Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8143 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-25-2014 7:53 AM
59 online now:
cheryllocascio, Kapyong, mike the wiz, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Taz (6 members, 53 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume:
Total: 738,574 Year: 24,415/28,606 Month: 1,716/1,786 Week: 578/423 Day: 5/113 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 61 of 130 (391898)
03-27-2007 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
03-26-2007 9:02 PM


Re: grmorton
I missed Razd's response. Of Neanderthals.

So I can go to 300,000 years based on the evidence of burials as religious behavior.

Of course this is a different species line than one that leads to anatomically modern humans, so now we have the issue of having at least two species of religious hominids - and that can be taken as evidence for religion in their common ancestor, or at least a pre-disposition for religion in the common ancestor.

I would absolutely disagree that Neanderthals have no input to modern human lineages. It is true only that they seem to have no mtDNA input, but that does not rule out nuclear DNA input which much recent evidence seems to support. Consider this:

“For the past few years Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, has been studying genes potentially involved in human cognition, in particular one called microcephalin. Mutations in microcephalin cause the condition microcephaly, characterised by a small head and various neurological symptoms.”
“Like many genes involved with brain development, microcephalin has evolved rapidly in humans. In previous studies, Lahn showed that one variant of microcephalin appeared about 40,000 years ago and has since swept through the population, propelled by the power of natural selection. The new variant is found in 70 per cent of living people. "We don't yet know exactly what this variant does or why it is being selected for - it could be something to do with cognition," says Lahn.”
“The obvious interpretation is that the new version arose 40,000 years ago via a chance mutation in the microcephalin gene. Lahn thinks otherwise. In a paper published last year, he looked at a haplotype within microcephalin. On the basis of sequence differences between the old and new versions of the gene, he concluded that the two are so different that they must have diverged at least 1 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 18178).”
“This combination of deep ancestry on one level and shallow ancestry on another suggests that something very unusual might have happened. It is as if the new version of microcephalin split off from our evolutionary lineage a million years ago, then jumped back in 40,000 years ago. According to Lahn, that is exactly what happened. By far the most likely explanation, he says, is that the newer version of the gene evolved in a separate species of human - probably Neanderthals - and then entered our lineage through interbreeding.” Dan Jones, “The Neanderthal Within,” New Scientist, March 3, 2007, p. 31

Then there is the Melanocortin-1 gene, which produces red hair. It is not found in Africa, where, according to one school of anthropological thought, 100% of our ancestors came from. Guess where this gene is found--only in the former territory of the Neanderthals. Guess when it arose. About 80-100,000 years ago, prior to the time when any anatomically modern men were in Europe, yet this gene is now widespread in Europeans--indeed, I have(actually had for mine is now grey) a red beard meaning I have the gene.

Here is what another guy says:

“In order to relate MC1R polymorphism to the demographic history of humans, we then estimated the ages of MC1R alleles assuming a coalescent model. African and non-African data suggest times to the most recent common ancestor of approximately one million years. The functionally significant Arg151Cys and Arg160Trp alleles we estimate at ages of around 80,000 years and for the Arg142His and Asp294His alleles 30,000 years, with standard deviations about half of these expectations. Such ages are compatible with the geographic patterns of alleles we have observed, and are testable in further studies of Mc1R diversity.” Jonathan L. Rees, "The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R): More Than Just Red Hair," Pigment Cell Research, 13(2000):135-140, p. 138

And an old newspaper account said this:

"Studies have revealed that carriers of the gene are five times more sensitive to ultraviolet light than others and therefore far more likely to contract skin cancer. Given that the gene is so much older than the earliest anthropological records of Stone Age Homo Sapiens, who were responsible for the spectacular cave paintings produced around 30,000 years ago, Harding believes that MC1R must have originated in the Neanderthals.
"The gene is certainly older than 50,000 years and it could be as old as 100,000 years," she said. "An explanation is that it comes from the Neanderthals-the other people that were here before modern man came out of Africa."
Harding believes that the prevalence of the ginger gene in so many of today's population provides evidence that early Homo sapiens bred with the Neanderthals and that many of today's humans are descended from unions between the two species. So does that mean it is possible that Scottish redheads are directly descended from the
Neanderthals? "It seems to be the logical conclusion to what I am saying," said Harding. "But I don't know if people are going to like me for saying that." The Scotsman Publications Ltd.
Source: SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY 15/04/2001
http://www.aulis.com/news12.htm (I don't know if this is still out there on the net).

