Originally posted by XanthosNZYes, I agree with you. I'm not familiar with this paper about "7 daughters of Eve", and therefore in no position to comment further about it.
I've had similar thoughts about the 7 daughters of Eve research and I've discussed it (briefly) with scott.
Bryson in A Brief History of Nearly Everything talks with experts who discount the research as following a road from Paris and taking a random turn at every intersection, eventually ending up in Rome and therefore assuming that every road leads to R ...[text shortened]... ith knowing the age of the Earth (unless the scientific paper is about the age of the Earth).
But Scott mentioned something about tracing the bloodlines of women up to 7,500 - 40,000 yrs ago, thus implying the earth is MORE THAN 40,000 yrs old. In another thread, I saw somebody giving the estimated age of the earth as 5,000 - 10,000 yrs only, which is so ridiculous. I don't keep track on who these people are, but when twhitehead mentioned a 'flaw' with the article, I thought he's one of these ignorant people insisting, amongst others, on the age of the earth to be 10,000 yrs. That's why I asked him if at least he's convinced the earth is more than 40,000 yrs old.
But this article about 7 daughters of Eve seems interesting. I must have a look at it.
Originally posted by ckoh1965Find the "What's wrong with Evolution" thread and read it. You'll understand where many of the regular posters are coming from (and their backgrounds) and things will start to make a lot more sense.
Yes, I agree with you. I'm not familiar with this paper about "7 daughters of Eve", and therefore in no position to comment further about it.
But Scott mentioned something about tracing the bloodlines of women up to 7,500 - 40,000 yrs ago, thus implying the earth is MORE THAN 40,000 yrs old. In another thread, I saw somebody giving the estimated age of ...[text shortened]...
But this article about 7 daughters of Eve seems interesting. I must have a look at it.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIrrespective of whether it was 7 or 70, it was more than 2 and certainly more than 4,000 years ago.
Indeed, sorry about that. I meant to change it to Europeans, but it gave me the slip. Irrespective of whether it was 7 or 70, it was more than 2 and certainly more than 4,000 years ago.
And this certainty is base on what, exactly?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMitochondrial DNA mutates at a fairly constant rate.(over time or over generations I am not sure which). It is inherited directly from the mother and not split / combined as in sexual reproduction.
And this certainty is base on what, exactly?
The degree of difference between two persons Mitochondrial DNA gives an indication of the number of generations or time separating the two people along the maternal lines.
The researcher in question made a claim that all Europeans can be shown to have descended from 7 maternal lines and gives an approximate date range over which that took place.