Summations Only

Thanks for the reply mindspawn, Don't worry about time. Better a well thought out reply than a hasty one. You're not just challenging evolutionists, you're challenging geologists, physicists, chemists... pretty much the entire scientific consensus. Well then, that's where you are going wrong.It is not possible for an amateur to self-educate by means of Google, to the point where they are able to seriously challenge the scientific consensus. That is a delusion. It is especially unlikely when you are starting from a belief in falsified biblical dogma like the Flood. Trying to teach yourself leaves you too open to cherry-picking, confirmation bias and a host of other flaws and fallacies.Think about it; can you name one example of a self-taught novice overturning the status quo after a stint at "Google University"? No you can't. And part of the reason you can't is because all of those papers you might read online, the source of the information from which you are working, were written by scientists. You're not going to tell them anything they don't already know. They, on the other hand, can tell you a great many things that you do not know. i don't mean to be condescending, but you should be listening to them rather than trying to prove them wrong. You are misunderstanding the situation. There are lots of swamp and wet woodland fossils in the Carboniferous record because that's what fossilises.For fossils to form you need certain conditions. By far the commonest condition is deposition of sediment. For that, you need water. That's why you see so many wetland fossils in the Carboniferous; not just because they were common (although they were indeed common) but because they were the organisms that lived in conditions that lent themselves to successful fossilisation. Wet swampy lowlands are good at producing fossils. Arid highlands, dominated as they are by erosion rather than deposition, are very poor at producing fossils. And the Devonian is named for the little English county of Devon, but that era is not defined by being in Devon.You're getting too hung up on the name. What exactly are you after? A quick Wiki search is enough to disprove your strange notion that there were no mountains in the Carboniferous. Check out the Appalachians.It makes no difference. The marine record disproves your pet theories just as much as the terrestrial. Disagree? Well then, just show me a Permian whale. Or a Carboniferous turtle. Or an Ordovician sea-snake...Mutate and Survive

You are missing my point by referring to the HLA REGION of genes. MY point relates to specific genes at specific locations, to count the alleles in an entire region of genes to make your point, actually completely misses my point.Furthermore, my original point does not refer to humans, because the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood, and therefore a few more alleles remains consistent with the partial human bottleneck at the flood. It's animals like cows that we should be looking at. I'm fine with this, but a few alleles is at least consistent with a bottleneck. Have you got any proof of any lack of bottleneck in large terrestrial animals?

I don't see much evidence generally for the flood already having been falsified. Not much on this thread either. Your post is pretty theoretical, name some evidence that disproves "biblical dogma like the Flood". Its easy to make sweeping claims, this thread is about evidence. This has been my own point from the start, so I don't see how I could be misunderstanding this point, when I have been pointing out this very fact about the Carboniferous on this thread. I was a bit confused with this answer, I was curious regarding your proof of carboniferous studies of interior non-wetlands land-based regions and asked for a link. Instead you give me a link regarding the Appalachians which are full of sea, coastal and wetlands fossils. I would really appreciate it if you could back up your original point about terrestrial non-wetlands regions in the Carboniferous. Have you got links to prove that these regions have been studied?Regarding the Appalachians, have you got proof that they were highlands before the carboniferous? There are some terrestrial fossils high in the Appalachians, but these are normally of a low wetlands or rain forest type landscape of fauna/flora. If you have proof of high altitude fauna/flora carboniferous/permian fossils in the Appalachians you would have a point that the Appalachians were not low lying before the PT boundary. What you are asking for is completely illogical. The ocean before the PT boundary was oxygen rich, and cold. The ocean after the PT boundary was oxygen depleted and warm. The marine life that survived into the oceans of the Triassic would have been in isolated salty oxygen depleted warm lakes, something of complete rarity in the carboniferous. Find that rare lake, and I will find you your fossils. Only problem is that lake would be filled with Triassic marine life and therefore dated to the Triassic instead of the carboniferous.To find a turtle in Carboniferous oceans is as illogical as trying to find a lion in carboniferous swamps.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Fair enough. but as you pointed out there are some scientific studies which predict the rare existence of angiosperms during the carboniferous. If you could point out what studies have been done on the dry highland regions of the carboniferous, we could then have some consensus on what fossils are found from those regions.

