Summations Only

Is that your final answer?

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.

Does this mean that you're dropping that whole "are there more that 14 alleles" argument from Message 132?

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. 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. 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. 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. That's pretty ironic, since that is what you are asking of me. 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.

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.

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.

Yes I do believe in genetic variance and a recent cheetah bottleneck. 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.

No, 4500 years is not enough to produce the diversity we have today. That proves that there was no global flood 4500 years ago.

Show your calculations.

Hi mindspawn, 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? 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.

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. 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. No idea! Tell me.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

exactly! I like this about science. But this means that little is set in stone, if geologists can be so very way out. 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?

If so then the Biblical flood never happened. 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.

Hi again mindspawn So every time information is updated we get closer to the truth, yes? 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. 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.

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.