Talk:Human longevity

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Post comment, or browse for more talk.

I doubt seriously that mutations played any part in this. What we are looking at here is a simple adaptation curve. Its no different than the way plants adapt to annual lifespans where conditions demand. Inbreeding and genetic drift played a role in so for as that's how selection works to produce an adapted form. If mutations were involved the damage and trend would continue until humans ceased to exist. The fact that it happened over a short number of successive generation, combined with the fact that Noah was not affected, suggests strongly that humans adapted to the new harsher world by reduced longevity.

Be careful of accepting creationist perspectives on genetic diversity. They have too quickly bought into evolutionist theories, and have not yet realized that the cell can rapidly add diversity to a populations following a bottleneck. I intended to publish another paper on this before the year was out, but got side-tracked. The commonly held perspective that the wolf already had the genetic diversity able to produce the dog breeds is incorrect. This theory came from the evolutionists. The diversity found in the dog breeds was generated by gene conversion since the wolf was domesticated. Everyone simply avoids the fact that the wolf was homozygote for wolf traits.

Read this if you have an interest. http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombination_review.pdf

--Chris Ashcraft 20:01, 31 December 2005 (GMT)

Thanks for the analysis. I cut out the reference to mutation as you advised. Excellent article, by the way. "Accelerated recombination by design" opens up a whole other realm of possibilities for us:). Ungtss 20:53, 31 December 2005 (GMT)

Jack Cuozzo

How valid would most Creationists say Jack Cuozzo's conclusions on the Neanderthals are? He states that the Neanderthals are evidence of human longevity. Would this merit mention in the article? --Zephyr Axiom 15:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)