creationist
1,008
edits
Human longevity: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
→Pre-flood longevity
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
|} | |} | ||
It should be noted that there is nothing known about the human body which would fundamentally prevent humans from having lived that long in the past, or to one day live that long again.[http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998071403.shtml] Scientists do not know why humans age and ultimately die, although some have speculated{{fact}} that it might be due to the shortening of [[telomere]]s, which could theoretically have been much longer prior to the flood. | It should be noted that there is nothing known about the human body which would fundamentally prevent humans from having lived that long in the past, or to one day live that long again.[http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998071403.shtml] Scientists do not "definitively" know why humans age and ultimately die, although some have speculated{{fact}} that it might be due to the shortening of [[telomere]]s, which could theoretically have been much longer prior to the flood. Latest research strongly suggests aging is simply the result of genetic decay over the lifespan of the individual, a result of information decay in the genes. Genetic enhancement research (injecting genetic information to replace existing genes) has shown across-the-board improvement in the individual's health and longevity, although this has not been attempted with humans (in any published account). | ||
In (''Genetic Entropy'') John Sanford, PhD references a study performed by Halliday and Watts in 2001 that clearly shows an exponential decay curve which can only be described as "biological". The calculated "line of best fit" is exponential with a correlation curve of 0.94, a very close fit. Clearly the writer of Genesis was either a faithful historian or uber-mathematical-modeler. Fabrication of such data would require both a deep mathematical understanding coupled with a desire to show exponential decay. Why would anyone do this, considering that genetics was not discovered until the 19th century and mutations in the 20th century? Cries of "fraud" are not only unreasonable, but realistically why would anyone bother to fit these numbers to an exponential curve? What would it matter? There is no doctrinal nor historical value in such an endeavor. Rationally speaking, the ages are real and human lifespans really were extraordinary in the early generations of mankind. Through accumulated mutations over many generations, life expectancy has progressively declined via genetic degeneration. (For further reading, see ''Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome'', JC Sanford PhD, Elim Publishing, 2005, pp. 148-149) | In (''Genetic Entropy'') John Sanford, PhD references a study performed by Halliday and Watts in 2001 that clearly shows an exponential decay curve which can only be described as "biological". The calculated "line of best fit" is exponential with a correlation curve of 0.94, a very close fit. Clearly the writer of Genesis was either a faithful historian or uber-mathematical-modeler. Fabrication of such data would require both a deep mathematical understanding coupled with a desire to show exponential decay. Why would anyone do this, considering that genetics was not discovered until the 19th century and mutations in the 20th century? Cries of "fraud" are not only unreasonable, but realistically why would anyone bother to fit these numbers to an exponential curve? What would it matter? There is no doctrinal nor historical value in such an endeavor. Rationally speaking, the ages are real and human lifespans really were extraordinary in the early generations of mankind. Through accumulated mutations over many generations, life expectancy has progressively declined via genetic degeneration. (For further reading, see ''Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome'', JC Sanford PhD, Elim Publishing, 2005, pp. 148-149) | ||
