Thursday, April 28, 2011

Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315

Today Brian Auten posted an a really great audio! It's an interview of Dr. Tim J. McGrew. The interview focuses on "Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels". I never heard of this line of reasoning before this discussion. Dr. McGrew said that it was once popular in the 19th century and he is now helping to popularize it. The idea is basically that missing information or unanswered questions are filled in by information, sometimes indirectly, given in other Gospel or historical documents. Often times the questions we have are not questions that the original readers would have had because they shared so much in common with the writer. McGrew makes a cumulative case that this is evidence that the Gospel writers did not copy from one another or copy from a common source as many folks allege. McGrew explains his reasoning very well and I hope everyone will listen to this.

McGrew suggested three books one can read to get further information. You can get two of them from Amazon.com and I added links to them below. The third book, Dr. McGrew mentioned can be found at this link: The Four Gospels from a Lawyer’s Standpoint (1893). You can get the link to the audio from Apologetics 315 given at the end of the post.

Another point of note is that McGrew has been criticized and attempted and failed rebuttal was made by Edward T. Babinski. Given that Babinki has contributed to John Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity often and is mentioned there highly, I find it shady interesting that no mention of the exchange. Dr. McGrew's wife, Lydia, started the ball rolling back in January when she posted his talk about Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels which he gave January 9, 2011 in New Orleans. This was followed by a rebuttal by Edward Babinski called Tim McGrew and the Ring of Truth -- The Undesigned Coincidences in Scripture? Or Redactions with Marcan Priority? . Dr. McGrew answered Babinski in article called Tim McGrew replies to Ed Babinski's Critique of his Discussion of Undesigned Coincidences on Dr. Victor Reppert's blog.

Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels by Tim McGrew - Apologetics 315
Enhanced by Zemanta

53 comments:

  1. I guess there's probably a very good reason this argument was "once popular" and is no longer. If I recall correctly, it was a failed response to Lachmann, Wiesse, Wilke and Holtzmann's scholarship.

    Also, I wouldn't say Babinski's rebuttal "failed" but it wasn't as strong as it could have been, but what do you expect? Low hanging fruit much? Maybe try Styler or Tuckett for starters. Or even Ehrman. But you probably should face it, Markan Priority is settled scholarship for reasons anyone can see from a plain reading of just about any translation of the synoptic gospels.

    Serious question, are you just trying to support your faith with this stuff or are you honestly seeking truth and challenging what you know and hold dear? This post seemed particularly desperate given the state of the current scholarship.

    Note: Babinski's website is the second worst designed website I've seen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Serious question, are you just trying to support your faith with this stuff or are you honestly seeking truth and challenging what you know and hold dear? This post seemed particularly desperate given the state of the current scholarship.

    I'm seeking out the truth and trying to follow the evidence where ever it leads. I think it points to God. It seems to me that the Bible is right.

    "Markan Priority" has not been around for 2000 years. Why shouldn't you be skeptical? Have you given up thinking for yourself? People like you tend to look at the gospels and look for contradictions in a desperate hope that it isn't true. I think you should ask yourself if you are seriously seeking truth or running away from it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, I wouldn't say Babinski's rebuttal "failed" but it wasn't as strong as it could have been, but what do you expect? Low hanging fruit much? Maybe try Styler or Tuckett for starters. Or even Ehrman. But you probably should face it, Markan Priority is settled scholarship for reasons anyone can see from a plain reading of just about any translation of the synoptic gospels.

    I find it interesting that you would refer to Edward Babinski as "low hanging fruit". Do you mean in general or just on this issue?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why shouldn't you be skeptical?

    Why shouldn't you be skeptical of Matthean Priority? I am. But regardless, I've read the synoptic gospels umpteen-billion times, I've read them straight through, I've read them horizontally, I've read them in every imaginable order. I honestly can't tell you how many times I've read them, and it's obvious with a plain reading that Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, but Mark doesn't borrow from Matthew and Luke (i.e. where they share passages, Matthew and Luke embellish or add to Mark which is what we'd expect if Mark was first and the Matthew and Luke authors had access to it, but not what we'd expect if the Mark author had access to the other two). The fact that the vast majority of New Testament Scholars agree certainly helps, but believe it or not, I actually came to this conclusion on my own unaware of any of the scholarship while reading from the NIV.

