Summations Only

I thought that everyone was aware that myself and bluegenes are having a discussion about mutation rates in the more appropriate biology forum. That discussion is still in its early stages, I feel our point of dispute centres around:
1) rates of mutation specifically in the Y-chromosome which are a relative unknown, and known to be many times higher than in the rest of the genome.
2) the actual average number of germline mutations in the entire Y-chromosome that have accumulated in men since the last common male ancestor of all humans.Even if we can get at best an approximate answer to those two questions, then we can apply an approximate generation time of between 18 -30 years and we can then generate a highly approximate timeframe for the common male ancestor. Unfortunately we are not even close to concurrence on all three approximations.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : Removing unnecessary comments

Don't forget coconuts - they float.I'm betting that cows love coconuts almost as much as sea beans and they can eat the rotting fish and watch the mountains form until they've sprouted.

Not at all. My placing the flood at the PT boundary is based on geological observations that are promoted by science, and not on so-called "creation science". (the observance of a major transgression, the observance of a widespread clay layer at the boundary, late Permian clastic rocks and disarticulated fossils, early triassic sedimentation etc etc)Biology, I am using generally accepted mutation rates, and careful analysis of supporting documents to prove my point.Radiometric dating, I haven't even started on this, there is an observed July drop in decay rates which is significant, and matches similar patterns found in the observation of particle behaviour (particle physics).I am consistently using mainstream science to make my points.

The paucity of evidence disputing the flood is lacking. Which is the only reason I am on this thread. Could you kindly differentiate between your posts as an administrator and those as a participant. I assume when bias is shown, as per the above comment, you are posting as a participant and I am allowed to respond. Is this correct?

You have been given evidence that rules out your PTB Flood scenario.You have chosen to ignore that evidence.If you insist upon demanding to see evidence that you've already been given, people are going to notice.This is not a reasonable way to engage in debate. I suggest that you quit squabbling with Admin (discussion problems should go to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread) and respond to the fact that your theory has been falsified.I mean, why even bother to talk about a hypothesis that's already in the garbage can?Mutate and Survive

And it is falsified by the very evidence that you asked to see.You asked to see an unbroken terrestrial PTB section.I showed you the Xuanwei.Doc A mentioned the Hopeman Sandstone.The Karoo Supergroup is another, and it's truly humongous as well, but it hardly matters; only one contradictory example is needed to falsify a hypothesis.If you don't respond, people are going to assume that you have no response and are just carrying on regardless, a grossly dishonest approach.So, what's it going to be then eh?Mutate and Survive

Hi Mindspawn,Everyone is being asked for evidence. There's no bias. The point of evidence I'm raising is that you don't seem to understand what evidence of absence looks like. If someone says, "DNA analysis disproves the ark," because current genetic diversity could not arise from a tiny population in just 4500 years, and they offer evidence of mutation rates, and the moderator suggests that there should be more discussion of mutation rates, then perhaps you should respond to one of the participants with evidence of mutation rates instead of accusing the moderator of bias.

Hi Mindspawn,Let's try to take the cow discussion in a constructive direction. Obviously cows can eat more than grass. Anyone who doubts this should read this and this.I think what people are actually trying to get at is where the food for foragers would come from. Modern cows eat around 50 pounds of forage a day, but we're not trying to fatten the ark's cows, just make sure they survive, so let's call it 10 pounds per day. On day 1 after leaving the ark, what did the cows eat? What did the camels eat? What did the elk eat? What did the moose eat? Based on the answers to questions like these people can determine which animals would survive and populate the Earth (which is the topic of this thread).I think people are telling you that it seems to them that there would be no grazing food available for a long time after the flood, and that therefore it doesn't seem like grazing animals would have had much chance of survival.

You're right, that's a better place for that discussion, here's a link: Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?But let's avoid the definitional issue this time. The most recent common ancestor is not a genetic bottleneck.

