|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
mindspawn writes:
Is that your final answer? hey maybe there were alien bulls too pregnating cows.."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
No, that is a huge number per generation. That is 35-40, potentially different mutations, in every individual in that generation. In humans right now, that would be 7 billion times 35-40 mutations per generation. 245-280 billion mutations! Do you get it? I'm not too into semantics, they are a huge distraction from the essence of the points being made. The essence of the point is that there will be point mutations and therefore a growing number of alleles in the last 4500 years since the flood. What you are saying, agrees with this. Whether 37.5 of 3 billion base pairs in an individual is a "few" or "many" is missing the main point of discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Whether 37.5 of 3 billion base pairs in an individual is a "few" or "many" is missing the main point of discussion. Does this mean that you're dropping that whole "are there more that 14 alleles" argument from Message 132?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
The evidence has already been presented. When we look at the P-T Boundary, there is no flood layer! What more is there to say?! No flood layer, no flood. It really is that simple. A global flood would create a global flood layer, a great seam of sediment that extends across the entire world. It does not exist. End of story. It is your job to show a flood layer. It is not anyone else's duty to show you what is not there. You're supposed to show us what is there. Now if you can detect a huge layer of flood sediment at the P-T, then go ahead and show it to us. If not, admit that your hypothesis is busted. There is evidence of a unique and large-scale pattern of water-borne sedimentary movement at the PT boundary. No-one has shown evidence in this thread that this unique pattern cannot be caused by the flood. It has been pointed out that normal fluvial patterns exist before and after this unique layer, this highlights the fact that the layer is unique.
The ones that you only imagined you mean. There were no global movements of sediment back then. They only exist in your mind because you misunderstood a few technical papers that were above your pay grade. The reality is that the P-T Boundary tends to reflect a drier period, not a flood. No, the reality is the PT-boundary reflects the change from a wet environment to a dryer period. The following period , Triassic, is the dryer period. The boundary is the transitionary period to that dryer period. I showed studies of four regions of earth that showed overfill situations.
That is nothing more than a fantasy. Sorry, but it just is 1) Humans need water to survive. Human populations can't survive in deserts and on top of mountains, not for long, not without support. That's why, throughout history, human settlements have been next to water. Your little fantasy depends on humans (and birds, and fruit-bearing trees and all the rest) living in places where they could not possibly survive. That's laughable. 2) Your fantasy is based on inconvenient creatures dwelling in regions of poor fossilisation for one reason only; it means you can wish away the evidence. It reeks of ad hoc reasoning. You are only forced to believe this as a rationalisation to explain away the fact that the Pre-Triassic world contains none of the species that the Bible mentions.
something like the fantasy of desperately looking for transitional fossils and naming one of an extinct species as a transitional fossil? Evolutionists explain away their missing transitionary fossils all the time.
So in essence, you think that they were hiding.
thats a copout. I explained some reasons why they would not be found. They were rare, because dry environments were rare. They were rare because dry environments do not fossilize easily. They are rare because no-one is regularly digging deep down into carboniferous dry zones, they are digging deep down into wetlands areas (coal). Carboniferous areas are generally deep down. these reasons seem like a copout to you, but they are more logical than the lack of transitionary fossils found by evolutionists.
So you are deliberately asking for fossils from regions that do not produce fossils. That's pretty ironic, since that is what you are asking of me.
None of this matters anyway. Yes, a given species or genus might be restricted to a particular area, but birds as a whole are global. Fruit-bearing trees are global. Grasses are global. Take a look at this distribution map; All your specific examples of widespread fauna/flora are simply missing my point. I did not claim that only migratory birds are widespread. MY claim is that you do get localised fauna/flora. Its impossible to find all the carboniferous fauna/flora, because quite simply we haven't dug deep everywhere yet, and some fossils do not fossilize, especially dry region ones. And regarding grasses, its the hardy plants that survived the dry Triassic, that would then have to adapt when wetter conditions occurred after the Triassic. There were more suitable plants in the carboniferous swamps, but when lacking, this gives grasses a chance to survive in regions they never used to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
3) Your fantasy about dating mistakes depends is simply naive. Let me remind you; the oldest human fossils are only tens of thousands of years old. The P-T event was 252 million years ago! Geologists do not make that kind of mistake. It is simply absurd. Your fantasy depends on an entire profession being composed of incompetent imbeciles. Geologists are not imbeciles. You are not smarter than them. Don't be so arrogant. If they can re-date the Appalachians by 120 million years due to a single geological find, nothing is set in stone (excuse the pun). In the light of dating errors, it would be naive for anyone to always believe currently assumed dates are correct. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Does this mean that you're dropping that whole "are there more that 14 alleles" argument from Message 132? Yes, in the light of the mutation rate, 4500 years would create a significant number of new alleles, even if there was a bottleneck. So its a hard argument to prove either way. The cheetah does show a more recent bottleneck than the others, I believe it would be possible to compare large terrestrial animals with mice and ants and beetles to determine any relative changes , however even some fish or mice or beetles etc could have bottlenecked through the flood and so the comparison would not always apply. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
So you want evidence of genetic variance; well it is pretty readily available and has been since even before we knew anything about DNA and how it worked. Consider transplants. One reason we knew about the bottleneck in Cheetahs long before we knew about how DNA worked was that it was possible to transplant skin from one cheetah to another without rejection. That is simply not true for humans or almost any other species of animals. There is simply too much genetic variation between individuals of ANY other species of animal for transplants to succeed without major efforts to repress rejection. Yes I do believe in genetic variance and a recent cheetah bottleneck.
