNA (also known as mitochondrial DNA) aren't the same thing, as your text implies.

The National Geographic "text" distinguishes between "mitochondrial DNA (the female lineage) and Y chromosome DNA (the male lineage)," the latter being, as I presume most (if not all) readers of my CED blog would be aware, nuclear DNA.

>... Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam ... One of the more surprising facts surrounding this "pair" is the number of years that separated them.

Why should this be "surprising" since they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things? I.e. Homo sapiens' LAST common mitochondial DNA ancestor and LAST common Y-chromosomal ancestor, not the respective FIRST common ancestors, who would, by definition, be the same year.

>The single-origin theory of humans is the only one that matches with the facts ... Clades branch apart ... horses and donkeys, who can mate and give birth to donkeys, produce infertile offspring.

Agreed. But nevertheless some (if not most) evolutionists for many years promoted the Multiregional Hypothesis.

Stringer's "African Exodus" (1996) and Leakey's "The Origin of Humankind," (1994) make it clear that the Multiregional Hypothesis once was the DOMINANT position among evolutionists.

>This is entirely consistent with how evolution works.

Since "evolution" constantly retrofits its theory to the current evidence, almost ANYTHING (and ITS OPPOSITE) is "consistent with how evolution works"!

ALL who proposed the Multiregional Hypothesis were/are evolutionists as were/are ALL who proposed the Out of Africa Hypothesis.

And if the Multiregional theory had proved to be true, then no doubt you would be commenting here that, "This is entirely consistent with how evolution works"!

My point was that the Christian theologians like Warfield and Ramm, defended the single origin of humanity theory (Monogeneticism), based on the BIBLICAL data, when many (if not most) evolutionists argued for the multiple origin of humanity theory (Polygeneticism).

Stephen E. Jones



This is a very interesting, and mostly, unusually,...

2009-02-07T06:46:00.000+09:00

This is a very interesting, and mostly, unusually, well-written blog post. It's not exactly scientifically accurate, however.

DNA and mtDNA ( also known as mitochondrial DNA ) aren't the same thing, as your text implies. This doesn't lead to any material difference in how the data you present should be interpreted - but as you dig into the knowledge that's available, there's a beautiful and fascinating world belying the difference.

Although biblical genealogies don't seem capable of stretching back to Adam and Eve, you may find Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam of interest. One of the more surprising facts surrounding this "pair" is the number of years that separated them.

The single-origin theory of humans is the only one that matches with the facts, and with our best understanding of how the world operates. Clades branch apart; camels and llamas don't breed to create a hybrid species. Even horses and donkeys, who can mate and give birth to donkeys, produce infertile offspring. This is entirely consistent with how evolution works.



Beast Rabban>Thanks for posting this fascinating p...

2007-07-12T13:09:00.000+08:00

Beast Rabban>Thanks for posting this fascinating piece, and the comments by Christian ministers stating that it supports the message in Genesis of the essential unity of humanity. You've done a great job.Thanks for your thanks!>This is important as atheists like Dawkins have been using this to try to steal Christians' thunder. I remember hearing Dawkins speak at the Cheltenham Festival of Literature 10 years ago, when he was promoting his book Unweaving the Rainbow. He was claiming that the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis was a huge advance for science in showing the unity of humanity, with the implication being that this somehow discredited religion.It was interesting how many of Dawkins' fellow atheist/agnostics criticised his latest book, "The God Delusion" for his ignorance of Christian theology, e.g. evolutionary geneticist H. Allen Orr, who described Dawkins as an "amateur" in his level of understanding of Christian theology:"Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins's work, I'm afraid that I'm among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur. ... The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. .. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. Dawkins tends to dismiss simple expressions of belief as base superstition. Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). But if simple religion is barbaric (and thus unworthy of serious thought) and sophisticated religion is logic-chopping (and thus equally unworthy of serious thought), the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought. The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they're terminally ill?)." (Orr, H.A., "A Mission to Convert." Review of "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins, Houghton Mifflin, 2006. The New York Review of Books, Vol. 54, No. 1, January 11, 2007)>Now the naval officers in the British West African squadron and the Pacific fleets charged with suppressing the slave trade were evangelical Anglicans who were partly motivated from their profound belief in the common humanity of White Europeans, Black Africans, Aboriginal Australians and Polynesians through their common descent from Adam and Eve. The point has been made by one New Zealand historian who declared that the Royal Navy was the most powerful force defending indigenous people's in the Pacific. In contrast to this, many of the atheist proponents of slavery based their arguments for the subjection of these peoples on pseudo-scientific theories rejecting common descent in a conscious, and very vocal, rejection of the Bible. Naturally, this is something Dawkins doesn't mention.Thanks for that information. I remember reading somewhere (but cannot find the reference) that it was the evangelicals who largely prevented the genocide of Australian aboriginals on the Australian mainland that occurred, in the absence of evangelicals, in Tasmania.There is no doubt that, unlike monoge[...]



Thanks for posting this fascinating piece, and the...

2007-07-11T19:10:00.000+08:00

Thanks for posting this fascinating piece, and the comments by Christian ministers stating that it supports the message in Genesis of the essential unity of humanity. You've done a great job.

This is important as atheists like Dawkins have been using this to try to steal Christians' thunder. I remember hearing Dawkins speak at the Cheltenham Festival of Literature 10 years ago, when he was promoting his book Unweaving the Rainbow. He was claiming that the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis was a huge advance for science in showing the unity of humanity, with the implication being that this somehow discredited religion.

Now the naval officers in the British West African squadron and the Pacific fleets charged with suppressing the slave trade were evangelical Anglicans who were partly motivated from their profound belief in the common humanity of White Europeans, Black Africans, Aboriginal Australians and Polynesians through their common descent from Adam and Eve. The point has been made by one New Zealand historian who declared that the Royal Navy was the most powerful force defending indigenous people's in the Pacific. In contrast to this, many of the atheist proponents of slavery based their arguments for the subjection of these peoples on pseudo-scientific theories rejecting common descent in a conscious, and very vocal, rejection of the Bible. Naturally, this is something Dawkins doesn't mention.

What is interesting is that the 19th century anti-slavery protests united Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Jews through their common rejection of institutional slavery based on the Biblical commandments against man-stealing, and they did hold common protests against it and those they suspected of continuing the trade in 19th century Australia.

It's great that you've dug this piece of information out which rebuts Dawkins' propaganda so precisely.