    People like you...

    Easy killer...

    ...or running away from it.

    Good question. You should ask yourself that too. I don't think I am though, given the 10 years I spent trying to believe after I stopped being able to.

    I find it interesting... Do you mean in general or just on this issue?

    In general.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why shouldn't you be skeptical of Matthean Priority? I am

    Who said anything about Matthew being written first? I didn't. I'd say we don't really know which came first. There is no way to categorically to prove which was written first. It is basically speculation based on guessing.

    I honestly can't tell you how many times I've read them, and it's obvious with a plain reading that Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark, but Mark doesn't borrow from Matthew and Luke (i.e. where they share passages, Matthew and Luke embellish or add to Mark which is what we'd expect if Mark was first and the Matthew and Luke authors had access to it, but not what we'd expect if the Mark author had access to the other two).

    You are making a big assumption. How do you know that Matthew and Luke copied. There is an alternate explanation but you won't accept it.

    When I said "People Like you..." I was referring to people who are mistaken like you. It wasn't meant as a slight or insult.


    Good question. You should ask yourself that too. I don't think I am though, given the 10 years I spent trying to believe after I stopped being able to.


    Who says I don't ask myself questions like that. You claim that you were never born again - therefore you never really believed. Unless you are born again you cannot really believe anything the Bible says.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But not being able to believe the Bible does not mean that it is not true. The Bible's validity is objective with respect to what you, me, or anyone believes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Who said anything about Matthew being written first?

    Papias, Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, etc...

    There is no way to categorically to prove which was written first.

    Of course there is, it's called textual criticism.

    There is an alternate explanation...

    And what would that be?

    Unless you are born again you cannot really believe anything the Bible says.

    This fallacy, and I think it's a form of the No True Scotsman, is your way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of your position. By doing this it enables you to continue to redefine what a Christian is until the only ones left that fit are the ones that agree with your arguments, so you can then declare victory in the argument. Anytime an example is given that goes against your claim, you simply dismiss it with "see, they were not a True Christian™ in the first place". Your claims are thus preserved from any refutation (in your mind alone anywat). Any claim you make following this approach is unfalsifiable.

    ReplyDelete

  8. Who said anything about Matthew being written first?


    Papias, Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, etc...

    They could have been wrong about the order, but that does not mean they were wrong to believe it.

    There is no way to categorically to prove which was written first.

    Of course there is, it's called textual criticism.

    Textual criticism is not a magic bullet to all questions. Not all textual critics come to the conclusions you are hanging your eternal state on.

    There is an alternate explanation...

    And what would that be?

    2 Peter 1:19-21

    This fallacy, and I think it's a form of the No True Scotsman, is your way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of your position. By doing this it enables you to continue to redefine what a Christian is until the only ones left that fit are the ones that agree with your arguments, so you can then declare victory in the argument. Anytime an example is given that goes against your claim, you simply dismiss it with "see, they were not a True Christian™ in the first place". Your claims are thus preserved from any refutation (in your mind alone anywat). Any claim you make following this approach is unfalsifiable.

    I haven't reinterpreted evidence. I'm introducing evidence that you obviously have failed to consider. I'm dismissing your claim to have been a Christian because you said that you were never born again. You said it. I did not and you keep saying it.

    Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. - John 3:3

    Either Jesus is wrong or you are wrong. Being a "Christian" has a definitive meaning. You don't get to just call yourself "Christian" to be one of God's.

    Anything I say is falsifiable by one simple question: "Did God say it?" You are wrong because the Bible disagrees with you. You must see that. And you are saying you are right and the Bible is wrong.

    I haven't rejected evidence as you have. And even from the limitations of your presuppositions you should recognize unfalsibility doesn't mean something is false.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, the bible asserting that the bible is inspired is hardly convincing, especially in a book where the author lied about his identity. Plus that doesn't address my statement at all, where the synoptic gospels share passages (often verbatim), Matthew and Luke add to Mark which is what we'd expect if Mark was first and the Matthew and Luke authors had access to it, but not what we'd expect if the Mark author had access to the other two.

    Anything I say is falsifiable by one simple question: "Did God say it?"