So if we make the common ancestor argument for Neander and Cro-Magnon, we should (logically) make the same argument for the common ancestor for chimp, gorilla and human.

The other part of the argument involved tool making.

The oldest evidence we have of preserved tools - stone ones - come with Homo habilis at 2.5 million years, and ancestral (supposedly) for both Neander and Sapiens.

I have read lots on Chimps but don't see any chimps building altars yet, nor burying their dead. When I do, then I might have more sympathy with King's suggestion. As to H. habilis being 'human' in the sense that he had behaviors which were similar to ours, I would have to say he did. Only humans, so far, manufacture chipped stone tools. But some australopithecines were making stone tools even earlier.

I don't think I am making an argument for religion based upon common ancestor. That seems to be your position, not mine. I am arguing it based upon EVIDENCE, what is found in the record. Bilzingsleben is an archaeological site dating 425,000 years. That can take me back to 600,000 years past that, I don't have evidence, but as you said, somethings don't fossilize.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2007 9:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2007 9:53 AM grmorton has responded

    
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 62 of 130 (391903)
03-27-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by mpb1
03-26-2007 11:50 PM


Re: on Genesis and Floods/
MPB wrote
Forgive me if I'm generalizing, but from what I've read, it seems that as of this second, the geological/anthropological community would probably agree that:
1.) There is no evidence of a worldwide flood ever.

I agree with that

2.) There is no evidence that even a regional Flood, as described in the Bible, could have occurred in at least the last five million years.

I have told you this and unless someone can point to a place where a year long flood could occur, this remains true.

3.) There is no evidence that the biblical Ark could have been built by any society until sometime within the last 10,000 years.

There are many anthroplogists who believe that building boats took place as long ago as a million years. Chimps can't even cross rivers, but somehow, mankind crossed rivers 2 million years ago because he is found from Africa to Europe to Asia 2 million years ago. I cited such evidence but you ignore it. Why is that?

It appears that unless there is a forced agenda, the current anthropological evidence is as much against your theory as you believe the geological evidence supports your theory.

You are drawing wrong conclusions again.

Once you undermine the clearly-described biblical Ark and say "maybe a boat," which is even a stretch - for FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO - you have also departed from Scripture in an ENORMOUS WAY, in my opinion, as much as I am departing from it by saying, "maybe the story shouldn't even be in the Book."

I probably can be criticized on that account, but isn't it you who doesn't want to Bible to be false?

So it seems that absolute intellectual honesty would practically require the complete dismissal of your theory, which is why I would assume it has gained very little traction in the years you have been sharing it.

Ever hear of Ludwig Boltzmann and Paul Erhenfest and Ludwig Wittgenstein? Boltzmann developed statistical mechanics. The physics community rejected it all his life--he finally killed himself. His student Paul Erhenfest took up the topic, he too was ridiculed and ignored. He too killed himself. Ehrenfests student, the Ludwig Wittgenstein left physics, moved to London and became a philosopher--a very famous one. Today, statistical mechanics is widely taught in Physics. Lack of traction is one of the most illogical reasons to reject a view. Reject it if it doesn't match observational data if you will, but not because no one believes it. Such a standard is not even scientific.

If you can answer this argument without any anger, I'd really appreciate it. Remember, you came into my topically-unrelated thread and pounded your theory over my head - REPEATEDLY. So please don't be offended that I am now asking for pure intellectual honesty in assessing your theory.

Don't be offended if I say that you so poorly understood what I was saying about anthropology that you claimed I was saying things I wasn't saying. Thus, your 'rejection' of my view doesn't bother me because frankly, you don't know enough anthro to know up from down.

You have harshly criticized Hugh Ross for his anthropological teachings, and I couldn't care less, though you believe I am biased toward him. So I'm not "for" one and against the other. I want to apply the same standard to all.

