This impinges on his credibility right from the start.Another polemical tool (propagandistic) is the way Mac Andrew says: Implication: Because Carl Wieland hasn’t discussed both ‘challenges’, he doesn’t know what he is talking about.Using mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal DNA to characterize genetic variability of people around the world, recent studies suggest that humanity’s origin was much earlier than thought (250,000 to 350,000 years ago, rather than less than 100,000 years ago).These results pose a possible challenge to the biblical account of human origins.In particular, they may force a widespread re-examination of determinations about when one species split off from another, if that determination was based largely on genetic evidence.
Several important results were recently reported using mammals as model organisms, including (i) the absence of relationship between mitochondrial DNA diversity and life-history or ecological variables, (ii) the absence of prominent adaptive selection, contrary to what was found in invertebrates, and (iii) the unexpectedly large variation in neutral substitution rate among lineages, revealing a possible link with species maximal longevity.
Interestingly, he referred to In many ways, Mac Andrew’s critique of my article appears to have been written more for its ‘effect’ on the average reader, trying to make creationists appear ill-informed or worse.
For one thing, by the end of the snow-storm (snow job?
ESPN coverage focused attention on Almonte’s accomplishments, heralded by many as among the greatest sports performances of all time.
Sadly, his fame turned into notoriety just days later when officials learned that he was too old to be eligible for Little League baseball.