    Well then everything you say is wrong. God, your god and probably any god any of us has ever conceived of, doesn't exist.

    PS: If you only think the evidence points to god and it only seems like the bible is right, how can you be certain of what god "says"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. YOU cannot prove that Apostle Peter did not write 2Peter. And the bottom line is that you haven't proved that God does not exist. I did not say that the Bible seems right. I am saying that the Bible is correct and you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You cannot prove we didn't evolve from single celled organisms...

    See how that works, epistemology is a bitch...

    I did not say that the Bible seems right.

    Marcus: "It seems to me that the Bible is right." - Yesterday

    ReplyDelete
  12. You cannot prove we didn't evolve from single celled organisms...

    See how that works, epistemology is a bitch...


    Tsk..Tsk..another red herring? Really? What does not being able to prove we didn't evolve from single celled organisms have to do with not being able to prove God does not exist? You argued that God does not exist therefore God has not spoken. Although I don't think there is enough evidence to prove that we evolved from one-celled organisms, it doesn't prove that Apostle Peter did not write 2 Peter and it does not prove that 2 Peter 1:19-21 is not valid. In short it adds nothing to your argument but to give you another opportunity to use profanity. Surely you can do better than that (and I'm not calling you "Shirley").

    I am going to admit that I was not careful in what I wrote earlier about what I think about the validity of Bible. And I thank you for pointing out the problem. Although you are not honest enough to admit when you make a bad argument and you may not let me correct myself, I'll correct it anyway:

    I did not mean to just say that the Bible seems right to me. I am saying that the Bible is correct and you are wrong.

    Will you be honest and just admit that bringing up evolution has nothing to do with the discussion because macro evolution could be true (it's not and I'd like to see you try to prove it) and it would not change whether or not 2 Peter is true or not?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I mention evolution not as a distraction, but as an illustration of how you have two unequal epistemological standards, one for things you want to believe and another for things you do not want to believe.

    Trust me, after your apparent inability to understand the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, I have no interest in discussion evolution with you ever again.

    PS: I don't believe you didn't mean to say "seems" because you also said you "think" the evidence points to god in the same comment. I think you were just having an uncharacteristic moment of intellectual honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I mention evolution not as a distraction, but as an illustration of how you have two unequal epistemological standards, one for things you want to believe and another for things you do not want to believe.

    That sure sounds like you. You seem confused. And you totally ignored the point I made that you are mixing apples and oranges. I don't reject macro evolution because I want to. I reject it because I find the "evidence" wanting.

    Trust me, after your apparent inability to understand the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, I have no interest in discussion evolution with you ever again.

    Where is your Ph.D. in Genetics? As near as I can tell you have no better understanding of Mitochondrial DNA than I do. You haven't been able to demonstrate any reason to discount a single man and woman for the start of the human race. If you really think "Mitochondrial Eve's" siblings only had one sex of children or no children at all then you have a severe case of blind faith and you are not nearly as skeptical as you should be.

    PS: I don't believe you didn't mean to say "seems" because you also said you "think" the evidence points to god in the same comment. I think you were just having an uncharacteristic moment of intellectual honesty.

    Aha!! Ding, Ding, Ding!!!! Another fallacious presupposition. "Think" and "seem" does not mean I have doubts. I'm only saying that my own research and experiences confirm what the Bible says - I am not recognizing that I could be wrong that the Bible is right. I'm saying that anything I think or believe that is not grounded in the Bible is wrong. I don't think you are being dishonest. I think you are fulfilling the following:

    5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. - James 1:5-8

    Ryan, The passage is about you. But you can have better by just asking God for wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If you really think "Mitochondrial Eve's" siblings only had one sex of children or no children at all...

    Wow, stunning... I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So I guess that means you disagree with the following article.

    Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

    Here is a highlight:

    So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.

    Good for you! Still wanna rest your case?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Somewhere between now and then...

    Reread carefully...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Whoops I guess then you believe:

    Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.


    Okay because you know more than I do about Genetics:

    When is that? How do you know that none of those women or their female descendants never had any girls?! Does that make sense? Today the birth rate seems to be 50% male and 50% female on average. Did it used to be different? How do you know? How do you prove that? And why would you believe that? This is an example of you believing something you can't possibly prove.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Final comment on the subject as you seem to actually be making an effort to misunderstand and would probably never believe anything other than special creation regardless of any evidence.

