The people that forgot time

Journal of Creation ^ | David Catchpoole, Ph.D.

[ChessExpert]

“And notice please that the cited article takes no issue with the utility of evolutionary theory to determine if the hunter gatherer population was descended from a small offshoot of the agricultural population. Amazingly useful that evolutionary theory in determining patterns of common descent.”

You may have a point. But is all biology evolution? Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells are among those who don't seem to think so. Also, as I understand it, Mendel's theories are largely independent of Darwin's theories, and Mendelian genetics was initially rejected by Darwinists. That successful (falsifiable but not falsified) Mendelian genetics has been adopted in a modern “Darwinian” synthesis may say more about the merits of Mendel's theories than about the merits of Darwin's theories.

In this particular case, change (or lack thereof) in mitochondrial DNA are used to make estimates. These estimates appear to support the “myths.” This is surprising and important to those who believed the relayed tale was a myth. Perhaps it's not so important to those who believed the relayed story.

[allmendream]

All change in the genetics of a population is evolution by definition.

If one accepts the utility of genetic analysis to find times of common descent, as this article does, then what is the justification for accepting some findings of common ancestry and rejecting others?

There is no logical basis for doing so.

Darwin theorized that something was capable of change during inheritance. Mendel seemed to show that genetics were passed down unchanged. Once we found that the “something” was DNA, both observations make perfect sense. DNA is not only capable of change, it is impossible to keep exactly the same; yet the rate of change is so slow that Mendel's observations also make perfect sense.

The fact that scientists use both Mendel and Darwin's theories over one hundred years later; and that those who use their works are in a unprecedented golden age of discovery and utilization - goes a long way towards showing that Behe and Wells are two incompetents in the business of selling books to the credulous, and not actually producing anything of value within science.

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for the reply.

“All change in the genetics of a population is evolution by definition.”

Mendel knew of genetic change within a population. By your definition, he was an evolutionist. But I don't think that is true.

“Behe and Wells are two incompetents in the business of selling books to the credulous”

They are not incompetent. They are no more “in the business of selling books to the credulous” than are many of the authors of the books on your bookshelf.

[SunkenCiv]

It's not too farfetched to take the "tribal myth" version of their origin, but it's also not too farfetched to believe that they've been around for a very long time.

all of the Mlabri mitochondrial DNA turned out to be identical

An isolated population (island, or culturally insular) will through luck of the draw eventually wind up with a single surviving pool of genes here and there. Were that not true, there wouldn't be recognizable ethnic groups (most of which are of course larger than this); analogously, populations physically isolated on islands (such as the Bounty descendants on Pitcairn Island) wind up with a pretty narrow genome, and/or a single last name. :') Thanks wb.