Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

We are on good terms, buggyone.

I was commenting on the demise of Mitochondrial Eve. Your post made no sense to me in that regard, but I assumed you knew what you were talking about. I honestly couldn't understand what you were trying to say about the dating methods with your summary of Gibbons' article. I couldn't get access to the article you gave a summary to since it is by subscription only. I assumed you were responding to my two links showing that the methods of dating human beginnings have been proven wrong.

"Philip Awadalla and his coworkers noted in Science: 'Many inferences about the pattern and tempo of human evolution and mtDNA evolution have been based on the assumption of clonal inheritance. There inferences will now have to be reconsidered' (1999, 286:2525). However, rather than merely 'reconsidering' their theory and attempting to revamp it accordingly, evolutionists need to admit, honestly and forthrightly, that 'mitochondrial Eve,' as it turns out, has existed only in their minds, not in the facts of the real world. Science works by analyzing the data and forming hypotheses based on those data. Science is not supposed to massage the data until they fit a certain preconceived hypothesis. All of the conclusions that have been drawn from research on mitochondrial Eve via the molecular clock must now be discarded as unreliable. A funeral and interment are in order for mitochondrial Eve."

Anyway, all is well. Enjoy your golf game if you play today.

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp