Originally posted by CalJustYou really expected me to take you seriously? For one thiing, I don't know were you get those figures, because they were never mentioned. And secondly, she did not actually show any calculation, but gave an approximate figure based on the expected rate of mutation and the actual rate of mutation given by the experimenter with the most recent ape to man ancestor that was believed to be between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which is speculation.
I showed in my calculation of her figures, i.e. a sixteenfold error in the occurrence of predicted mutations, that "Eve" would have been born 120 000 years ago, not 6000.
Using HER figures.
But nothing but stunned silence from His Near Genius Highness, Lord Smugface.
The expected rate of mutation for that age range was 1 in 12,000. But the actual rate was found to be 1 in 800. She says therefore the first female ancestor of man would have been about 6,000 years ago. Of couse, all of this is just based on the speculations of evolutionists anyway and doesn't really prove it.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe expected rate of mutation of 1 in 12000 is, according to the speaker, the rate that would bring homo sapiens to be according to evolutionists from the common ancestor. Her terrifying message is that this rate was actually far swifter, i.e. only 1 in 800, which would speed up the process by a factor of 15. Are you still with me? Rocket science it ain't.
The expected rate of mutation for that age range was 1 in 12,000. But the actual rate was found to be 1 in 800. She says therefore the first female ancestor of man would have been about 6,000 years ago. Of couse, all of this is just based on the speculations of evolutionists anyway and doesn't really prove it.
(In brackets, a factor of 15 is NOT several orders of magnitude as she claimed, thus showing her mathematical ignorance, but exactly one-and-a-half orders of magnitude. But be that as it may...)
Now if you apply that factor of 15 to the commonly accepted age of homo sapiens, which is between 1 1/2 and 2 million years ago, then your vastly shrunk timespan would bring us to the order of about 120 000 years, and certainly NOT to 6000, no matter how you try to screw the books.
Do you at least follow my reasoning?
Or do you admit that you did not follow hers either, but just cut&pasted it because the final erroneous conclusion was what you wanted to hear?
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustDo you seriously expect the troll to cave in because of your evidence. I did much the same using the moon as my starting point but got nowhere. He is impervious to ANY evidence. He is a one trick pony, unable to change his alleged mind, self lobotomized decades ago.
The expected rate of mutation of 1 in 12000 is, [b]according to the speaker, the rate that would bring homo sapiens to be according to evolutionists from the common ancestor. Her terrifying message is that this rate was actually far swifter, i.e. only 1 in 800, which would speed up the process by a factor of 15. Are you still with me? Rocke ...[text shortened]... ut just cut&pasted it because the final erroneous conclusion was what you wanted to hear?[/b]
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustMath wasn't really my strong point in school, but even I follow this.
The expected rate of mutation of 1 in 12000 is, [b]according to the speaker, the rate that would bring homo sapiens to be according to evolutionists from the common ancestor. Her terrifying message is that this rate was actually far swifter, i.e. only 1 in 800, which would speed up the process by a factor of 15. Are you still with me? Rocke ...[text shortened]... ut just cut&pasted it because the final erroneous conclusion was what you wanted to hear?[/b]
30 Jun 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThere are, of course, millions of other arguments to use to discredit the 6000 year timespan. I just wanted to show that the argument in this particular clip which was so terrifying, was demonstrably false by junior school maths.
Do you seriously expect the troll to cave in because of your evidence. I did much the same using the moon as my starting point but got nowhere. He is impervious to ANY evidence. He is a one trick pony, unable to change his alleged mind, self lobotomized decades ago.
01 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustIt is you that did not follow her or what I posted about it. You apparently missed or maybe just conviently ignored this statement:
The expected rate of mutation of 1 in 12000 is, [b]according to the speaker, the rate that would bring homo sapiens to be according to evolutionists from the common ancestor. Her terrifying message is that this rate was actually far swifter, i.e. only 1 in 800, which would speed up the process by a factor of 15. Are you still with me? Rocke ...[text shortened]... ut just cut&pasted it because the final erroneous conclusion was what you wanted to hear?[/b]
the most recent ape to man ancestor that was believed to be between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago
That is what the experiment was based on, numbnuts.
01 Jul 15
Originally posted by CalJustWell, you didn't do it, numbnuts. 😏
There are, of course, millions of other arguments to use to discredit the 6000 year timespan. I just wanted to show that the argument in [b]this particular clip which was so terrifying, was demonstrably false by junior school maths.[/b]
01 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, sonhouse knows I am not a moron, but he likes to pretend otherwise. 😏
Do you seriously expect the troll to cave in because of your evidence. I did much the same using the moon as my starting point but got nowhere. He is impervious to ANY evidence. He is a one trick pony, unable to change his alleged mind, self lobotomized decades ago.
The Near Genius
01 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThat just shows that neither she nor you knows anything at all about evolution.
It is you that did not follow her or what I posted about it. You apparently missed or maybe just conviently ignored this statement:the most recent ape to man ancestor that was believed to be between 100,000 to 200,000 years ago
That is what the experiment was based on, numbnuts.
The date that the first hominids appeared have been consistently moved back during the past few years. The generally accepted time is now between 1 1/2 and 2 MYA, and even more.
So her entire argument falls to bits, anyway.
01 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustLook and listen closely at the video again. This has nothing to do with the date the first so-called hominids are believed by evolutionists to have appeared. This is about the so-called mitochondrial Eve. If you don't know what mitochondrial Eve is about, then here is a link.
That just shows that neither she nor you knows anything at all about evolution.
The date that the first hominids appeared have been consistently moved back during the past few years. The generally accepted time is now between 1 1/2 and 2 MYA, and even more.
So her entire argument falls to bits, anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
01 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsA moment ago you said it was based on the 'most recent ape to man ancestor'. Now you say it is based on the so-called mitochondrial Eve. Which is it? They are not the same thing in the slightest.
Look and listen closely at the video again. This has nothing to do with the date the first so-called hominids are believed by evolutionists to have appeared. This is about the so-called mitochondrial Eve. If you don't know what mitochondrial Eve is about, then here is a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
01 Jul 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe evolutionists believe that apes evolved into man and so this is at the point were they believe the first true human woman came into being from apes. They call that first fully human woman mitochondrial Eve, which is believed by evolutionists to be about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. I hope that makes it clear. But I don't think most people would have been so confused, if they had just watched the video. I remember you saying you don't watch youtube videos, so I can somewhat understand your confusion since my wording was not so clear.
A moment ago you said it was based on the 'most recent ape to man ancestor'. Now you say it is based on the so-called mitochondrial Eve. Which is it? They are not the same thing in the slightest.