    But you are not factoring in mortality (infant or otherwise), it's not that they didn't also have baby girls, it's that people do die before being able to reproduce. But the percentages of males to females has less than nothing to do with it. You seem to not recognize or not want to recognize that people today obviously have female ancestors who lived contemporaneously with "Eve", but (and this is critical) somewhere in all those lines there was at least one male. Say your grandmother had siblings, you and your first cousin are commonly descended from your grandmother, but not her siblings (although you are all related), extrapolate that back for everyone and you get Mitochondrial Eve about 200,000 years ago.

    For the actual mechanics of how we derive that, you may want to look up the terms haplotype and haplogroup, and SNP mutation for starters. Or you could just pick up Oppenheimer's "The Real Eve" or Sykes "Seven Daughters of Eve", although somehow I doubt you will. But for your own sake, before you try to talk about genetics again, you should at least read Collins' "The Language of Life", it's just OK, but he's an evangelical christian, so you can't claim bias (Dawkins' actually has two books on the subject too, but I'd never dream of recommending them to you, LOL).

    ReplyDelete
  20. But you are not factoring in mortality (infant or otherwise), it's not that they didn't also have baby girls, it's that people do die before being able to reproduce.

    So all the other baby girls descended from the "Eve's" contemporaneous sisters and cousins died? Sure...that's likely. Not.

    But the percentages of males to females has less than nothing to do with it.

    Fine. Grant it.

    You seem to not recognize or not want to recognize that people today obviously have female ancestors who lived contemporaneously with "Eve", but (and this is critical) somewhere in all those lines there was at least one male.

    That wasn't the point of the article. The point is that all living people are descended from one woman. It seems unlikely that her contemporaries would never pass on their MtDNA also.

    Say your grandmother had siblings, you and your first cousin are commonly descended from your grandmother, but not her siblings (although you are all related), extrapolate that back for everyone and you get Mitochondrial Eve about 200,000 years ago.

    This seems to be a contradiction. You first say that people today are descended from "Eve's" contemporaneous women folk and then give an example of how you can be genetically descended from a single woman and not be descended from her siblings and then say we can extrapolate backwards. Which is it? Maybe you need to go back and re-read the books you recommended before you attempt to discuss genetics again or at least learn to be consistent.. The fault isn't in me needing to believe in special creation of humanity the fault is in the articles like the one I pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So all the other baby girls descended from "Eve's" contemporaneous sisters and cousins died?

    Well yes, of course they did, everyone dies. But that's not the point at all. What you probably wanted to ask was did they die before bearing children of their own or did they only have sons? And the answer is most likely they did not not. Did some have daughters? Of course they did. Did some of those daughters die before bearing children of their own or have only sons? Some would. But did some of those daughters have daughters? Most likely. Did some of those granddaughters die before bearing children of their own or have only sons? Sure. But did some of the granddaughters have daughters? Of course. Did those great-granddaughters die before bearing children of their own or have only sons? Sure. And so on for 200,000 years. The point is that their mtDNA line was broken somewhere in the intervening 200,000. It's not difficult to break it, the mtDNA line between your mother and your children is broken. It happens ever times someone is born, someone's mtDNA line is broken.

    You seem to be approaching a Ray Comfortesque level of willful misunderstanding. Pick up the recommended books...

    Fine. Grant it.

    How can you grant it when you don't understand the above?

    ReplyDelete
  22. It seems unlikely that her contemporaries would never pass on their MtDNA also.

    See above. No one is saying they didn't pass it on.

    This seems to be a contradiction

    Not a contradiction but I did oversimplify it to the point it wasn't clear given the larger topic. I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between "descended from" and being "related too", which you surprisingly didn't seem to understand. But it's also very important to understand, like I said above, that you can still be descended from someone but not share their mtDNA. For example, your daughter does not share your mother's mtDNA because your mother's mtDNA line ends with you (assuming you don't have sisters, but that's not relevant to your daughter). However, your daughter does share your wife's mtDNA, and your wife shares her mother's mtDNA, and so on. Tracing it back along your mtDNA line through your mother and your wife's mtDNA line, at some point in the last 200,000 those lines intersect and then continue back to "Mitochondrial Eve".