Yes I have harshly criticized Ross because they don't even mention some of the data which is out there, that goes against their theory. They act as if it doesn't exist. All ideas have some contradictory data. The intellectually honest thing to do is to mention that which doesn't support you and explain why you think it isn't important.

If Hugh is full of crap in certain areas - most likely even when it comes to the Flood - I can accept that, and I want to make sure that in any written analysis I do, that these problems are pointed out.

Yes, the mesopotamian flood concept, in which water flows uphill is entirely ludicrous. but then, ignoring the earliest artistic piece, the phonolite pebble found by Mary Leakey in Olduvai Gorge dating over a million years old in which a face is pecked into a rock, is bad.

It seems that ANTHROPOLOGY destroys your theory, and GEOLOGY, perhaps among other things, would destroy his theory (and everyone else's, when it comes to the Flood at least).

Please cite the EVIDENCE, not your opinion. What exactly within anthropology, what observational data destroys my theory (and lets distinguish between that which destroys and that which doesn't fossilize).

Using modern scientific testing methods, that pretty much rules out the Flood story altogether, UNLESS you force an agenda, and HOPE for more favorable evidence to support your theory, as you and Hugh are both doing.

Well, I would agree to a point that agendas drive everyone, including those who don't want the Scripture to be true. But, there are no 'scientific testing methods' that rule out the flood altogether. I doubt seriously that you could even describe precisely what testing methods you are referring to which means that your rejection here is being done from emotion, rather than knowledge. Care to try to prove me wrong.

Edited to add; There is no doubt that my views are risky. I am risking that data might falsify them. I intentionally want them that way. I do not want views which are incapable of being falsified. And if data goes against me, then my views will go into the trash heap of history. Unfortunately, most Christians seem to want views which can never be falsified and thus, they make no predictions, and risk absolutely nothing. I won't be cowardly like that.

On the other hand, If someday some prediction comes along which my views alone predicted, then well, it will be peaches and cream as they say.

It is easy to have a view which risks nothing and makes no demands upon oneself. Mark, you take the easy path. It seems to suite you. Just don't ask me to admit something that I don't believe. I don't believe you have even struck the target anthropologically speaking.

I do want to say that the one piece of data which may go against my views, meaning is actively contradictory of it, is the MHC complex, which has occasionally been interpreted to mean that there is no genetic bottleneck for the past 30 million years. Others don't see it that way. I want this out there for honesty sake. if I demand Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana admit what their theories don't match, then I must be prepared to do it myself.

Edited by grmorton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mpb1, posted 03-26-2007 11:50 PM mpb1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by mpb1, posted 03-27-2007 11:54 PM grmorton has responded

    
mpb1
Member (Idle past 2606 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 63 of 130 (391912)
03-27-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by grmorton
03-27-2007 11:36 PM


Re: Genesis and Flood

From Wikipedia:

"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

---------------

So what I was referring to is this:

If ALL EVIDENCE that is currently available STRONGLY SUGGESTS (to the point of near unanimity) that whatever species of human or hominid was walking the earth five million years ago DID NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF BUILDING THE BIBLICALLY-DESCRIBED ARK, then all you have is wishful thinking, and a continued scouring of the earth for evidence that so far has NOT been found - to suggest that the biblically described Ark could have been built five million years ago. (And if you reduce the Ark to "boat" to ease your burden of proof, your entire theory proves absolutely nothing anyway.)

Just like many other theorists, your theory rests ONLY on the HOPE that it will one day be substantiated by future discoveries. It rests on the hope that evidence will one day be found to CONTRADICT the existing body of evidence that says your theory if FALSE.

---------------

EDIT NOTE ADDED: I posted the message above, refreshed, and saw that Glenn had edited his message to add what I would call a bit of honesty.

Glenn,

From day one, when we began battling via e-mail, a month or so ago, I told you I wasn't necessarily FOR or AGAINST your theory. I just didn't want to fight that battle because I didn't see it as NECESSARY to a study of ORIGINS.

The ORIGIN of man HAPPENED somehow some way, whether or not the biblically-described Flood ever did! That's why I have been unwilling to set the clock back five million years and FORCE any origin theory into beginning prior to that date!

*** NOW *** you finally admit that what you have is a TESTABLE THEORY.
It MAY one day be proven true. But for that to happen, THE EXISTING BODY OF EVIDENCE MUST BE PROVEN FALSE.

If the currently available evidence says "No hominid made no friggin' Ark no five million years ago!" which it CURRENTLY DOES - to put it in moron's terms, then you shouldn't go around screaming incessantly for people to stop the presses and not only hear you out, but instantly move the clocks back on all their origin theories and research!

One need not be an anthropological genius to know that the current status of your view is: HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

Thank you for your honesty. That's all I wanted. Now get off my back and stay off. If we can talk without your condescending BS, great. If not, I'll be just fine without your views being shoved down my throat, thank you very much.

-

Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by grmorton, posted 03-27-2007 11:36 PM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by grmorton, posted 03-28-2007 7:28 AM mpb1 has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3576
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 64 of 130 (391916)
03-28-2007 12:32 AM


Testing - We have a glitch
A message 64 from RAZD is showing up at the all topics listing, but it is not at the topic itself. As I type this, the topic only has 63 messages. We shall see what happens to this message.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit: It seems that we may have somehow lost a RAZD message.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2007 8:26 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 65 of 130 (391943)
03-28-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by mpb1
03-27-2007 11:54 PM


Re: Genesis and Flood
Mark, citing Wikipedia is not what was sought. I didn't ask for a definition of what a scientific testing method was, I asked for what scientific testing methods dispproved the flood--specifically. I am using the word flood as opposed to global flood for a reason here. You claimed that scientific testing methods ruled out the flood, I ask again WHAT specific testing methods. I had suggested that you couldn't name them and you haven't. Care to try again?

Your argumentations shows that you need to learn much more about the individual methods of science, and not from Wikipedia.

Mark, I don't give a flip whether or not someone rejects my views who 1. doesn't know geology(by your own admission), 2. doesn't know anthropology (by your own admission), 3. doesn't know genetics (by your own admission) and 4. can't discuss the details of the evidence either way on any model. Your rejection is not based upon knowledge, it is based upon well who knows what. The best advice I can give you is read the anthropological literature--not just one or two books, and read geological literature--same thing.

A couple of posts ago, you asked why my views have no traction. First, you have no idea of the number of books I have sold, and you have no idea of the email I receive. Secondly, the biggest problem is that Christians in the area of creation/evolution are in general not scientists themselves and worse are not knowledgeable in science(why do you think most of them are young-earth creationists). They will admit this, but then claim that they have enough knowledge in an area to draw judgements about what is true and what is false. Without having the knowledge base I question whether or not one can draw correct conclusion. If they do, it is merely by random chance.


The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by mpb1, posted 03-27-2007 11:54 PM mpb1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2007 10:00 AM grmorton has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15960
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 66 of 130 (391949)
03-28-2007 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Adminnemooseus
03-28-2007 12:32 AM


Re: Testing - We have a glitch
Added by edit: It seems that we may have somehow lost a RAZD message.

yep. I'll try to recreate it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-28-2007 12:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15960
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 67 of 130 (391962)
03-28-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by grmorton
03-27-2007 11:16 PM


Re: grmorton - reply attempt#2 ...
It seems my original reply was lost (see Message 64 by Adminnemooseus).

I would absolutely disagree that Neanderthals have no input to modern human lineages. It is true only that they seem to have no mtDNA input, but that does not rule out nuclear DNA input which much recent evidence seems to support. Consider this:

“For the past few years Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, has been studying genes potentially involved in human cognition, in particular one called microcephalin.
... one variant of microcephalin appeared about 40,000 years ago and has since swept through the population
... On the basis of sequence differences between the old and new versions of the gene, he concluded that the two are so different that they must have diverged at least 1 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 18178).”
...
Then there is the Melanocortin-1 gene, which produces red hair.

I agree that until we have y-chromosome comparisons between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens that interbreeding is not ruled out. There is also evidence that speaks for it but not conclusively (child fossil and could be sterile):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/ice_people1.shtml

quote:
In 1999, the skeleton of a child was unearthed in Lapido, Portugal. Dated to around 25,000 years ago, the remains show a mixture of Neanderthal and modern features, suggesting it may be a hybrid. But small fragments of Neanderthal DNA extracted from three different specimens show that they were not closely related to any present day human populations.

and (same evidence):

http://www.nycep.org/ed/download/pdf/Delson_1999e%20.pdf

quote:
Erik Trinkaus (Washington University) ... agreed to give an informal talk on the new Portuguese find, which had just hit the news. The Lagar Velho 1 child skeleton was associated with a typical Gravettian burial and dated to about 24,500 BP. The combination of anatomically modern tooth size and proportions, chin structure, and morphology of the radius and pubic ramus with the claimed Neanderthal-like inclination of the mandibular symphysis and tibial plateau and, especially, tibial robusticity suggests to Trinkaus that this four-yearold was a hybrid between Neanderthals and modern humans. The late date, younger by 3,000 to 4,000 years than any dated Neanderthal, was taken to imply a lengthy period of such hybridization. Members of the audience questioned both the meaning of tibial robusticity and the likelihood that individuals beyond the first few hybrid generations would continue to preserve such clearly diagnostic character states without showing intermediate conditions. The description of this specimen has now been formally published,1 accompanied by a commentary that questions the interpretation provided.2

Don't know what's happened to this one since. As far as I am concerned the jury is out but the likelyhood is low that any significant flow of genes occurred.

Yes, I am aware of the microcephalin and the Melanocortin-1 gene information. I am also aware of evidence of several bottlenecks in the Homo sapiens line, one ~70k years ago and one ~130k years ago (and others older and of disagreements about them):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/new_batch1.shtml

quote:
At one point, the numbers of modern humans living in the world may have dwindled to as few as 10,000 people.

"Our data suggests there was a bottleneck that was not that recent," says Goldstein. The genetic data puts the likely date for this event at just before 100,000 years ago.

There may also have been other bottlenecks that contributed to the small amount of genetic diversity we see in modern humans. Professor Stanley Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign believes that the eruption of the volcano Toba in Sumatra roughly 70,000 years ago was responsible for a volcanic winter that caused an instant ice age.


Bottlenecks change the rates at which mutations are selected. I have a great deal of skepticism whenever genetic analysis articles talk about times when genes first evolved, as they are based on an average rate of fixing genes and do not take in variations. See Human - Chimp split 4 million years ago?

I also have trouble with the claims that such genes could come from H. neanderthalensis when there is no evidence that they carry the genes. One could equally claim that the asiatic genes come from interbreeding with H. habilis in those areas.

Red hair itself is not a difficult mutation to derive independently, especially as we also have blond hair that is NOT explained by the neander populations AND the two seem to be linked.

This also gets into the area of sexual selection within the human populations, with the evidence being for greater sexual selection within female features for younger appearing females and bare appearing skin in females. Blonds appear bare compared to dark hair, red less so, then brown and black.

Sexual selection also explains a higher rate of fixation of genes in females than males, and this relates to the difference in the "genetic times" of "mitochondial eve" and "y-chromosome adam" -- another reason to distrust genetic information timelines. But I'm ranting ...

"The gene is certainly older than 50,000 years and it could be as old as 100,000 years," she said. "An explanation is that it comes from the Neanderthals-the other people that were here before modern man came out of Africa."

This puts it smack in that ~70k year bottleneck timeline. Another explanation is that it was in low proportion in the H. sapiens population before the bottleneck event, but happened (luck of the draw) to be in sufficient proportion in the survivors that it could then spread in the resulting population while there was less active selection against new mutations (as occurs in recovery periods).

I don't think I am making an argument for religion based upon common ancestor. That seems to be your position, not mine. I am arguing it based upon EVIDENCE, what is found in the record.

Correct it is my argument. But the evidence of a disposition for religious behavior in both neander and sapiens and in both chimps and humans speaks to being evidence for a disposition for religious behavior in their common ancestors. Behavior can be learned and transmitted horizontally, but only if there is a disposition for that behavior. A herbivore is not going to learn to eat flesh from observing carnivores.

... past that, I don't have evidence, but as you said, somethings don't fossilize.

And somethings don't appear in the genetic sequences either, that we can assign to different aspects of behavior. All we have are the relatively recent bits of evidence of DNA and catscans of brain activity showing similarities.

I think that hits the points I thought I posted last night.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by grmorton, posted 03-27-2007 11:16 PM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by grmorton, posted 03-28-2007 9:43 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15960
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 68 of 130 (391966)
03-28-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by grmorton
03-28-2007 7:28 AM


Re: Genesis and Flood - getting back to the topic?
I also have trouble with some of this from the first post:

Message 1 by mark (mpb1):
Glenn Morton hypothesis:
The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago

THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks...

Is this his mis-interpretation of your position? I don't see why it would apply after 5M years and not before.

Thanks.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by grmorton, posted 03-28-2007 7:28 AM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by grmorton, posted 03-28-2007 10:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 69 of 130 (392043)
03-28-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
03-28-2007 9:53 AM


Re: grmorton - reply attempt#2 ...
Much of this reply is concerned with the evidence for h. sapiens being the same biological species as the archaic hominids. I believe this to be the case, and is one reason I move Adam back as far as I do. I will cite some famous anthropologists who were the ones who initially made me aware of that position--a position they advocate, contra mbp1 and others.

My view does require that humanity extend way back in time, but contra Mark's claim, there are many mainstream anthropologists who believe precisely this!

RAZD wrote:

I agree that until we have y-chromosome comparisons between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens that interbreeding is not ruled out. There is also evidence that speaks for it but not conclusively (child fossil and could be sterile):

The question goes way beyond y-chromosome data. It goes to all the other chromosomes and the genes they contain. Melanocortin is not found on the y-chromosome; it is on chromosome 18. The Microcephalin gene, which appears to have come from the Neanderthals is on, I believe, chromosome 8.

The bbc link, may be a bit out of date and refer only to attempts to get mtDNA. The data I am citing is coming from within modern humans and there is evidence about 40,000 years ago, for genes, long separated from our lineage, jumping back into the human lineage. Interbreeding is a very likely mechanism.

Of the Lagar velho child (the one cited in the BBC report), on June 24, 1999, I asked Eric Trinkaus about this child. This man has actually studied the child, indeed was called in by the discoverers. Trinkaus is the leading authority on Neanderthals. This is what I reported to a listserv about that discover:

-----------my email--------------
I e-mailed Trinkaus today and got a reply. He told me that the
thoracohumeral muscle insertions are not totally diagnostic but are
supportive of Neanderthal ancestry. However, he did state that there is a clear "difference particularly in the development of the pectoralis major insertion on the humerus". This difference is found among Neanderthal children as well as adults. Thus this muscle attachment is diagnostic of Neanderthal ancestry.

The article clearly notes this on the child:

"The left humerus has clear diaphyseal torsion and a prominent ridge
along the pectoralis major insertion leading up to the anterior greater tubercle. There is rugosity for the pectoralis major attachment, and the ridge creates a marked intertubercular sulcus and an anterolateral to posteromedial elongation of the diaphyseal cross section." Cidalia Duarte, Joao Mauricio, Paul P. Pettitt, Pedro Souto, Erik Trinkaus, Hans van der Plicht, and Joao Zilhao, "The Early Upper Paleolithic Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho (Portugal) and Modern Human Emergence in Iberia," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA, 96(1999):13:7604-7609.

