This is how science is done

Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Carl Zimmer is a successful and highly-regarded science journalist, and last month he wrote a fascinating description of an amazing research project...

A Single Migration From Africa Populated the World, Studies Find

In the journal Nature, three separate teams of geneticists survey DNA collected from cultures around the globe, many for the first time, and conclude that all non-Africans today trace their ancestry to a single population emerging from Africa between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago.

“I think all three studies are basically saying the same thing,” said Joshua M. Akey of the University of Washington, who wrote a commentary accompanying the new work. “We know there were multiple dispersals out of Africa, but we can trace our ancestry back to a single one.”...
Click to expand...

And lest anyone think the scientists involved just sat around and "assumed it was all true" (as 6days has said they do), after sequencing the genome from 100 year-old Aboriginal hair....

Dr. Willerslev decided to contact living Aboriginals to see if they would participate in a new genetic study. He joined David W. Lambert, a geneticist at Griffith University in Australia, who was already meeting with Aboriginal communities about participating in this kind of research.

In collaboration with scientists at the University of Oxford, the researchers also obtained DNA from people in Papua New Guinea. All told, the team was able to sequence 83 genomes from Aboriginal Australians and 25 from people in Papua New Guinea, all with far greater accuracy than in Dr. Willerslev’s 2011 study.

Meanwhile, Mait Metspalu of the Estonian Biocentre was leading a team of 98 scientists on another genome-gathering project. They picked out 148 populations to sample, mostly in Europe and Asia, with a few genomes from Africa and Australia. They, too, sequenced 483 genomes at high resolution.

David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues assembled a third database of genomes from all six inhabited continents. The Simons Genome Diversity Project, sponsored by the Simons Foundation and the National Science Foundation, contains 300 high-quality genomes from 142 populations.
Click to expand...

Just so we don't lose perspective of exactly what they did here, that's 787 new genomes completely sequenced "at high resolution". And guess what happened when they stated comparing results?

Examining their data separately, all three groups came to the same conclusion: All non-Africans descend from a single migration of early humans from Africa. The estimates from the studies point to an exodus somewhere between 80,000 and 50,000 years.
Click to expand...

Amazing. That's literally trillions of bits of data, independently collected and analyzed, all converging on the same conclusion.

I guess it's time now for the regular cast of characters to go into "deny, deny, deny mode". :chuckle:
 
6days

6days

New member
Jose Fly said:
Carl Zimmer is a successful and highly-regarded science journalist, and last month he wrote a fascinating description of an amazing research project...
...Examining their data separately, all three groups came to the same conclusion: All non-Africans descend from a single migration of early humans from Africa. The estimates from the studies point to an exodus somewhere between 80,000 and 50,000 years.

Amazing. That's literally trillions of bits of data, independently collected and analyzed, all converging on the same conclusion.
Click to expand...
Real science does not start with faulty conclusions and then extrapolate results to fit your conclusion. Often... as in this case evolutionists often inadvertently present data that fits the Biblical creation model. God's Word tells us that we are all one blood. We are all descendants from the same original created couple.

I previously posted the following how evolutionists often inadvertently come very close to the truth.
Who would claim that to go back in time to our "universal ancestors we need go back only 5,000 years".
The claim comes from Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University of London. Jones is ANYTHING BUT a creationist. He is a ardent (and arrogant) evolutionist. His claim can be read in the BBC link.
From the article:
"To get to the universal ancestors (when everyone was the forefather of everybody alive today, or of nobody) we need go back only 5,000 years. Had you entered any village on Earth, the first person you met would, if he or she had heirs, trace their descent straight to you and your partner."

The creationist view on this is that humans did all come from a common ancestor about 6000 years ago. The more years that pass, the more prone we are to mutations and defects. The human race is continually becoming more susceptible to genetic disorders. There are now several thousand genetic disorders and the number is growing.

As often happens (as in this story) evolutionists come up with scenarios that are strikingly similar, and in some ways support the Biblical record.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/steve-jones/3685402/View-from-the-lab-Incest.html
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Good grief 6days, you really struggle with this whole science thing, don't you? You're so desperate to find something....anything you can grasp to steal some credibility from actual scientists and their work and dishonestly pass it on to your beliefs, you overlook the most obvious things. I mean, didn't you notice this part?

"Every Briton of European descent is, roughly speaking, a sixth cousin to all others, and their joint predecessor was alive when Darwin was a young man."

Now, do you really think that means the author is saying every Briton of European descent is descended from a single person living at Darwin's time, and he was the only human alive?

If not, then why do you think the statement, "To get to the universal ancestors (when everyone was the forefather of everybody alive today, or of nobody) we need go back only 5,000 years" means that couple were the only two humans alive?
 
False Prophet

False Prophet

New member
John Stuart Mill went over the scientific method. Many who profess to be scientists are really dogmatic.
However, the earth isn't flat and 6000 years old.
 
6days

6days

New member
Jose Fly said:
Now, do you really think that means the author is saying every Briton of European descent is descended from a single person living at Darwin's time, and he was the only human alive?
Click to expand...

I already explained.....The creationist view on this is that humans did all come from a common ancestor about 6000 years ago.
As often happens (as in this story) evolutionists come up with scenarios that are strikingly similar, and in some ways support the Biblical record.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
6days said:
I already explained.....The creationist view on this is that humans did all come from a common ancestor about 6000 years ago.
As often happens (as in this story) evolutionists come up with scenarios that are strikingly similar, and in some ways support the Biblical record.
Click to expand...

You honestly think a wave of humans migrating out of Africa between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago supports the belief that all humans came from a single breeding pair 6,000 years ago?

Boy, science just isn't your strong suit, is it? :kookoo:

But I guess that's what we should expect from someone who thinks scientists collecting and independently analyzing trillions upon trillions of bits of data and getting congruent results is them sitting around and saying "we just assume it all to be true".
 
6days

6days

New member
JoseFly said:
You honestly think a wave of humans migrating out of Africa between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago supports the belief that all humans came from a single breeding pair 6,000 years ago?
Click to expand...
Duh....*
No... I don't think your beliefs support the Bible.*
JoseFly said:
But I guess that's what we should expect from someone who thinks scientists collecting and independently analyzing trillions upon trillions of bits of data and getting congruent results is them sitting around and saying "we just assume it all to be true".
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand how science works. They analysed "trillions upon trillions of bits of data"... That is observational science, using the scientific method. They then interpret results, based on biased beliefs about the unoberservable past. (Creationist scientists and evolutionist scientists both have a bias belief about the past). *Where the evolutionists got it right is that humanity all came from a common source. However, *they obviously got it wrong is assigning a date that fits with evolutionary beliefs.*

God's Word gives us an accurate chronological record of humanity. We have about 4000 years of geneaologies between Adam and Christ.*
*
BTW... "a single breeding pair 6000 years ago" that you object to is is consistent with todays population.*
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
6days said:
Duh....*
No...
Click to expand...

Then one has to wonder why, in the context of the OP, you stated "As often happens (as in this story) evolutionists come up with scenarios that are strikingly similar, and in some ways support the Biblical record."

But then being in "deny, deny, deny mode" (as I predicted in the OP) doesn't require consistency from post to post.

You don't seem to understand how science works.
Click to expand...

Coming from you and given some of the ridiculously stupid things you've said about science over the last week or so, that's hilarious.

They analysed "trillions upon trillions of bits of data"... That is observational science, using the scientific method. They then interpret results, based on biased beliefs about the unoberservable past.
Click to expand...

GASP....NO WAY!! :jawdrop:

You mean to tell me these geneticists didn't collect trillions of bits of data and just let it sit on the shelf (which you hilariously seem to think constitutes the scientific method)? They actually analyzed it?

NO WAY!! :jawdrop:

Where the evolutionists got it right is that humanity all came from a common source. However, *they obviously got it wrong is assigning a date that fits with evolutionary beliefs.*
Click to expand...

Well now, how fortunate we are to have you in our midst....a person who merely by saying things are so, makes things so. Trillions of bits of data collected and independently analyzed by some of the top geneticists in the world, generated extremely congruent results (that basically confirm previous studies)? Meh....all nonsense compared to the mere words of "6days" at "Theologyonline". Why, if 6days declares portions of that work to be "wrong", they are wrong. QED.

God's Word gives us an accurate chronological record of humanity. We have about 4000 years of geneaologies between Adam and Christ.
Click to expand...

Here's what's fascinating about that....you're applying the framework laid out in AnswersinGenesis' "Statement of Faith", where "by definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." And I'm sure you remember how you and I agreed that this framework is unscientific.

So what we have is after being confronted with a detailed, comprehensive genetic survey, you apply a non-scientific religious framework to it, and on that basis alone declare parts of it to be "wrong".

You probably don't see the hilarity and entertainment value in that, do you? :chuckle:
 
Last edited:
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
Then as I suspected, you really do think the scientific method is solely composed of the data collection phase. And once the geneticists began to interpret the data, that's when they stepped outside of the scientific method.

And you want to know the funniest part? The basic framework under which they interpreted the data is one you claim to agree with...."microevolution"! All this involves is patterns of genetic inheritance within a single species. But oh no...as soon as they interpret the data under that simple framework, you shout "I object! Unscientific!"

Apparently you would have a large-scale genetic survey ignore the documented fact of microevolution (even though you agree it happens) and then declare that to be "scientific".

I guess we have more to add to the growing list of "ridiculous things 6days has said about science". Shoot, you've got quite a few gems in this thread alone. :chuckle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top