    The same can be done with the Y-chromosome through the father's line which gets us to "Y-chromosomal Adam" about 70,000 years ago.

    Also, did you really say "women folk"???

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is highly unlikely that all other mtDNA was not passed on today if there were any other mtDNA to begin with. It's unlikely that all other strains of mtDNA was cut off because the women who carried them only have had sons or no children at all at some finite point. That's not the most simple explanation and can't be proved. That's a lot of blind faith you've got there and argument from authority.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is highly unlikely that all other mtDNA was not passed on today

    I'm an only child and my Mom is the only daughter with 5 brothers. My grandmother and mothers mtDNA was not passed on. It's not highly unlikely at all that "all other mtDNA was not passed on today". You clearly still don't understand. Read the books, try to learn something where you haven't already predetermined the conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In fact, the way mtDNA is passed, it's something of a mathematical certainty that not all mtDNA is passed on today.

    ReplyDelete

  26. I'm an only child and my Mom is the only daughter with 5 brothers. My grandmother and mothers mtDNA was not passed on. It's not highly unlikely at all that "all other mtDNA was not passed on today". You clearly still don't understand. Read the books, try to learn something where you haven't already predetermined the conclusion.


    From the reading I've done, the gene pool from which this single mother came from would not have been very large (at least I can agree to that), but do you really think that all of her contemporaneous females of in her population all of their mtDNA failed to be passed on today? It is your predetermined conclusion that there must have been more than one woman so that your version of evolution theory is true is what is driving you. I'm saying that it seem highly unlikely to make such a conclusion that you cannot prove. Applying today's conditions really don't answer the question because we all trace our mtDNA to the same source. Your mother's mtDNA does not stop with you in that we can trace your daughters', my daughter, and everyone alive today back to the same woman. That is a fact. Your dancing around it doesn't change that. And you have offered nothing to explain that but instead appeal to authority that you obviously don't have a good handle on. Your only offering: It can't be what the Bible says about human origin.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Your mother's mtDNA does not stop with you in that we can trace your daughters', my daughter, and everyone alive today back to the same woman.

    ???? This statement makes no sense and shows your ignorance. Our daughters can be traced back to Mitochondrial Eve via our wives and their mothers. We can traced our linage back to her via our mothers. Two different twigs on the same branch.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ???? This statement makes no sense and shows your ignorance. Our daughters can be traced back to Mitochondrial Eve via our wives and their mothers. We can traced our linage back to her via our mothers. Two different twigs on the same branch.

    You are arguing that all the other possible branches are gone because they stopped growing. How do you even know there were other branches? The position you have says that there had been other branches but now there is no evidence of them. How do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  29. The way mtDNA is passed necessitates "branches".

    But I think you are thinking of this the wrong chronological direction. We're the top of the tree, the tip of the branches. "Mitochondrial Eve" is the base.

    Note; this "tree" is only a graphical representation of how mtDNA is passed. The "Y Chromosomal Adam" tree would look completely different.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The way mtDNA is passed necessitates "branches".

    DUH!

    But I think you are thinking of this the wrong chronological direction. We're the top of the tree, the tip of the branches. "Mitochondrial Eve" is the base.

    No, I think the confusion is yours. If you are right then "Mitochondrial Eve" is just a branch on a larger tree and we are branches and twigs on her branch and where the other branches are stunted. Yet there is no reason to think that those stunted branches exist if we (conveniently for you) have no evidence for them because no living person can be traced back to them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Does it bother you that, according to the genetic evidence, Adam and Eve lived about 120,000 years apart?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does it bother you that, according to the genetic evidence, Adam and Eve lived about 120,000 years apart?

    No because the genetic evidence is because I don't think that conclusion is warranted. No more warranted than assuming that all other Mitchondrial DNA weren't passed on because all other women at some point had their lines cut off due to only having sons or no children at all.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sorry, I forgot about your advanced degree and work in the field of genetics. Clearly you are a leading thinker and innovator in the field. Perhaps you can explain in detail for this layman why the evidence doesn't warrant the date we currently have for Mitochondrial Eve. I look forward to a thorough take down of the current science. Given your level of certainty that "the genetic evidence is because I don't think that conclusion is warranted. (???) then there surely will be a Nobel Prize or at least a great research job waiting for you.

