Darwinists (People who believe in Evolution), Is this information about evolution credible?

Although the paper referred to is real enough, it is not my impression that biologists feel particularly disturbed by its findings.

If you want a Christian website with a high level of scientific integrity, you could try this one:

http://www.biologos.org/

Because Darwin never said that and nor did he recant on his death bed. Those are just some of the silly lies told by creationists to try and support their totally ridiculous idea that the biblical account of creation is true. Darwin was working in a new field and he knew that there were difficulties in his ideas that would need solving. However it is not true that there are no linking species found (that is another stupid lie) There have been a lot found and they are still being found. All the research and investigations done since Darwin's day have confirmed his findings and many of the difficulties he spelt out in his book have been solved. Of course the theory of evolution as laid out by Darwin and Wallace is at this current time the only theory that covers the known facts so until some positive evidence is discovered that shows it is wrong we will stick with it. The term theory by the way is a scientific term which identifies a that particular scientific event or phenomena such as the theory of gravity which is not that gravity happens that is the law of gravity but how it happens. So the theory of evolution is not that it happens and has happened we know that. The theory or theories are about how it happens. Try and get that basic idea into your head then read some of the many books and publications that are produced every year by distinguished scientists and you may become at least a little enlightened

I'm not a scientist.

But what I'm reading is an article by an astronomer who graduated from the University of Toronto criticizing the research done by biology professors from Harvard and Yale. The researchers from Harvard and Yale determined that the last common ancestor of men was 270,000 years ago, and the Toronto graduate says, "Well, that can't possibly be true. Evolution isn't real. Humans were created 10,000 years ago."

The article states that non-recombinant DNA in the Y chromosome did not change. It's called non-recombinant because it does not break apart and reform differently. It doesn't change.

There is no link to the original study so that I can read it for myself. And since the original study (which was, at least, sourced), was published over fifteen years ago, it's unlikely that it can be obtained.

Quite frankly, if you're looking at this to confirm or deny evolution, you're looking in the wrong place. It does not have a neutral point of view (the original study would), since the author of the article is expressly attempting to get people to believe in God. It's not a reliable source.

no, the information is not credible.

the source is not credible.

and the only blurb I did read was , or at least appeared to say things that are not credible. Ie. they did not agree with established scientific norms.

anyone who is not a scientist, would have trouble understanding or refuting the claims made on that site, that's the whole point. If you are not a biologist or geneticist then you have to trust, either in a creationist pseudo scientist, or in the rest of the scientific establishment.

That's the difficult part, choosing who is actually studying, and who is justifying what they already believe. If you start with the biblical story of creation, then you are justifying. If you start in a lab, then you might be more likely to be studying.

Y-chromosome Adam, as the most recent common ancestor was named, is not the first man. He was just the most recent common ancestor. Of course this study was over 15 years ago, and there might have been more comprehensive genetic assays done since that time. They avoid mention of mitochondrial Eve, by the way. This is most likely because she is much older than Y-chromosome Adam. This cannot be explained by creationist websites in any way that accords with their conjectures.

The results completely mis-interpreted, probably intentionally. I remember reading an article when that research came out and, while I don't remember all the details, I remember enough to realize that the author of that article is twisting and lying about what the study said.

You should post this in the science section if you want a detailed explanation of what's wrong.

CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS

7/1/1995 by Dr. Hugh Ross

Several years ago, I reported on a parallel investigation of women's genetic variation.3 Because the differences found were so slight, theorists concluded that women can trace their lineage only a couple hundred thousand years at the most to a common ancestor, whom the scientists called "Eve"

When the Y chromosome of modern humans is compared with that of modern chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, another great challenge arises. Large species-to-species genetic variations occur, but within each species very little, if any, variation is found.

=========================================

No bias intended here, but Dr. Ross' findings seem to indicate that he found no evidence of evolution.

To me, that indicates that the Bible's Genesis version is correct.

.

Not even close to true. There are genetic disorders based on mutations to the Y chromosome, so it's pretty obvious that they are lying about them being the same.

The mutation rate and markers do come together. The mutation rate comes out to 90,000 - 60,000 years ago. Which is the same point that humans were almost extinct. The WIKI is actually pretty good on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

You will see links to the papers and maps of what changed. The site you linked to is just flat out lying.

Hugh Ross isn't particularly credible. as an astronomer, he's got no particular expertise in genetics. I would want to read the paper referenced before believing his interpretation, except that the paper is from 15 years ago. surely there is much more data now, whether it supports Ross' interpretation or not (I strongly suspect the latter, see wiki source).

"To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry."

*rolls eyes*

It's BS, pure and simple. Those findings, even if true, don't mean anything.