>From the leg information I posted earlier
(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199906/0225.html) and from this
muscle attachment, the child must have had Neanderthal parentage.
--------end of my email----------

I still have a copy of Trinkaus's email to me, but I never pass on other people's emails because then they won't send me more.


http://www.nycep.org/ed/download/pdf/Delson_1999e%20.pdf

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Trinkaus (Washington University) ... agreed to give an informal talk on the new Portuguese find, which had just hit the news. The Lagar Velho 1 child skeleton was associated with a typical Gravettian burial and dated to about 24,500 BP. The combination of anatomically modern tooth size and proportions, chin structure, and morphology of the radius and pubic ramus with the claimed Neanderthal-like inclination of the mandibular symphysis and tibial plateau and, especially, tibial robusticity suggests to Trinkaus that this four-yearold was a hybrid between Neanderthals and modern humans. The late date, younger by 3,000 to 4,000 years than any dated Neanderthal, was taken to imply a lengthy period of such hybridization. Members of the audience questioned both the meaning of tibial robusticity and the likelihood that individuals beyond the first few hybrid generations would continue to preserve such clearly diagnostic character states without showing intermediate conditions. The description of this specimen has now been formally published,1 accompanied by a commentary that questions the interpretation provided.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This citation basically agrees with what Trinkaus told me.

Don't know what's happened to this one since. As far as I am concerned the jury is out but the likelyhood is low that any significant flow of genes occurred.

I actually think the jury is almost in on it. There is some interbreeding but the gene flow is quite small. There were few neanderthals and if a large number of Africans came into Europe, their genetic heritage would be swamped. Are you aware that among some Native American tribes, their genes today are far more likely to resemble Europeans than Native Americans? This is after only 400 years of a massive immigration to the Americas followed by interbreeding with the few remaining North Americans. Indeed, here is an amazing statistic.

"Wub-e-ke-niew wanted to learn about his own line of descent,
and to do so he worked out the genealogy of the
Ahnishinahbaeojibway. He entered some 60,000 names and
relationships into his computer. What he learned is that the
vast majority of patrilineages could be traced, not to Aboriginal
Indigenous Americans, but to Euroepan sources. he wrote a book
on this topic. Clara, who had done much of the analysis,
estimates that some 99 percent of the people who identify
themselves as Ahnishinahbaeojibway have Europoean patrilines.
Reasons for this are complex and purposeful. In a second phone
call, Clara told us she believes the high level of European
patrilines in the descendants of indigenous peoples is not
unusual in areas of European colonization. It reflects the
colonization process, and in some cases subsequent government
policy."Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and Human
Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 363-364

IF this process continues, in about 40,000 years we will have the observational data for people to claim that Native Americans are not the same species as us. The swamping of the genes of a few indigenous peoples by a much larger population of invaders is probably what happened to the Neanderthals.

But, there is even more evidence of the interbreeding. I presume that we can agree that the anatomically modern humans brought their traits with them from Africa when they invaded Europe. And I presume that we can agree that they didn't acquire new traits (blue eyes, red hair etc), SIMPLY by being in Europe. If their descendants acquired the traits of the Neanderthals, they didn't do it by standing next to them, but through lying next to them and doing what comes naturally when in that position with one of the opposite sex, (e.g. having sex).

With that as a basis, please explain how the earliest anatomically modern humans in EUROPE obtained the traits associated with the Neanderthals, when their anatomically modern African parents didn't have those same traits. And here are the traits I am speaking of. In these charts the Skhul/Qafzeh and African Eves are the parents of anatomically modern invaders of Europe.

Fossil Sample Meric Index femoral robusticity

European-Neanderthals-------------79.6
Skhul/Qafzeh---------------------------83.1
Early-Upper-Paleolithic--------------77.6
Late-Upper-Paleolithic---------------78.0
Mesolithic-------------------------------78.0
Medieval---------------------------------80.4
~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal
and Upper Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne,
2:9-69, Table 8, p. 35

I like this one, it is a measure of the largeness of the nose. The Neanderthals had HUGE noses. Notice that the small nosed Africans suddenly got BIG noses when they entered Europe. Amazing that this can be done without any sex being involved. As an aside, I lived in China for 14 months and I speak Mandarin. The Chinese racial slur against Europeans is Da bi zi, which means 'big nose'. Think of the Gallic or Britannic nose, compare them with Chinese noses and you will see that the description is apt.

