Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Justtristo]

It is the Seven Daughters of Eve not Noah theory, besides the bible said that Noah had three sons and those three sons had wives (Noah's daughters in law). Anyway it has been noticed there is a huge gap between Mitochondrial Eve (who existed between 152,000 - 234,000 years ago) and Y-chromosomal Adam (who existed between 90,000 to 60,000 years ago). Despite all of humanity today being descended from these two people, there is no reason to suspect there were not other people existing alongside Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, it is just their lineages have not survived to the present day.

Nope sorry, it is actually the three daughters of Noah. Since I said X-Chromosomal DNA data I thought this was pretty obvious I was talking about females. When someone says “The Three Daughters of Noah” they are talking about his daughter-in-laws. Again, I thought this was pretty obvious. So they believe their were other DNA lineages even though we have never observed them? Do you always believe in invisible things upon faith? You are a very religious person. As to the faulty dates you threw out, I already addressed how these numbers are calculated above. After the flood there would have been 7-9 difference sets of X chromosomes in play and only one set of Y-chromsomes in play. This would give you your apparent “gap” you mentioned. Of course this is exactly what we see when we examine genes worldwide, 7-9 different X-Chromosome ancestors and one set of Y-Chromosome ancestors, funny how that works huh?

This is why I don't bother to debate Creationists very much because of their sheer inability to accept their hypothesis has been repeatedly shown to be false. Not to mention their circular reasoning and whack the mole tactics, you wonder why Richard Dawkins won't you debate your kind.

Anyway it is inherent logic given the huge gap in time between Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam that other Homo Sapiens existed alongside them. Also I have a habit anyway of getting my information from scientific sources (science magazines and the odd peer-reviewed journal). I am not in the habit of asserting my hypothesizes as fact, unlike yourself.

I would love to. According to Darwinian Evolution the fossil record should show a historical timeline of life on Earth. It should show the gradual evolution of animals from simple to the complex. It was long thought that this is what we saw when we saw amoebas at the bottom of the tree and humans towards the top since amoebas look very simple and humans look very complex. However when we examine their DNA, many amoebas are just as complex (some even more complex) at the DNA level as humans are. Since DNA is what Evolution actually has to “work with”, this shows that the fossil record actually does not move from simple to complex. Rather it moves from immobile to mobile which is exactly what we would expect to find according to flood theory.

People confuse lifeforms such as bacteria and amoebas as somehow simple, which is not really the case, since they have been evolving for billions of years. It is rather like the common fallacy that a Chimp is your grandfather, in fact they are cousins whom we shared an ancestor which looked more like a chimp than a human.