Summations Only

Sorry, forgot about the rest of your post. They do if you understand them. Certainly. But that's why I was asking you how many elephants/mammoths were on the ark. You don't need thousands of each species, but you can't bottleneck each species down to one pair. I see you're now suggesting 14 members for each species of large animal, which is better genetically, but of course leaves you with the problem that there's no room on the Ark for them all.Let me ask you a question. In your own personal YEC model with your idea of the flood at the P-T boundary, are you seriously suggesting that all the land creatures that we find in the fossil record since the boundary were on the Ark? It's loosely effective, but there are variables. Counting the differences that have gone to fixation between two population groups can give you an approximate time of divergence if you know the approximate mutation rates and generation times. But there are still other variables like effective population size, and all this is why you get people like me giving my personal guestimate of 6 to 13 million years for our divergence from the chimps.

The bible story involves migrations from the mountains (hills) of Ararat into the Arabian region. I don't see why you can claim that the bible stories do not involve the Arabian plate.There are no definite boundaries between tectonic plates involving continental collisions. The following link describes Mt Ararat as being part of the collision zone, in a highland uplifted plateau. (EAP)
"The EAP is part of the active Alpine — Zagros — Himalayan orogeny, a mountain belt that developed its topographic relief upon the closing of the Southern Neo-Tethyan Ocean, when the African and Arabian plates began colliding with Eurasia (Figure 2). Perhaps the most famous (or infamous) locale in this uplifted highland plateau is the ~5165 m (16946 ft) stratovolcano Mt Ararat"The bible says the ark landed on the "mountains of Ararat", not specifically on the mount itself. I agree the mountain did not even exist then, so the bible is describing the locale of the ark in terms of the dominant mountain that existed when the bible was written. The word for mountains also means hills.The ship rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on Ararat’s mountains
And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia No desperation at all, I have explained where they are. I already posted a link that showed that some scientists predict a pre-boundary biome in northern latitudes similar to modern biomes, containing origins of modern organisms so the concept is not absurd.
Page not found - Plant Index
Stebbins (1974, 1984) thought that alpine biomes of northern latitudes might have been the center of early radiation of angiosperms. A similar idea, the eastern Asian centers hypothesis, was put forth by G. Sun et al. (2001). Based on the recovery and study of fossil pollen casings (palynomorphs) recovered from deep-sea drill holes, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt (2004) suggested that early flowering plants might have evolved in a boreal cradle.The carboniferous island of Siberia is the perfect setting for this "boreal cradle" or "alpine biome of northern latitudes". Unfortunately most of this now Central Siberian plateau area is remote and covered by volcanic rock, and so little research on pre-Triassic fauna/flora from this plateau has ever been done. Only when this area is as extensively researched as other areas of the planet can you conclude I am wrong. I agree the world shows Triassic terrestrial fossils. The worldwide appearance of amphibious reptiles becoming terrestrial is what we would expect from a flood that destroyed terrestrial fauna. Reptiles were also suited to the post-boundary environment (hot/dry/low oxygen) and so terrestrial reptiles from the ark would have dominated.

I believe there has been rapid speciation since the flood because of huge ecological gaps post-flood, and then even more ecological gaps after the K-T extinctions. I believe some of the post-flood reptiles (early Triassic) were of amphibious origin and were therefore not even on the ark. I believe that there were size increases due to post-flood conditions, and so the size of fauna during the flood was smaller than post-flood and modern conditions. So my answer is no, they were not all on the ark, only some smaller versions of later fauna, and most likely younglings.The ark was a huge ship. The area was slightly larger than a football field, and more than 3 stories high. First mammals were small in stature. Due to lack of space, its more likely that they used calves. 14 elephant calves of small elephants wouldn't have taken up much space. Even the much larger modern Indian elephants have very small calves. (91 kg)
"The first true known member of the family, and therefore the great-great ancestor of our modern elephants was Moeritherium. Moeritherium was about the size of a pig and it is believed to have lived in swampy environments." (14 piglets) Yes you can get an approximate time of divergence if you know approximate mutation rates and generation times. You do not need to know population size if you are comparing individuals, because that reflects actual germline mutations. But to compare populations brings in too many variables. The average differences between two populations would make sense, but the links you posted did not express mutations in that manner, so far nothing has been presented that indicates a conflict between DNA analysis and the ark story.