I'm not sure if this is true, we'd have to look stuff up. However, I am sure that that wasn't your point. What you were talking about was the amount of water necessary for a global flood. Now, the existence of even one substantial mountain in the Carboniferous undermines your point.And geologists tell me that in their youth the Appalachians must have been at least 5km high. Now even if they were the only mountain range in the world back then (which they weren't) and the rest of the Earth was as flat as a pancake, that would still leave you with a lot of water to account for.

I did some research on this lately. What I found, in summary, is that after all these excitable reports of things like pollen and fern spores even as far back as the Cambrian, scientists looked at the reagents used to prepare rock samples for microscopic examination and found that they were contaminated with microscopic organic material such as ... yeah, you guessed it, pollen and spores.This explains the anomalous observations; it also, you will note, explains the nature of the anomalous observations: they were always of microscopic stuff that could get into the factory where the reagent is produced and find its way into a bottle, and never something like a human skull, which couldn't. Or, for that matter, an entire angiosperm plant, rather than just the pollen of one. Here's a paper: Now, if the reagents are contaminated with microscopic material such as pollen, which they are, then we would expect palynologists to find pollen in the wrong places, and they do. But we wouldn't expect anyone to find angiosperm plants in the wrong places, and they don't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ah, I see that I mis-spoke a bit and you didn't look at my link. The "over 2,000 alelles" refers to each of two specific genes, each one gene at one specific location. The single HLA-1A gene has 2,132 alelles and the single HLA1-B gene has 2,798 alelles. HLA-1C has a mere 1,672 alelles. DNA injections after the fludde? From whom?Over 2,000 is not "a few more". Tell exactly how many alleles could have been added.(Jesus may have been haploid; if not, He added at most one allele). Well, there's the IPD-MHC Database, which lists 60 BoLA-DQ1 alleles, 130 BoLA-DRB3 alleles, 82 BoLA-DQB alleles, and 60 BoLA-DQA alleles in cattle. Lots of other large animal data available there.

You really are choosing the wrong place in the genome to make your point, this locus is ambiguous, with several loci and several genes at each locus. Looking at these particular genes its not a simple matter of two possibilities in each human on the ark (total of 16 possibilities among 8 individuals), this area is known as a super-locus. Many allelic possibilities can be inherited from parents, not just 4 possibilities.
HLA-DR - Wikipedia Interesting point about Jesus, but he is not known to have had children despite the claims of fictional movies like the Da Vinci Code. The bible refers to others, known as the "sons of the gods" who mated with the daughters of men. Kind of reminds me of the Greek myths which say the same thing. I have heard rumours that some genes in humans are of a different pattern than that found in all other life forms. But rather than getting into discussions about mythical stories, let's just say I am not claiming a human bottleneck at the flood, only a bottleneck of other large terrestrial animals. I looked there on that site, and could not find the exact figures you are presenting. Would you mind giving a more specific link than the home page, or quote the figures directly? thanks I am really interested in those figures and the backing for them.