Thanks for doing the research. I agree with you about the buildings, Gobekli Tepe was the earliest building I was aware of, until now. I should have trusted the wording used regarding Gobekli Tepe as the earliest ever temple found so far.I see now that I did overemphasize Turkey, but Turkey is the place of the first temple, the source for modern Indo-European languages, and the first signs of civilization.
The Daily Beast
English language 'originated in Turkey' - BBC NewsPossibly we can agree on following link as a reliable list of relative dates of early existence of genetically modern man:
List of first human settlements - WikipediaIf we take the first 6 places in that list, the 100 000 bp + range, namely Ethiopia, Morocco, UAE, South Africa, Israel, Oman, this would place early man's epicentre in the Ethiopia/Sudan/Egypt region. Which is consistent with mitochrondrial DNA analysis, and we have a good map of that DNA analysis in the same link.I believe this is loosely consistent with a restricted Arabian plate population, which would have migrated into Africa quickly, before spreading back into Mesopotamia as the shallows of the Arabian plate receded. By the time Noah died, mankind had been expanding its territory for 300 years, and so its not even likely that anyone even died during the period mankind was concentrated in Turkey. Thus the epicentre of fossils is consistent with a Mesozoic Arabian plate which was essentially the edge of Africa.

Hi Mindspawn,This began when I responded to your complaints (which should have been posted to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread) and continued when you expressed a concern that you might be banned, at which point I explained to you why you're meeting with so much scorn and skepticism. When I mention the paucity of your evidence it isn't because you don't keep referring to evidence, because you obviously do. But that evidence doesn't seem to have any influence on your conclusions. The evidence appears to be there only so you can claim to have looked at evidence.You look at the 65-million year old P-T boundary with no fossils either before and after that even vaguely resemble modern fauna, and certainly no signs of human presence, and then you reach conclusions completely at odds with that evidence, and then you expect protection from ridicule and derision? Do you think moderators are here to prevent honest responses to outlandish propositions? I know you don't think your ideas outlandish, but surely even just a modicum of self-awareness would hint that there's something amiss when no one else in the world sees the evidence leading to your conclusions.I am not a participant in the discussion, but in order to keep discussion on a constructive footing I will step in when relevant issues of fact are at stake. If you come up on the wrong side of a fact and I make note of it, that is not an indication of bias, just as I wasn't biased against whoever was claiming cows can only eat grass.

That's in the realm of speculation, and I don't like specualtion. I was not there to count the seeds.Given the high concentrations of Permian flora, how many seeds do you think existed at the time of the flood? A million times a billion? I have absolutely no idea.How many seeds would have been stuck in the topmost layers of the flood? Maybe 10%, 100 000 times a billion? I have no idea.How many would have survived the 150-300 day soaking and still be able to germinate? Maybe 10% Let us say 10 000 times a billion, but i have no idea.How many of those would have been able to grow in saline soils, maybe 10%, let us say 1000 times a billion, but this could be totally wrong.How many of those would have been in walking distance of the ark over a few weeks, let us use about 1 percent of the earth's surface , we get 10 billion plants that survive. But this could be totally wrong, I have no idea.How many plants would have been subsequently grown through being seeded by birds. I have no idea.Now please someone give me exact figures so we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief that plant re-growth in significant numbers is completely impossible. I need exact figures, not speculation, if you are to state with confidence that the whole scenario is impossible. Edited by mindspawn, : Correcting maths

Ignoring your silly ideas on compressed dating, your scenario is contradicted by the mtDNA patterns.There is no "migrated into Africa" shown by the mtDNA patterns. There is an out of Africa migration instead, diversifying from type L1.Just another place where you are wrong.

Except that you now know perfectly well that the Flood didn't take place at the PTB, so waffling on about Permian flora seems rather pointless. You already have proof that your scenario is impossible. You have so far chosen to ignore it and carry on regardless.Is that what an honest enquirer would do?Is that what Jesus would do?Either take another (doomed) attempt at refuting the evidence or admit defeat.Mutate and Survive

Grasses did not exist in the Permian flora:

The earliest firm records of grass pollen are from the Paleocene of South America and Africa, between 60 and 55 million years ago (Jacobs et al., 1999). This date is after the major extinction events that ended the age of dinosaurs and the Cretaceous period.

​

Maintenance

So it looks like grasses developed nearly 200 million years after your P-T boundary flood.But that's OK, as cows didn't exist back then either.