R
Roben
Guest
Do you like a good mystery story, brothers and sisters? Of all posts here on the Mitochondrial Mutation Clock(MMC), none has looked at the big picture. Let’s do just that, by summarizing MMC history.
Date : Event : Comment
1987: MMC was proposed - age of man ~ 200,000 yrs :
Key premises - Maternal inheritance and constant mutation rate
1997-98: Mutation rate 18 times > expected is found :
Human age now < 10,000 years - Media promotes Biblical age
1999-2001: Research of MMC assumptions :
Disproofs of 2 MMC assumptions are found
2002: MMC discredited : Human age again unknown
The premises went unchecked for 10 yrs ; then, after Biblical age is implied, both premises are hastily disproved in 2 years!
Evolutionists were perfectly content to use the MMC to date events, so long as that clock was artificially based on assumption and speculation and yielded results that conformed to Darwin’s perspective. Then, in an attempt to develop a more accurate dating method for evolution, they somehow managed to place mitochondrial Eve perfectly into the Creationist model and disprove the ‘out-of-Africa’ theory.
The exact quote from 1998 research:
*…mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. … it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years. *
Now MMC research has been terminated - the investigators were being led in a direction they definitely did not expect or desire! Following a dark root of Darwin’s tree, the moles of Darwin suddenly encountered a light of truth, and scurried around to seal it off.
John 3:19 …… and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:5 For all you are the children of light, and children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
The calculation of mutation rate presumes divergence from hominids 1,000,000 yrs ago. This implies mitochondrial Eve’s mom and dad were chimps. If we believe this, then we’re all chumps.
The researchers …… used paleontology and additional molecular data to determine the age of the supposed common ancestor.
Let’s skip the vague references. The divergence date uses the fossil record, which is dated ultimately by the same radioactive dating method that told us Mt. St. Helens last erupted 1,3000,000 yrs ago. My, time went fast; the pictures were on TV in 1980!
The MMC will be used to find the same chimp-human separation date that was used to calibrate it ! Classic circular reasoning, an evolution trademark.
There are also mutation contradictions found from population genetics:
**#1: **Rates of mutation high enough to account for the ape-human split would lead to the rapid death of the species. … A lower rate of mutation would make the assumed evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor impossible. If the rate of mutation really is high, then the human race must be very young and on the way to extinction. David Plaisted
**#2: **Neo-Darwinists use a rate of positive gene mutation based on fossil dating the alleged chimp-to-Adam evolution. But trans-species mutations have never been observed anywhere, anytime. Forced mutation experiments on millions of fruit flies and hundreds of trees using irradiation and chemicals have yielded a positive mutation rate of … zero! nil! nada!
Then there’s Haldane’s Dilemma, recommended for research only by any Patristic Catholics here. Thevolutionists beware! Don’t choke on your Google results.
Date : Event : Comment
1987: MMC was proposed - age of man ~ 200,000 yrs :
Key premises - Maternal inheritance and constant mutation rate
1997-98: Mutation rate 18 times > expected is found :
Human age now < 10,000 years - Media promotes Biblical age
1999-2001: Research of MMC assumptions :
Disproofs of 2 MMC assumptions are found
2002: MMC discredited : Human age again unknown
The premises went unchecked for 10 yrs ; then, after Biblical age is implied, both premises are hastily disproved in 2 years!
Evolutionists were perfectly content to use the MMC to date events, so long as that clock was artificially based on assumption and speculation and yielded results that conformed to Darwin’s perspective. Then, in an attempt to develop a more accurate dating method for evolution, they somehow managed to place mitochondrial Eve perfectly into the Creationist model and disprove the ‘out-of-Africa’ theory.
The exact quote from 1998 research:
*…mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans. … it remains implausible to explain the known geographic distribution of mtDNA sequence variation by human migration that occurred only in the last ~6,500 years. *
Now MMC research has been terminated - the investigators were being led in a direction they definitely did not expect or desire! Following a dark root of Darwin’s tree, the moles of Darwin suddenly encountered a light of truth, and scurried around to seal it off.
John 3:19 …… and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil.
1 Thessalonians 5:5 For all you are the children of light, and children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
The calculation of mutation rate presumes divergence from hominids 1,000,000 yrs ago. This implies mitochondrial Eve’s mom and dad were chimps. If we believe this, then we’re all chumps.
The researchers …… used paleontology and additional molecular data to determine the age of the supposed common ancestor.
Let’s skip the vague references. The divergence date uses the fossil record, which is dated ultimately by the same radioactive dating method that told us Mt. St. Helens last erupted 1,3000,000 yrs ago. My, time went fast; the pictures were on TV in 1980!
The MMC will be used to find the same chimp-human separation date that was used to calibrate it ! Classic circular reasoning, an evolution trademark.
There are also mutation contradictions found from population genetics:
**#1: **Rates of mutation high enough to account for the ape-human split would lead to the rapid death of the species. … A lower rate of mutation would make the assumed evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor impossible. If the rate of mutation really is high, then the human race must be very young and on the way to extinction. David Plaisted
**#2: **Neo-Darwinists use a rate of positive gene mutation based on fossil dating the alleged chimp-to-Adam evolution. But trans-species mutations have never been observed anywhere, anytime. Forced mutation experiments on millions of fruit flies and hundreds of trees using irradiation and chemicals have yielded a positive mutation rate of … zero! nil! nada!
Then there’s Haldane’s Dilemma, recommended for research only by any Patristic Catholics here. Thevolutionists beware! Don’t choke on your Google results.
same old same old