Why do you say that 30 mutations are needed on the y chromosome?
You posted a link in another thread that showed about 1600 germline mutations in the y-chromosome since a single common ancestor. We disagreed on generation times, you assumed a 20+ generation period, I believe generations were less than that. In medieaval times, life expectancy was sometimes only 30. they could not have kids at 25 years old, they would be too old to parent them. During Roman times they were getting married at 12 years old. Unless you can prove otherwise I would put the average age of parenthood at about 18-20 years old during the last 4500 years. Thus , using 20, there are 225 generations since Noah. That means each generation should average 7.1 mutations in the Y-chromosome. The y-chromosome represents about 2% of the genome and has a germline mutation rate about 4.8 times higher than the rest of the genome:Y chromosome - Wikipedia
The human Y chromosome is particularly exposed to high mutation rates due to the environment in which it is housed. The Y chromosome is passed exclusively through sperm, which undergo multiple cell divisions during gametogenesis. Each cellular division provides further opportunity to accumulate base pair mutations. Additionally, sperm are stored in the highly oxidative environment of the testis, which encourages further mutation. These two conditions combined put the Y chromosome at a greater risk of mutation than the rest of the genome.[10] The increased mutation risk for the Y chromosome is reported by Graves as a factor 4.8.[10] However, her original reference obtains this number for the relative mutation rates in male and female germ lines for the lineage leading to humans.[17]1000 Genomes Researchers Find Variable Germline Mutation Rates in Humans | Genomeweb
"Researchers have long speculated that males might pass on more germline mutations than females, since far more cell divisions are needed for sperm than egg production, upping the chances that glitches will occur when DNA is copied and partitioned into these sex cells.
Even so, germline mutation rates remain murky, the study's authors explained, since past estimates of germline mutation rates have relied on indirect measurements based on substitution rates between related species, such as humans and chimpanzees, or from mutation rates extrapolated from disease studies."Mutation rates are variable , but are measured around 1.5 germline mutations per 100 million bp. This equates to 48 per generation:
Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Review on germline mutation rate in humans (Campbell and Eichler 2013)Summarizing the above data, considering the Y chromosome has about 1600 mutations since a single common ancestor and 225 generations since Noah, we would need 7.1 mutations per generation. Considering that the Y-chromosome represents about 9.6 % of all germline mutations, we would expect 74 mutations per generation in the whole genome. We observe about 48 per generation. This is close considering we cant measure mutation rates in the earliest humans. If we factor in modern studies that show higher mutation rates related to lifestyle, its possible lifestyle factors affected those earlier rates:http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2013/07/130701135550.htm
"Researchers looked for DNA mutations in the children and found that they were more frequent in the group with low income fathers than in the group of high income fathers. These results suggest that the parents living conditions before conception may directly impact the health of their children."

This would require that the mutation rate in the Y chromosome to be about 10 times the rate of the rest of the DNA in a human. Where do you get this number you are "considering"?

Stop trying to weasel out of your mistake by putting words in my mouth.You claimed that Ararat was on the Arabian Plate. You got that wrong, along with much else. Grow a spine and admit your errors. Doesn't say that it's on the Arabian Plate though does it? The uplift was caused by the plates colliding, but Ararat is still part of the Anatolian block.You know, when you get something wrong, the correct course of action is to muster some goddamn dignity and admit that you were wrong. I have been wrong on these forums many, many times and when that has happened, I have simply admitted it. You're not doing that. What you are doing is making excuses to explain away your errors. Grow up. When you're wrong, just admit that you are wrong. Honestly, you'll feel better for it. No, it absolutely does not mean that. It simply means that your theory is wrong.The Bible is talking about Mt Ararat, the same Mt Ararat that we see today. The reason that your PT Flood fantasy doesn't align with the Bible is because your theory is wrong. But instead of admitting this, you blame the Bible.The truth is that your notion of human settlement on the Arabian Plate is nonsensical. That plate has been flooded many times over. It was flooded in the Triassic, it was underwater during the Jurassic, it was underwater during the Cretaceous. The very notion of human habitation there starting in the Triassic is ludicrous! The reason why your theory doesn't fit the tectonic evidence, doesn't fit the fossil evidence, doesn't fit the Biblical narrative, etc, is because your theory is wrong. It's really that simple. No you haven't.The Biblical narrative has birds as one of the Earliest creatures. The reality is that there are no bird fossils before the Jurassic. To prove your theory, you need to show evidence that birds existed before the PT boundary; not just immediately prior to it, but going back hundreds of millions of years before it. You have provided no rationale for this, not even one of your trademark excuses. No you haven't. that is a misrepresentation of the studies cited, which only deal with plants. You need to do better than that. Are you having memory problems? I have already showed you that this is a fantasy. Sorry squire, but scientific enquiry doesn't work like that.It's not "Prove me wrong or I'm right by default!". You have to prove your own theories right by providing solid positive evidence. If you can't do that, then you have nothing but hot air. The problem for you is that your theory demands a total wipe-out of life, followed by a radiation from a single point. That is directly contradicted by the existence of terrestrial life, all over the world, going right through the PT boundary. No wipe-out. No radiation. Even in the very earliest Triassic, there are terrestrial organisms - and not just amphibians or reptiles, but plants, invertebrates, and more - spread out, all across the world. That is the direct opposite of what your theory predicts. Time to grow up and admit that the evidence does not match your silly Flood theory.Mutate and Survive

