==You will have to read the article for yourself. I won’t spoon feed you.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but right at the very beginning the paper states that the “amount of diversity that has accumulated in the subhaplogroup over the past 10,300 years suggests that previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock may have underestimated the rate of molecular evolution.”
Notice they don’t even try to justify the 10,300 years—it’s an assumption. Notice also that they are casting doubt on previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock because it doesn’t fit their ASSUMPTIONS! Finally, you should also notice that the paper you posted is an attempt to reconcile mtDNA with said assumptions. Given the above, how exactly does this paper “refute” the Noahitic flood?
[[Given the above, how exactly does this paper “refute” the Noahitic flood?]]
It doesn’t- But they like to pretend their assumptions do ‘refute’ opposing facts. Oh well.
Notice they don’t even try to justify the 10,300 years—it’s an assumption. Notice also that they are casting doubt on previous calibrations of the mtDNA clock because it doesn’t fit their ASSUMPTIONS! Finally, you should also notice that the paper you posted is an attempt to reconcile mtDNA with said assumptions. Given the above, how exactly does this paper “refute” the Noahitic flood?
You are wrong from the start. You really should read the article.
The date of 10,300 years was established by radiocarbon dating and other archaeological techniques, not by the mtDNA clock.
And how this article refutes the global flood? There is direct genetic continuity on the west coast from this individual who lived 10,300 years ago to numerous living descendants. There was no replacement by mtDNA from Noah's kin after 4350 years ago.
I know of another case on the west coast that spans 5,300 years from an ancient skeleton to a living descendant. Again, no replacement by mtDNA from Noah's kin after 4350 years ago.
The global flood about 4350 years ago is a myth.