Help me out, here...maybe some Flood evidence...

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Panting Donkey Machete
I posted this thread on the Internet Infidel's BB:


Supervolcanos & Mitochondrial DNA lack of anticipated diversity


OK, I saw this on the Discovery channel (**winces**) and I do not remember all the specifics, but here goes:

1. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother

2. There is less diversity of the Mit. DNA than was anticipated, so there is a theory that humankind was "bottlenecked" almost into extinction at some point in time and one current theory is that the "bottleneck" could have been caused by a supervolcano...


...any validity to these claims or is it just "pop" science?

jdlongmire


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today, 10:15 PM #2157557 / #2
RBH
[email protected], Moderator--E/C


Join Date: August 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,932

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the BBC's take. 'Sall I know.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/chronology/contentpage6.shtml

RBH

Now, I am waiting on other replies, but if this is true, why would you need to describe this phenomenon as the result of a sunpervolcano? Couldn't this be used to support the Flood?


...just food for thought...

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by jdlongmire]
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
JD,
What you said sure makes sense to me.

As I read through that article, I was struck (once again) at how so much of what these folks say is mere conjecture. They find little bits and pieces of disjointed artifacts, the flotsam and jetsam of history, and in order to make sense of it they create whole tales of "hunter-gatherers", "friendship-beads" (man, I almost laughed out loud at that one!), etc., all based on theoretical constructs that are based on an evolutionary paradigm, in turn predicated on naturalistic presuppositions, i.e. assumptions.

These last principles in particular are philosophical attitudes and beliefs, not subject to "scientific" examination, but are accepted on faith. While they scoff at my philosophical Christian theism, I scoff at their philosophical naturalism (which most of the time they are to unsophisticated to even acknowledge). Their problem of course, even though they usually cannot see it unless it is pointed out to them, is that on their naturalistic presuppositions they cannot account for the very tools of scientific inquiry they stake so much on. Only the Christian worldview can do that.

Thanks for the link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top