| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » New human migration map based upon mtDNAs
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jacques Guy |
 Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Quote: It requires you accept the well tested thesis that
certain aspects of the *genome* change at a sufficiently constant
rate.
Tested? Tested on what? Cockroaches of 2000AD vs cockroaches
of 50,000,000 BC?
Well tested? How well?
Certain aspects of the genome? What aspects?
Sufficiently constant? Sufficient for what?
Could that possibly be aspects carefully selected for
changing at a rate constant enough to confirm the
hypothesis?
Quote: Now show me a fish which is today as it
was a hundred million years ago. Oh, a coelacanth.
Except, of course, that they are not the same.
Nor would you be the same as your twin except in
a science-fiction story. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Matt Silberstein |
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In talk.origins I read this message from Jacques Guy
<jguy@alphalink.com.au>:
Quote: Matt Silberstein wrote:
It requires you accept the well tested thesis that
certain aspects of the *genome* change at a sufficiently constant
rate.
Tested? Tested on what? Cockroaches of 2000AD vs cockroaches
of 50,000,000 BC?
Is that necessary?
Quote: Well tested? How well?
Very well.
Quote: Certain aspects of the genome? What aspects?
Sufficiently constant? Sufficient for what?
Which specific papers and specific statements do you object to?
Have you read the papers yourself?
Quote: Could that possibly be aspects carefully selected for
changing at a rate constant enough to confirm the
hypothesis?
So now we get the accusation of dishonesty. How many people do
you think are in on this conspiracy to fake the data? Do you have
the guts to name the names? Remember, bearing false witness is a
sin.
Quote:
Now show me a fish which is today as it
was a hundred million years ago. Oh, a coelacanth.
Except, of course, that they are not the same.
Nor would you be the same as your twin except in
a science-fiction story.
You said "as it was", I guess you admit you made it up. Not only
is it not the same fish, as you implied, they are not in the same
genus.
--
Matt Silberstein
Donate to the C.A.N.D.L.E.S. Museum, burnt down by an arson who wrote
"Remember Timothy McVeigh" on the wall.
C.A.N.D.L.E.S. stands for Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments
Survivors. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rick Sobie |
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"G Horvat" <g-horvat@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:5esn20pj0il8orfb4r4fql4pip7ctgsa3j@4ax.com...
Quote: http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/genetics/mtDNAworld/one.html
The 13th slide is the one which best illustrates present findings.
Slides 1 - 12 show P. Forster's view of how each haplogroup arrived
at its present location. Some of these maps were also included and
described in the following article:
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (2004) 359, 255-264
Ice Ages and the mitochondrial DNA chronology
of human dispersals: a review
Peter Forster
Published online 13 January 2004
Gisele
Well at least it is something. I do not agree with it. But at least I don't
have to wade
through reems of material at the human genome site to see how far they are
in their research.
Thankyou.
One thing that people do not seem to realize when they approach this
subject,
is that the evidence looks more like genetic engineering throughout history,
and less like natural evolution. In fact I really don't see where the
evidence is for
natural evolution any more. There is certainly more evidence to suggest that
simply the genes were altered. Yet that is of course a taboo subject.
Nonetheless, in order to arrive at the truth, one has to consider the
evidence
no matter how outlandish it might appear.
And if the genes were altered, then one would expect to find, various
models,
resulting in a refined form, and that is what we see. With the models which
were not as fit, dying off, and the models being improved. People argue that
it is simply mutation from cosmic rays or natural radiation in the ground or
something, but that has never been shown to improve a design, only to
turn it into a monstrousity. Merely examine the eye. Any human eye,
and it is clear that it was engineered, not evolved. That is fairly well
known.
I hate to keep harping about the land bridge, but it is said to be more than
1.75 million years old. It was made by man. looking at your map, which
goes back 130,000 years, it would appear as if it were made by monkeys.
Millions of them working together to create such a bridge that can be seen
from space.
And it is not as if there isn't a record of it in the ancient literature,
because there is.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U37E56B77
And forget the controversy, by fanatics scrambling to say it does not exist,
take a look at the NASA images yourself.
And look at the Phoenicians, who went all over the world. And all the
sunken cities that have been found including under 2,200 feet of water.
Th eice age probably helped to erase a great deal of evidence, simply
because of the ice sheets themselves, but land migration, is not as likely
as sea migration. And really in actuality, there is no evidence that Lucy
is realted to the rest of humanity except that they share some common
genetics, and if we were to today do some genetic engineering
on mankind, we would use the same genes ourselves, to create new
or modified species. So when you take all the evidence into account,
and not just the acceptable evidence, I think we have a long ways to
go before we have any true understanding of the origins of man.
IMHO. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Seppo Renfors |
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rick Sobie wrote:
Quote:
"G Horvat" <g-horvat@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:5esn20pj0il8orfb4r4fql4pip7ctgsa3j@4ax.com...
http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/genetics/mtDNAworld/one.html
[..]
One thing that people do not seem to realize when they approach this
subject,
is that the evidence looks more like genetic engineering throughout history,
and less like natural evolution. In fact I really don't see where the
evidence is for
natural evolution any more. There is certainly more evidence to suggest that
simply the genes were altered. Yet that is of course a taboo subject.
Nonetheless, in order to arrive at the truth, one has to consider the
evidence
no matter how outlandish it might appear.
THIS is scary!
To think there are people running around actually believing stuff like
this. The conclusion that must come from this is, we have been invaded
by aliens - they are running experiments on us... hence the "genetic
engineering"!! Now that's fine, no problems with that, sounds loopy
but innocent enough - only what would happen if someone believing that
kind of stuff decided to take out these aliens running the
experiments?
[..]
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
----------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jacques Guy |
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Rick Sobie wrote:
Quote: Merely examine the eye. Any human eye,
and it is clear that it was engineered, not evolved.
Merely examine a turd. Any human turd, and
it is clear that it was not evolved. It had
to be... engineered
Quote: That is fairly well
known.
And widely documented. I engineer at least one a day.
And so do you, I hope, for your health.
Quote: I hate to keep harping about the land bridge, but it is said to be more than
1.75 million years old. It was made by man.
Merely examine the Earth, and it is clear that it
was engineered, not evolved. I hate to keep harping about the
Earth, but it is said to be more than 3 billion years old.
It was made by man.
Quote: And forget the controversy, by fanatics scrambling to say it does not exist,
take a look at the NASA images yourself.
And look at the Phoenicians, who went all over the world.
Quite. Look at the picture of one, in Cydonia. A picture taken
by NASA too. And NASA is man-made.
Quote: So when you take all the evidence into account,
and not just the acceptable evidence
Quite. Taking the unacceptable evidence into account does
open new horizons. No-one in his right mind can dispute
that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Philip Deitiker |
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 02:25:54 GMT, "Rick Sobie"
<ricksobie@spamnotshaw.ca> wrote:
<plonk> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:49 am
|
|