Herd animals such as bison would already have been extra-vulnerable to predators if reduced to only two or fourteen individuals. Sending inexperienced calves out into the cold cruel world would have increased the extinction rate immensely. It seems unlikely that there would have been any left for all of the present species to flash-evolve from.

Except that the Bible as you read it places Noah at far too recent a date. I have yet to see a single estimate of the time frame for mtDNA Adam that is earlier than 40,000 years ago using mutation rates applicable for the Y chromosome and most estimates are three times more than that. That means that a factor of ten change in those rates are required to make Noah plausibly the correct ancestor.As for whether you'vw shown an impossible coincidence, well there are only two possible orders, and there is always going to be a most recent common paternal only ancestor and some most recent common maternal only line. So we are not talking about a huge coincidence, just a 50-50 chance.And despite what early data shows, the current data does not make the order all that clear anyway.

Are you suggesting that all Proboscidea descended from 14 Moerotherium over the last 4,500 years? And at the same time you express incredulity at humans and chimps descending from a common ancestor over a time scale of millions of years? Indicates to whom? DNA analysis tells us that humans certainly did not go through a tight bottleneck of three brothers and their wives 4,500 years ago. And that's in direct conflict with the Ark story.

Define speciation.Identify some reptiles that could be former amphibians without macroevolution.

Look on the thread that's about this, particularly Message 53. Look at the research paper, and if you think I've got it wrong, then tell me where and how.By all means continue the discussion on that thread, because we're likely to be told it's off topic here.

Well apart from the fact that you got the math wrong, the question would be not how many mutations occur but how many are measurably prevalent.

The y-chromosome has about 2 % of the base pairs in a human.
What is the Y Chromosome?
In humans, the Y chromosome spans about 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and represents approximately 2% of the total DNA in a human cell.The Y-chromosome has high mutation rates (factor of 4.8)
Y chromosome - Wikipedia
The human Y chromosome is particularly exposed to high mutation rates due to the environment in which it is housed. The Y chromosome is passed exclusively through sperm, which undergo multiple cell divisions during gametogenesis. Each cellular division provides further opportunity to accumulate base pair mutations. Additionally, sperm are stored in the highly oxidative environment of the testis, which encourages further mutation. These two conditions combined put the Y chromosome at a greater risk of mutation than the rest of the genome.[10] The increased mutation risk for the Y chromosome is reported by Graves as a factor 4.8.[10] However, her original reference obtains this number for the relative mutation rates in male and female germ lines for the lineage leading to humans.[17]2 x 4.8 = 9.6

Good point, maybe there were a lot of adults too. But remember there were a lot of extinctions as well, so I am not denying high extinction rates. Mammals were a lot smaller then, so I don't foresee space problems on that huge ark.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Regarding rates, I'm in a middle of a discussion with bluegenes regarding these rates. If you can fault my logic and come up with completely different figures you are welcome to point it out, but currently accepted mutation rates are a more of a problem for evolutionary assumptions than the Noah story.I don't claim impossible co-incidence, but its just interesting that nothing contradicts the bible. (except for dating assumptions)