    I look forward to your explanation. Have you published it previously? Maybe in Genetics or the AJHG?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sorry, I forgot about your advanced degree and work in the field of genetics. Clearly you are a leading thinker and innovator in the field. Perhaps you can explain in detail for this layman why the evidence doesn't warrant the data we currently have for Mitochondrial Eve.

    So it takes an advanced degree in a field to comment on it if you disagree with the conclusions some in that field hold to? If that's true then why do you think you have the right to disagree with William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas? Shouldn't you be ignored using the same fallacious logic you are using?

    You prove the following makes sense and provide evidence:

    So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.

    If you do, I'll prove that its not necessary to conclude that Adam and Eve lived 120K years apart. I'm saying that there are way more questions than answers regarding human genetic origins and the conclusions you have accepted to deny Genesis are not as solid as you pretend they are.

    I look forward to a thorough take down of the current science. Given your level of certainty that "the genetic evidence is because I don't think that conclusion is warranted. (???) then there surely will be a Nobel Prize or at least a great research job waiting for you.

    Do you really think that every genetic scientist has drawn the conclusions you have blindly accepted or that it's completely contrary to any reasonable understanding of Genesis? Are you really that blind and naive?

    I look forward to your explanation. Have you published it previously? Maybe in Genetics or the AJHG?

    Where is yours? At best you argue from authority and at worst blind faith given that you personally can't articulate your position.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "So it takes an advanced degree in a field to comment on it..."

    No, but even having an advanced degree in the field doesn't give you license to baldly assert that a consensus conclusion is wrong, substantiation is required for that. If you said "I assert that the scientific consensus is wrong because it disagrees with the bible, and the bible is a revelation from god, therefore the science must be wrong" That's actually as valid as you can get, and I suspect that's your real reasoning, but your pretentions at being a "scientist" prevent you from publically saying something like that. Intellectual honesty would be nice...

    ReplyDelete
  36. "You prove the following makes sense and provide evidence:..."

    I don't think "prove" means what you think it means, but I honestly don't know what to tell you other than somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted. I don't see the hang up, as this doesn't seem unlikely especially in a population of +/-10,000 becoming a population of +7 Billion. This is also what the mitochondrial evidence from today and from Neanderthal and other hominid fossils indicates, and computer models support (see Wright-Fisher or O'Connell). Even Answers in Genesis accepts this as settled science, they just make an unsubstantiated assertion that the dating is flawed (because it's based on non-biblical assumptions, LOL) and she wasn't Eve, but was really "Mitochondrial Shem's Wife".

    ReplyDelete
  37. "I'll prove that it's not necessary to conclude that Adam and Eve lived 120k years apart."

    Again, I don't think "prove" means what you think it means, but I would love to see you prove that. Heck, I'd be floored if you could even mount a logically coherent argument for it. I'm certain you cannot.

    "At best you argue from authority..."
    *
    It's amusing that you apparently don't know the difference between formal and informal logic. Seems odd for a guy who reposts other peoples articles on logical fallacies.

    But just so you are clear, an appeal to scientific consensus is not the "argumentum verecundiam" fallacy, but asserting that scientific consensus is wrong without any substantiation is an "ipse dixitism" fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. PS: I'm happy to admit that I haven't articulated my position clearly since, exactly like you, I am layman in the field of Genetics, but I did have my nutjob Pentecostal friend review my comments and he was able to follow so I suspect the problem is with your ability to comprehend (either willfully or otherwise). Also I did recommend some books on the subject. How are you coming on those?

    ReplyDelete
  39. No, but even having an advanced degree in the field doesn't give you license to baldly assert that a consensus conclusion is wrong, substantiation is required for that. If you said "I assert that the scientific consensus is wrong because it disagrees with the bible, and the bible is a revelation from god, therefore the science must be wrong" That's actually as valid as you can get, and I suspect that's your real reasoning, but your pretentions at being a "scientist" prevent you from publically saying something like that. Intellectual honesty would be nice...

    I have substantiated my position better than you have. You can't explain why you think the explanation for tracing all living people back to a single woman does not mean that Genesis could not be true. My position is that the explanation given is uncredible. You are making the positive claim - burden of proof is on you (according to the way you said these things should go).

    ReplyDelete

  40. I don't think "prove" means what you think it means, but I honestly don't know what to tell you other than somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted. I don't see the hang up, as this doesn't seem unlikely especially in a population of +/-10,000 becoming a population of +7 Billion. This is also what the mitochondrial evidence from today and from Neanderthal and other hominid fossils indicates, and computer models support (see Wright-Fisher or O'Connell). Even Answers in Genesis accepts this as settled science, they just make an unsubstantiated assertion that the dating is flawed (because it's based on non-biblical assumptions, LOL) and she wasn't Eve, but was really "Mitochondrial Shem's Wife"


    Then let's be sure. I mean "proof" as in showing that somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted. Look at what you are saying: you cannot say when it happened. You don't know how many people were on earth at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve. And then you draw a conclusion based on all of these unknowns to correspond to a theory. That's backwards.

    I respect "Answers in Genesis" but I disagree with them on several points. You do too. Where is your honesty? I don't hold to a Young Earth model. And there could not be "Mitochondrial Shem's wife" because we are not all descended from just Shem and his wife. Shem had 2 brothers and 2 sister-in-laws. There is no reason to think that they would not have traced all of their Mitochondrial DNA to the same woman we do today. Try thinking for yourself and backing those thoughts up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Again, I don't think "prove" means what you think it means, but I would love to see you prove that. Heck, I'd be floored if you could even mount a logically coherent argument for it. I'm certain you cannot.

    I told you: Bring your evidence and I'll bring mine.

    It's amusing that you apparently don't know the difference between formal and informal logic. Seems odd for a guy who reposts other peoples articles on logical fallacies.

    The real amusing thing is that you really think you have made a point. You missed it. It does not make sense that would just appeal to those people who agree with what you have determined must be true and then ignore those scientists who disagree with you. I told you if you want to discuss this from an adult prospective, bring your evidence and I'll bring mine.

    ReplyDelete
  42. PS: I'm happy to admit that I haven't articulated my position clearly since, exactly like you, I am layman in the field of Genetics, but I did have my nutjob Pentecostal friend review my comments and he was able to follow so I suspect the problem is with your ability to comprehend (either willfully or otherwise).

    Who said I don't understand you? I just disagree with you. You can't answer the questions I've brought up and that doesn't mean that no one can, but it does mean you have little to complain about against me. Your "nutjob Pentecostal friend" is probably humoring you.

    Also I did recommend some books on the subject. How are you coming on those?

    Well, if you read them, why can't you answer my questions?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have substantiated my position better than you have.

    This is truly bizarre. Where have you done this?

    You can't explain why you think the explanation for tracing all living people back to a single woman does not mean that Genesis could not be true.

    Sigh... there is fossil evidence of homo Sapiens and Neanderthals with distinct mtDNA (i.e. people not related to Eve).

    ReplyDelete
  44. I mean "proof" as in showing that somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.

    All known homo Sapien Sapien share common mtDNA. There is fossil evidence that in the past some homo Sapiens and other hominids did not share mtDNA. See the Wright-Fisher or O'Connell for estimates on the dates for the he matrilineal MRCA.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I told you: Bring your evidence and I'll bring mine.

    I've given you everything you need. Now you. Like I said, I'll be floored if you can even mount a logically coherent argument for your position. I'm certain you cannot.

    It does not make sense that would just appeal to those people who agree with what you have determined must be true and then ignore those scientists who disagree with you.

    Who am I ignoring? Please give me a list of published geneticists (and their articles) who question the existence (not the date) of Mitochondrial Eve.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Who said I don't understand you?

    Maybe you do now, although I doubt it based on your Shem comment. But it was clear from most of your earlier questions that you didn't have a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Maybe you do now, although I doubt it based on your Shem comment. But it was clear from most of your earlier questions that you didn't have a clue.

    I don't think you understood my Shem comment. I also think you have lost sight of the discussion. You said:

    Who am I ignoring? Please give me a list of published geneticists (and their articles) who question the existence (not the date) of Mitochondrial Eve.

    What? I never argued that there was never a Mitochondrial Eve? I affirm that all living human beings can trace our Mitochondrial DNA back to a single woman. Everyone agrees with that - as far as I know. The issue I've been discussing is if that means that all other possible mtDNA was cut off by all other women not having children or no daughters. What have you been talking about?

    All known homo Sapien Sapien share common mtDNA. There is fossil evidence that in the past some homo Sapiens and other hominids did not share mtDNA. See the Wright-Fisher or O'Connell for estimates on the dates for the he matrilineal MRCA.

    Huh? Maybe you should restate this.

    Sigh... there is fossil evidence of homo Sapiens and Neanderthals with distinct mtDNA (i.e. people not related to Eve)

    Finally! Some fact that might support your thinking. You do realize that not all biologist think that Neanderthals are related to us on a genetic level? No? Well look at Ancient DNA and Neanderthals. Pointing to mtDNA of Neanderthals does not really add anything to this conversation. As for the fossils of other humans with different DNA, I will be looking further into things. However, you have far from proven anything other than showing how little you know. I want to see you explain why it makes sense to think to assume that all of the other woman not directly descended from MtDNA Eve never successfully passed on their MtDNA to people alive today. You explain that then I have been proven wrong. When you explain that...successfully then I have no position. Again my position is why isn't it simpler to just explain that we are all descended from a single woman instead of assuming that there were other women who didn't have daughters.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You do realize that not all biologist think that Neanderthals are related to us on a genetic level? No?

    I understand that some studies don't show conclusively that Neanderthals and homo Sapiens mixed, but other studies do show a relationship (you should read the article you linked to given that is the conclusion, so thanks!) With that said, of course pointing to mtDNA of Neanderthals adds to the discussion because the logical conclusion is that if there's Neanderthal mtDNA that's distinct from Mitochondrial Eve and Neanderthals mixed with homo Sapiens, then... well, I'll let you finish that thought.

    I want to see you explain why it makes sense to think to assume that all of the other woman not directly descended from MtDNA Eve never successfully passed on their MtDNA to people alive today.

    You are really having a hard time grasping this.

    Again my position is why isn't it simpler to just explain that...

    And Aristotelian physics is simpler than General Relativity. Therefore...

    ReplyDelete
  49. I understand that some studies don't show conclusively that Neanderthals and homo Sapiens mixed, but other studies do show a relationship (you should read the article you linked to given that is the conclusion, so thanks!) With that said, of course pointing to mtDNA of Neanderthals adds to the discussion because the logical conclusion is that if there's Neanderthal mtDNA that's distinct from Mitochondrial Eve and Neanderthals mixed with homo Sapiens, then... well, I'll let you finish that thought.

    I'll be happy to finish it. There are many scientists who don't think that humans and Neanderthals mixed.

    And Aristotelian physics is simpler than General Relativity. Therefore...

    Poor analogy. We can prove General Relativity and Newtonian Physics. I actually did a lot of that in college. However can you prove that there were other women and they failed to pass on their mtDNA because they all either had no children, only sons, or had daughters whom themselves only had sons or no children? Really? All of them? And you think that is plausible yet the Bible isn't? That is so funny.

    ReplyDelete
  50. OK, you're lost. Enjoy the rest of your life reposting other peoples' stuff and trying to support presupposed conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm still laughing. You still haven't provided anything more than your own presuppositions. Oh, and if you have such a low opinion about me and my blog what does it say about you that you keep reading and commenting on it? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hey Marcus, thanks for taking notice of this line of argument! It's very interesting and well worth exploring.

    Ryan's claim that "it was a failed response to Lachmann, Wiesse, Wilke and Holtzmann's scholarship" is so crazy that one hardly knows what to say. A line of argument first explored in detail in 1790 was a failed response to someone who was born in 1793? He also seems to think that the point of the argument from undesigned coincidences is to argue against Marcan priority. Sigh ...

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dr McGrew, thanks for stopping by and the comments. I sure hope that you will write a modern book on undesigned coincidences. Thanks so much for your work!

    ReplyDelete