From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/5/2025 12:02 AM, JTEM wrote:   
   >   RonO wrote:   
   >   
   >> When we got the Nenaderthal mitochondrial DNA sequence the estimated   
   >> divergence was between 250,000 and 500,000.   
   >   
   > So it had to be less than that. Period.   
      
   Wrong again.  No it did not, and it turned out that it was within that   
   range once they obtained more sequence data.  In fact the more accurate   
   estimate based on other sequence data is closer to 500,000 not less than   
   250,000.   
      
   >   
   > They assumed a "Clock Like" rate of mutation which was the same across   
   > all populations. That's insane. It's literally intelligent design or   
   > creationism -- "God did it!" -- because it's a denial of evolution i.e.   
   > selective pressures.   
      
   More ambiguity probably comes in due to different sequences having   
   different rates of change and trying to estimate what changes are due to   
   deamination due to the age of the samples.  Why do you think that they   
   give a range?  The transistion transversion ratio fo mitocondrial DNA is   
   around 200 to 1 for the D loop region, and deamination causes transitions.   
      
   >   
   > Our mtDNA is very important and subject to a lot of selective pressures,   
   > or at least it was. As the powerhouse of the cells, the evolution of   
   > the mtDNA was vital to the push north, the adaptation to colder regions.   
   > But at the same time, the mtDNA of populations left behind in warmer   
   > climates was under little to no selective pressures. So...   
      
   Very few changes would make the mitochondrial DNA more efficient.  The   
   fastest evolving lineages among humans may be accumulating more   
   mutations because they are defective, and more free radicals are produce   
   causing DNA damage.  These lineages seem to be tolerated as long as food   
   is not limiting.  In colder climates they may have produced more body   
   heat, but at the cost of burning more calories.   
      
   >   
   > We had populations that moved out of warmer climates undergoing fairly   
   > rapid evolution of their mtDNA while those in warmer climates saw   
   > little to none, their mtDNA supposedly having long since adapted to   
   > conditions. But, the estimates assume that both were evolving at the   
   > exact same "Clock like" rate. The result is a wildly exaggerated age   
   > for divergence.   
      
   Your inference was demonstrated to be wrong in the latest estimates   
   using genomic DNA, and the bits transferred to Neanderthal at the same   
   time that the mitochondrial DNA was transferred.   
      
   >   
   > There's a similar problem with the y chromosome, though that's only   
   > tangentially related to climate...   
   >   
   >> The current estimates using the genomic DNA sequence places the event   
   >> that gave the Neanderthals their mitochondrial DNA closer to 500,000   
   >> years ago.   
   >   
   > Never trust molecular dating, or rotating sock puppets posting to   
   > usenet & pretending to be interested in science.   
      
   Never trust the guys that can't deal with replicated results and new   
   estimates.  How do you think that they can determine that some lineages   
   are evolving faster than others during a given period of time?  I don't   
   think that there is anybody left that does not know that the clocks are   
   lineage dependent over short periods of time.  The crazy thing is how it   
   seems to even out over long periods of time.  TO should recall Denton's   
   stupidity about cytochrome C.  It was a protein of only around 100 amino   
   acids, and it was known that substitutions had occurred at all but   
   around 5 sites among the sequences that were known in the early 1980's.   
   Denton tried to make a big deal about how all the multicellular animal   
   lineages were about the same distance in terms of amino acid   
   substitutions from yeast.  He claimed that this invalidated evolution,   
   but all the lineages had been evolving for the same amount of time since   
   that common ancestor.  Not only that, but some of his lineages like   
   monkeys and humans were the same distance from yeast because their   
   lineages had split only around 25 million years ago and there were only   
   two amino acid sequence differences between humans and monkeys.  They   
   were the same distance from yeast because they had been the same lineage   
   for a billion years before separating only around 25 million years ago.   
   Humans and fish were a similar distance from yeast even though they had   
   separated 400 million years ago because both lineages had been evolving   
   for the same amount of time since they shared that common ancestor.   
      
   With all the factors working against the molecular clock, it still   
   works.  Calibrating it for each lineage is the major issue.  My guess is   
   that the rate of speciation has the greatest impact on the clock.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)