Here is your chance to explain how the Biblical Flood might explain what we see. A biblical flood would move large amounts of sediment, as found in the PT boundary. It would also cause a major transgression, and major regresssion as found geologically at the PT boundary. Some regions would have slow enough deposition as to cause a similar layering to the Mozambique flood, as found in late Permian deposition. Some regions would be stripped of sediment as oceans receded rapidly as confirmed by the regression model at the PT boundary. Fine sediments would drift down last when the flood settles , and when water receded this would leave pools and lakes of water and create a layer of clay at many places during the PT boundary , this is found. Due to the destruction of vegetation, there would be masses of vegetation lying under sediment and under water and masses of vegetation left in the open (trees can float for a year) after the flood. These would cause a sudden spike in marine and terrestrial fungi. This is found at the PT boundary. The clay layer, and the fungal spike layer are argued as boundary markers for the PT transition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Yes, in the light of the mutation rate, 4500 years would create a significant number of new alleles, even if there was a bottleneck. So its a hard argument to prove either way. No, 4500 years is not enough to produce the diversity we have today. That proves that there was no global flood 4500 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Yes, in the light of the mutation rate, 4500 years would create a significant number of new alleles, Show your calculations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi mindspawn,
If they can re-date the Appalachians by 120 million years due to a single geological find, nothing is set in stone (excuse the pun). In the light of dating errors, it would be naive for anyone to always believe currently assumed dates are correct. Would you agree that the dates for the Appalachians (or at least part of them) are more accurate now than before? Does this correction in the Appalachians significantly affect dates of other mountain formations? Is this not how science works, by updating information whenever new information shows that previous information was invalid?
... In the light of dating errors, it would be naive for anyone to always believe currently assumed dates are correct. ... Can you explain the correlations between dates derived by different methods? See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for examples of correlations that are used to validate the different methodologies. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
So I've pointed out exactly why your made-up "criterion" for a bottleneck is wrong, in several different ways. Yet you are still looking for more than 14 alleles, and hand-waving away the examples I've given of many more, and ignoring the fact that your "criterion" requires claiming a bottleneck in humans. yeah fair enough. I agree that counting alleles is a difficult criteria to judge a bottleneck on, especially considering the mutation rate which would increase the number of alleles over a 4500 year period.
OK, you're wrong. Why is it that you (and so many other creationists) are so in love with Making Stuff Up rather than Finding Things Out, and then presenting your Made Up Stuff as established fact? (In looking back I see you saying "only one base pair differs (very recent mutation) ", which is yet another error; single base pair variations are not necessarily recent). I think you missed the heart of my point I said "ok I see", by that I meant that I now see what you mean and understand it better. I then went on to explain my previous misconception. I wasn't "making stuff up", I was agreeing with you.
So, calculate how many different alleles should have arisen and fixed in any particular population for which we have data in your time frame. No idea! Tell me. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Would you agree that the dates for the Appalachians (or at least part of them) are more accurate now than before? Does this correction in the Appalachians significantly affect dates of other mountain formations? Is this not how science works, by updating information whenever new information shows that previous information was invalid? exactly! I like this about science. But this means that little is set in stone, if geologists can be so very way out.
Can you explain the correlations between dates derived by different methods? Sometimes a few dates correlate. Sometimes they do not. Some dating methods are calibrated based on assumed dates of other dating methods and therefore will correlate due to the rate being established like that. The exact measurements of before and after isotopic quantities when measuring rates is not readily available to the public so even the original measurements are not clear. Neither is the size of those sample given, a smaller sample would deteriate slower than a larger sample. What was the size of the sample in laboratory rate measurements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes I do believe in genetic variance and a recent cheetah bottleneck. If so then the Biblical flood never happened.
A biblical flood would move large amounts of sediment, as found in the PT boundary. You keep making that assertion but never provide any evidence or explain how the large amounts of sediment were produced in the first place. Model. Flood geology. Present a model instead of simple assertions.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi again mindspawn
exactly! I like this about science. ... So every time information is updated we get closer to the truth, yes?
... But this means that little is set in stone, if geologists can be so very way out. There is a large difference between the tentativity of conclusion based on the best information available at the time and conclusions that are wild assumptions.
Sometimes a few dates correlate. Sometimes they do not. Some dating methods are calibrated based on assumed dates of other dating methods and therefore will correlate due to the rate being established like that. The exact measurements of before and after isotopic quantities when measuring rates is not readily available to the public so even the original measurements are not clear. Neither is the size of those sample given, a smaller sample would deteriate slower than a larger sample. What was the size of the sample in laboratory rate measurements? Rather than just assert things like this, why don't you take a whack at explaining the correlations provided in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Show your calculations.
These are just apporximations:Well at the given rate of 1 mutation per 78 million base pairs, this would mean about 38.5 mutations per mammal per generation (each mammal having approximately 3 billion base pairs). At a generation per mammal of about 4.5 years till breeding this would mean each mammal has about 1000 generations since the flood. I'm not sure about the rate of accumulation of these mutations, maybe you can enlighten me on that, but if there is 100% accumulation, this would entail 38500 point mutations since the flood. Divide that into 22000 genes and each gene would average approximately two point mutations (1.75) . However this is not precise because certain genes relating to sexual reproduction and immunity have a much higher rate of mutation than other genes and therefore would produce a lot more alleles at that locus.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024