Fancy That

Oops, that's embarrassing.

Oops, that’s embarrassing.

According to US News and Home Report humans have very shallow genetic roots that go back very recently to one ancestor (4 Dec 995).  Fancy that, according to the Bible humans have very shallow genetic roots that go back very recently to one ancestor Genesis 1.

Advertisements
6 comments
  1. Chris said:

    Fancy that! A blog VERY shy on credentials! “US News”, “Home report” – Opps, that’s embarrassing! With keys word like #truth… and #reason you do wonder…

    There is plenty of promoted evidence out there that individuals believe they have been abducted by aliens, or who think the work is flat.

    “Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW. This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.”

    I think this can safely be filed there.

    But here’s a thing that should worry everyone:

    These same methods employed on this blog, in this case of quote mining and poor referencing are used to justify the most outrageous attrocities in the name of a creator god. Don’t you think it’s about time we were a lot less tolerant of anyone using these destructive, harmful and pernicious methods?

    Less tolerant doesn’t mean we resort to their methods or use physical violence as they do; but just don’t cross the road when you come across it and hold those to real account.

    What Happens next?

    Well the debate will stay rational for the time it takes for the blogger to be proven wrong by modern standards (if you read the blog… this doesn’t take very long. Creditaction will attack the standards; which in turn make the debate futile in the first place. Not satisfied with distorting the standards, words will be attacked so as to appear to give equality to the debate; like belief, to the poing where debate cannot exist because of these well trodden ‘interrupts’.

  2. Chris Woods said:

    Chris,

    This is a classic case of quote-mining to the point of deliberately removing all original intent and meaning. It is quite clearly ‘bearing false witness’.
    The misquote is drawn from research by Dr Michael Hammer and I have already debunked Creditaction on this very quote.
    I can only assume that Creditaction’s mental illness has caused him to forget that he posted this same quote on this very blog on 13th February of this year.

    I have cut and pasted my previous response to him below…

    Adrian, you continue to quote scientists from creationist websites.
    The ICR love quote-mining but never put the quotes into context.
    Below is another quote from Michael Hammer. Please pay particular attention to the last sentence.

    “Our work has shown, as has others, that the Y chromosome diversity we see in men today traces back to a single man who lived probably in Africa. And when I say a single man, we have to be cautious in how we interpret that. There were many men living at the time, but because of the way the Y chromosome is inherited, as you trace it back in time it has to trace to a single common ancestor. Just as a boy’s Y chromosome today traces to his dad, his grandfather, his great-grandfather; it’s not tracing to his other grandfathers and great-grandfathers and grandmothers, obviously because they don’t have a Y chromosome. But the grandfathers who didn’t bear the son didn’t transmit their Y chromosome to the next generation. So, it has to ultimately trace back to a single man. One of many men living in the population at the time.”

    Furthermore, elsewhere in the original article he specifically dates what he means as ‘recent’ as 188,000 years ago. (Not 6,000.)

    Your quote therefore has no bearing in the creation v evolution debate as both sides agree.

    If you are to continue trawl creationists sites for scientific quotes to help prove your beliefs, please do a little of your own research first. Ken Ham and co. aren’t to be trusted.

  3. You interpret the evidence that supports the biblical account with your presuppositions that God does not exist. Just out of interest Chris, where did matter come from?

  4. Chris Woods said:

    PS. How ironic that Creditaction captioned his completely irrelevant cartoon with, “Oops, that’s embarrassing.”

  5. Chris Woods said:

    I interpret the evidence that supports the biblical account? Do I?
    Does the Bible say that Adam was one of many men living at the time?
    As stated previously, Hammer’s evidence has no bearing in the creation v evolution debate.

    Asking where matter comes from in this debate merely proves that you are confused about scientific theories. This has nothing whatsoever to do with life on Earth let alone human genetics.

  6. Chris Woods said:

    Adrian,

    I’m sorry, I perhaps didn’t explain properly what Dr. Hammer’s research is showing.
    What you and your friends at the ICR are failing to understand, (choosing to ignore), is that humanity evolved as a species.

    Homo Sapiens, (us), are around 200,000 years old as a distinct species.
    We evolved over many thousands of years from Homo Erectus who first appeared around 2,000,000 years ago.
    In turn Homo Erectus evolved from Homo Habilis around 500,000 years before. Homo Habilis is probably the first recognisably ‘human’ rather than ‘ape’ ancestor.
    However we can keep tracing back further to around 6,000,000 years ago when we shared a common ancestor to the great apes.

    The point is Dr. Hammer, categorically, does not propose that there was ever a first human man. So his research simply does not support the biblical account as you suggest.
    Humanity is, and always has been, an evolving species. It makes no difference to the theory that all modern humans can be traced back to one ancestral individual. In fact the theory of evolution demands that this must be the case. The only point of debate would be exactly when did this occur and Hammer has suggested 188,000 years ago.

    To quote-mine a single line from a magazine article that tried to summarise a lengthy scientific paper is, I’m afraid, typical of the Institute for Creation Research. The very title of the organisation is a complete misnomer as they do no research of their own, they just deliberately misinform on research done by others.

    I hope this has cleared this up for anyone reading.

    Adrian, can I ask, (once again), that you stop quoting secular scientists in an aim to further your cause. All you are doing is allowing people like me to show that not only are you wrong… but that what creationists publish is actually misinformation and lies. Surely this isn’t the message that you want to put across.

    Regards,

    Chris Woods

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: