“Endlessly Adrift”
cji
8/31/09
Accepting theories easy
peer pressure to assuage
disregarding facts or science
not needed or heeded now
endlessly adrift in the world
captured by the lights bright
embraced tightly now about
without foothold or strength
the rod of iron now to rust
wanting more of men/women
and less and less of truth!
Copyright © 2009 – cji
Mitochondrial Eve
The nucleus of the human cell contains 99.5% of our DNA - half comes from mother and other half from father. Because shuffled together, difficult to tell which parent contributed which element.[38] Mitochondrial DNA is found outside the nucleus of the cell where there are hundreds of energy producing components called mitochondrial, each of which contain a circular strand of DNA contributed exclusively by the mother. Because it remains relatively unchanged it could be used to trace a person's lineage back for thousands of years. And perhaps even to the beginning of time. In 1987 compared my DNA of 147 people from 5 of the world's geographic locations. Concluded all of the 147 people had the same female ancestor, known as the "Mitochondrial Eve."[38]This led to the conclusion that in the beginning there really was really one set of parents which would mean either that Mitochondrial Eve could be the Biblical Eve, or that all modern humans are descended from a very small population humans that existed at one time. Evolutionists were unprepared to deal with these ideas and proposed a farfetched explanation about Mitochondrial Eve: Her family somehow spread across the globe and replaced all the other archaic humans who just happened to have failed in their efforts to produce female offspring. That's pretty hard to believe.[38]Using what they call the "molecular clock," evolutionists tried to prove that Mitochondrial Eve lived far too long ago to be the Biblical eve. By rewinding that clock, scientists came up with an estimated rate of mutation and were thus were able to calculate the supposed age of Mitochondrial Eve. Based on this theory, they were surprised to discover that Mitochondrial Eve existed approximately 250,000 [ET*] years ago, as opposed to their supposed common ancestor who lived some 3 ½ million [ET*] years ago. The molecular clock threw the evolutionary clock out the window.[38]However laboratory discoveries in 1998 indicated that mutations in Mitochondrial DNA occur 20 times faster than the original estimate, indicating that Mitochondrial Eve lived between 6000 and 6500 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical time line.[38]
Again I’ve read both of Darwin’s books – and in both he leaves open his theories – never confirming them as facts. Indeed he further says he could never go beyond finding ‘two’ of everything when going as far back as he could. Darwin was a very interesting study – in that his father was a minister (smile) and he went to several ‘religious’ schools to the point he was fed up with them and their multiple confusions (similar to Einstein).
The easy way is most frequently the way most go – a lot less work. And one must remember that Darwin’s work justified the geo-political abuse of the various lower classes. Spencer who was a peer of Darwin came up with the phase, “Survival of the fittest” shortly after the publication of “Origin of Species.” Both works were easily accepted into the England and the European World as they justified the continuation of ‘almost slave labor’ in the factories and the mines – while the leisure class worked not at all.
Sadly in science as in politics – what’s convenient seems to carry the day – and if new facts don’t meet the current theory – regardless of its supports – the theory will continue to be treated as truth or fact even if never proved. This is the case in evolution as taught in our schools today – yes there is evolution – but a human is a human and a monkey is still a monkey. What monkey would want to stay as a monkey if it could be a human (maybe not a good question when one looks at the trash in our government on our streets today).
Yet we’ve to keep an open mind – regardless of the rhetoric of those pushing their individual points of view. Those who disregard new science – denying evidence which has passed the test of good research – to hang tough to their old theories – then science like all else is simply rhetorical self-serving as are those who feed off of the population they can please with their findings.
If DNA is a science – and new findings show differences in theories – should it be thrown out?
Now remember I’m involved with several archeological groups and I could take you to settlements 30,000 years old – and fire spots 15,000 years old – but all current scientific evidence shows that these people and their posterity must’ve been eliminated. We know in current history multiple times when whole groups of cultural groups were eliminated ‘in toto’ either due to war – famine – plague and other situations.
What’s interesting – is that actual evidence and theory don’t agree – thus does one throw out the evidence or the theory? chuck
http://whispersofthespirit.yuku.com/topic/10118
(Do We Want to Know?)
cji
8/31/09
Accepting theories easy
peer pressure to assuage
disregarding facts or science
not needed or heeded now
endlessly adrift in the world
captured by the lights bright
embraced tightly now about
without foothold or strength
the rod of iron now to rust
wanting more of men/women
and less and less of truth!
Copyright © 2009 – cji
Mitochondrial Eve
The nucleus of the human cell contains 99.5% of our DNA - half comes from mother and other half from father. Because shuffled together, difficult to tell which parent contributed which element.[38] Mitochondrial DNA is found outside the nucleus of the cell where there are hundreds of energy producing components called mitochondrial, each of which contain a circular strand of DNA contributed exclusively by the mother. Because it remains relatively unchanged it could be used to trace a person's lineage back for thousands of years. And perhaps even to the beginning of time. In 1987 compared my DNA of 147 people from 5 of the world's geographic locations. Concluded all of the 147 people had the same female ancestor, known as the "Mitochondrial Eve."[38]This led to the conclusion that in the beginning there really was really one set of parents which would mean either that Mitochondrial Eve could be the Biblical Eve, or that all modern humans are descended from a very small population humans that existed at one time. Evolutionists were unprepared to deal with these ideas and proposed a farfetched explanation about Mitochondrial Eve: Her family somehow spread across the globe and replaced all the other archaic humans who just happened to have failed in their efforts to produce female offspring. That's pretty hard to believe.[38]Using what they call the "molecular clock," evolutionists tried to prove that Mitochondrial Eve lived far too long ago to be the Biblical eve. By rewinding that clock, scientists came up with an estimated rate of mutation and were thus were able to calculate the supposed age of Mitochondrial Eve. Based on this theory, they were surprised to discover that Mitochondrial Eve existed approximately 250,000 [ET*] years ago, as opposed to their supposed common ancestor who lived some 3 ½ million [ET*] years ago. The molecular clock threw the evolutionary clock out the window.[38]However laboratory discoveries in 1998 indicated that mutations in Mitochondrial DNA occur 20 times faster than the original estimate, indicating that Mitochondrial Eve lived between 6000 and 6500 years ago. This is consistent with the Biblical time line.[38]
Again I’ve read both of Darwin’s books – and in both he leaves open his theories – never confirming them as facts. Indeed he further says he could never go beyond finding ‘two’ of everything when going as far back as he could. Darwin was a very interesting study – in that his father was a minister (smile) and he went to several ‘religious’ schools to the point he was fed up with them and their multiple confusions (similar to Einstein).
The easy way is most frequently the way most go – a lot less work. And one must remember that Darwin’s work justified the geo-political abuse of the various lower classes. Spencer who was a peer of Darwin came up with the phase, “Survival of the fittest” shortly after the publication of “Origin of Species.” Both works were easily accepted into the England and the European World as they justified the continuation of ‘almost slave labor’ in the factories and the mines – while the leisure class worked not at all.
Sadly in science as in politics – what’s convenient seems to carry the day – and if new facts don’t meet the current theory – regardless of its supports – the theory will continue to be treated as truth or fact even if never proved. This is the case in evolution as taught in our schools today – yes there is evolution – but a human is a human and a monkey is still a monkey. What monkey would want to stay as a monkey if it could be a human (maybe not a good question when one looks at the trash in our government on our streets today).
Yet we’ve to keep an open mind – regardless of the rhetoric of those pushing their individual points of view. Those who disregard new science – denying evidence which has passed the test of good research – to hang tough to their old theories – then science like all else is simply rhetorical self-serving as are those who feed off of the population they can please with their findings.
If DNA is a science – and new findings show differences in theories – should it be thrown out?
Now remember I’m involved with several archeological groups and I could take you to settlements 30,000 years old – and fire spots 15,000 years old – but all current scientific evidence shows that these people and their posterity must’ve been eliminated. We know in current history multiple times when whole groups of cultural groups were eliminated ‘in toto’ either due to war – famine – plague and other situations.
What’s interesting – is that actual evidence and theory don’t agree – thus does one throw out the evidence or the theory? chuck
http://whispersofthespirit.yuku.com/topic/10118
(Do We Want to Know?)
here 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment