07 Nov '06 10:29>
Originally posted by XanthosNZYes, I agree with you. I'm not familiar with this paper about "7 daughters of Eve", and therefore in no position to comment further about it.
I've had similar thoughts about the 7 daughters of Eve research and I've discussed it (briefly) with scott.
Bryson in A Brief History of Nearly Everything talks with experts who discount the research as following a road from Paris and taking a random turn at every intersection, eventually ending up in Rome and therefore assuming that every road leads to R ...[text shortened]... ith knowing the age of the Earth (unless the scientific paper is about the age of the Earth).
But Scott mentioned something about tracing the bloodlines of women up to 7,500 - 40,000 yrs ago, thus implying the earth is MORE THAN 40,000 yrs old. In another thread, I saw somebody giving the estimated age of the earth as 5,000 - 10,000 yrs only, which is so ridiculous. I don't keep track on who these people are, but when twhitehead mentioned a 'flaw' with the article, I thought he's one of these ignorant people insisting, amongst others, on the age of the earth to be 10,000 yrs. That's why I asked him if at least he's convinced the earth is more than 40,000 yrs old.
But this article about 7 daughters of Eve seems interesting. I must have a look at it.