good point, well said.Have you got any proof that the Appalachians or any other mountain range was more than just a series of hills during the Carboniferous or earlier? The fossils seem to indicate rain forest/swampy conditions there, not highlands conditions.You would have thought that radiometric data was sufficient to establish dates of mountains, the revision of the dating of the appalachians by 120 million years, just highlights how inconclusive these studies are. Without Permian highlands fossils found in those mountains, they could have easily been foothills and achieved their height during the Permian/PT boundary upheavals.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/11/061117123212.htmEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You say, and I quote: "you should read up on the landscape of the carboniferous. FLAT. Not mountainous like today'.Now, we have read up on the landscape of the Carboniferous. It turns out that according to geologists, there was this great big Appalachian orogeny that made big mountains all over the place. We did indeed "read up on the landscape of the carboniferous". And you were completely wrong.So now you move the goalposts. You don't like what geologists found, so now you wish to say: "Have you got any proof that the Appalachians or any other mountain range was more than just a series of hills"?You told us to read up on the landscape of the Carboniferous, and we did. It was not flat, it had mountains.This is what geologists tell us. And you yourself were quite happy to believe every word they say so long as you could believe that they were saying that there were no mountains in the Carboniferous. Now that I say otherwise, you want a standard of proof more rigorous than you found sufficient to believe in your own dumb daydreams.

But you need to claim a bottleneck in humans, and ALL large land animals. The bottleneck would have to appear in essentially all alleles.While there is some flexibility among some of he animals, we know exactly how many humans are alleged to have been on the ark, and for three of the eight, we know their parentage. There should be a bottle neck in the human genome.

I'm not referring to HLA-DR, I'm referring to HLA-1A and HLA-1B. And other single genes found on the site I linked to.10 possibilities is much more reasonable (remember what mutations have to take place for there to be 16 possibilities) than 16, and most likely less, unless you think Noye selected his wife and his son's wives based on complete sequencing of each of their genomes. Pre-fludde. Irrelevant. Goodie for you. I notice that you haven't come up with a hint of a ghost of a valid reason we should not expect a human bottleneck at the alleged fludde. I am claiming that the diversity of human genes precludes the possibility of the human race arising from 8 people a few thousand years ago. I've presented evidence to support that, which you keep ducking. Really? You can't find it! Wow.On the left side click "Cattle". Under that click "Alignments". Select a locus from the drop-down list, and change any other boxes that you wish. Click "Align sequnce now". Count the number of alleles listed. Same for any other large animal.

He thinks that the "sons of gods" which may have mated with humans pre-fludde magically added thousands of alleles to each human, which allowed Noye et. al. to carry them all, and then they disappeared after the fludde to be replaced by the usual one or two alleles. Or something like that.

Well once magic is invoked, there is no point in asking for evidence.

Here's an interesting paper: Allelic Genealogy and Human Evolution:

quote:

---

Genetic variation at most loci examined in human populations indicates that the (effective) population size has been ∼ 10⁴ for the past 1 Myr and that individuals have been genetically united rather tightly. Also suggested is that the population size has never dropped to a few individuals, even in a single generation. These impose important requirements for the hypotheses for the origin of modem humans: a relatively large population size and frequent migration if populations were geographically subdivided. Any hypothesis that assumes a small number of founding individuals throughout the late Pleistocene can be rejected. Extraordinary polymorphism at some loci of the major histocompatibility complex (Mhc) rules out the past action of severe bottlenecks, or the so-called founder principle, which invokes only a small number of founding individuals when a new species emerges.

​

...

​

The Noah’s Ark hypothesis with a bottleneck effect is not particularly supported by data on the mtDNA genealogy. The shallowness of the genealogy (fig. 3 ) can simply be a natural consequence of genetic drift ceaselessly operating in a population of effective size 10⁴ and therefore cannot be any direct evidence for the bottleneck that might have taken place when modern H. sapiens began to spread. However, the HLA polymorphism indicates that the long-term N_e over 10s of Myr could not be small, possibly ∼ 10⁵. The discrepancy between the two estimates of N_e, 10⁴ from presumably neutral variants and 10⁵ from HLA alleles, likely arises from the different time scales of these polymorphisms, suggesting that human populations were either larger in size or relatively isolated from each other > 1 Mya. In any event, the HLA polymorphism is clearly incompatible with any model that invokes severe bottleneck effects, and thus the Noah’s Ark hypothesis with a severe bottleneck is not acceptable.

​

...

​

Finally, I would like to point out the value of HLA loci in the study of human evolution. It is the trans-specific nature of polymorphism that allows us to trace the population history of human lineage for a much longer time scale than do short-lived neutral polymorphisms. All in all, the 35Myr-old divergence of DRBI alleles implies that, throughout almost its entire history, the human lineage has never experienced severe bottlenecks. If, with respect to polymorphism, any species shows a pattern and a time scale of polymorphism similar to those at HLA loci, then this species must also have evolved without experiencing the founder effect.

---

Note the use of HLA as a marker, and especially note that there twarn't no human bottleneck a few thousand years ago. Ergo, no fludde.(Effective population size N_e is always much smaller than actual population size, until you get down to ridiculously small populations such as eight).Another interesting site is The ALlele FREquency Database. Under Search | Loci | {either choice} we see 80 genes with 50 (chosen for no particular reason) or more alleles, the largest number being 381 for KCNIP4:

Locus Symbol	Chromosomal Position	#Sites
KCNIP4	20731332	381
FAM190A	91055148	311
SORCS2	7190015	288
GRID2	93241587	249
GALNTL6	1.73E+08	238
FSTL5	1.62E+08	194
STK32B	5055774	180
ANK2	1.14E+08	179
UNC5C	96087865	176
ODZ3	1.83E+08	171
INPP4B	1.43E+08	168
FRAS1	78974131	165
SORBS2	1.87E+08	156
PALLD	1.69E+08	153
LDB2	16498825	138
ARHGAP24	86391360	135
MAML3	1.41E+08	129
APBB2	40813714	120
COL25A1	1.1E+08	113
GPM6A	1.77E+08	106
PPP2R2C	6321396	102
LPHN3	62359319	101
NR3C2	1.49E+08	101
BMPR1B	95678443	100
TBC1D1	37227947	99
LRBA	1.51E+08	99
SLIT2	20252267	98
SPOCK3	1.68E+08	95
SHROOM3	77356246	92
RNF150	1.42E+08	89
ABLIM2	7966812	88
LIMCH1	41359624	85
GABRB1	47055106	85
SCFD2	53554583	84
FAM13A	89644931	84
EPHA5	66181030	83
PCDH7	30718333	82
SCD5	83547584	77
C4orf22	81253388	76
LOC285501	1.79E+08	76
SLC2A9	9824619	75
CAMK2D	1.14E+08	75
DCHS2	1.55E+08	74
LOC285441	1.87E+08	73
MAPK10	86932486	72
JAKMIP1	6024426	71
KIAA1239	37244135	71
ARHGAP10	1.49E+08	71
AFAP1	7757650	70
PPP3CA	1.02E+08	69
CLNK	10488568	68
ATP8A1	42407670	68
SYNPO2	1.2E+08	64
LOC285419	1.25E+08	63
ENPP6	1.85E+08	63
C4orf19	37457601	62
LOC100505875	79892811	62
SLC4A4	72063044	60
RBM47	40420437	59
ALPK1	1.13E+08	59
EVC	5716922	58
PROM1	15970349	58
LNX1	54325990	58
PRDM5	1.22E+08	57
CCDC149	24804238	56
DDX60L	1.69E+08	56
GLRA3	1.76E+08	56
IRF2	1.85E+08	56
KIAA1211	57036306	55
TSPAN5	99387827	55
PDLIM5	95370805	54
FAT4	1.26E+08	54
TEC	48138235	53
C4orf37	98477808	53
SPATA5	1.24E+08	53
TLL1	1.67E+08	52
BANK1	1.03E+08	51
LOC100507266	4550448	50
AFF1	87861459	50
TBC1D9	1.42E+08	50

We realize that you don't want to discuss the human bottleneck at the alleged fludde, but the data shows that there was none. If you claim there was a fludde, you need to explain the origin of the many alleles we see. Extra credit if you explain how Noye ensured that there were as many alleles as possible of each gene in the eight people on board.Edited by JonF, : delete garbage at end