Fossil_Sample______Nasion_Projection_(mm)

Neanderthals------------------29.3
African-Eve--------------------17.8
Skhul/Qafzeh-----------------12.4
Early-Upper-Paleolithic----21.9
Late-Upper-Paleolithic-----19.3
Mesolithic----------------------19.3
Medieval-Hungarians-------20.2
~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal
and Upper Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne,
2:9-69, Table 2, p. 17

The Mandibular foramen is the place in the jaw where the nerve to the teeth leaves the lower jaw bone. this is the place the dentist tries to shoot his novacaine. The Horizontal oval shape of the foramen is almost unique to the Neanderthals. And about half of them had it. Half had the normal form. But notice that the African invaders didn't have it at all. And once again, we are expected to believe that merely by standing next to a Neanderthal, the descendants of the AFrican invaders, who had no H-O foramen, acquired the H-O foramen without any sex being involved. Amazing powers these Neanderthals have.

mandibular foramen
European-------------------H-O-------------Normal
-----------------------------Foramen------Foramen
------------------------------%------------%

Neanderthal-----------------53-------------47
African-Eves-----------------0------------100
Skhul/Qafzeh-----------------0------------100
Early-U.-Paleolithic--------18-------------82
Late-U.-Paleolithic----------7-------------93
Mesolithic---------------------2-------------98
Medieval-Europeans-------1-------------99
~ David W. Frayer, "Evolution at the European Edge: Neanderthal
and Upper Paleolithic Relationships," Prehistoire Europeenne,
2:9-69, Table 7, p. 31

YOu an see that even today, some Europeans have this form of foramen. Frayer's article gives trait after trait like this in which the earliest anatomically modern Europeans were in between the Neanderthals and the real African invaders.

What I would like those who don't think there was interbreeding to explain is how on earth the invaders came into Europe and acquired Ancient European traits, without having any sex with them.

Yes, I am aware of the microcephalin and the Melanocortin-1 gene information. I am also aware of evidence of several bottlenecks in the Homo sapiens line, one ~70k years ago and one ~130k years ago (and others older and of disagreements about them):

Of the genetic bottlenecks, I would point out that populations of 10,000, which is considered a decent bottleneck, does not match at all the Biblical account. If one wishes the Biblical account to actually concord with the observational data, one needs the bottle neck of 2-5 people to be way way longer ago than 100,000 years ago.


Bottlenecks change the rates at which mutations are selected. I have
I also have trouble with the claims that such genes could come from H. neanderthalensis when there is no evidence that they carry the genes. One could equally claim that the asiatic genes come from interbreeding with H. habilis in those areas.

Well fine, if the gene came from H. habilis, H. erectus, or whatever older hominid, that fits my view of how to fit science with the Bible every bit as much as it does if the genes come from the Neanderthals. My views are not dependent upon the Neanderthals being the same species, because what I am saying is what Milford Wolpoff (whom I have personally met) says. Humanity is one single evolving species from several million years ago to the present. IN other words they say all hominids are Homo sapiens. Don't believe me? This is from a post I made in 1997 and last year.

Ernst Mayr the great taxonomist said that there should be only one
genus--Homo for the entire past 5 million years. He said
this in 1951 at the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium which gave rise to the modern taxonomy. He said that with any other lineage that is how it would be--Homo transvaalensis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens.

"The biggest bombshell dropped on the Old Guard, however, came
from Ernst Mayr, a German-trained ornithologist and specialist in
the naming (taxonomy) of species in nature. Using the new
yardstick of variability within populations, he stated that
'after due consideration of the many differences between Modern
man, Java man, and the South African ape-man, I did not find any
morphological characters that would necessitate separating them
into several genera.' He suggested that all the fossil human-
like specimens that anthropologists had discovered after so much
laborious effort over the preceding century be simply ascribed to
one genus, our own--Homo. In other words, the entire 'Age of
Description,' from before Darwin to Cold Spring Harbor, was a
waste of time. His opinion was that the differences were not as
great as between genera of other animals. This assertion meant
that the wonderfully diverse lexicon of human paleontology, a
virtual liguistic playground for the classically educated, with
melliferous names such as Plesianthropus transvaalensis,
Meganthropus palaeojavanicus, Africanthropus njarensis,
Sinanthropus pekinensis, Pithecanthropus erectus, and so on, were
to be replaced. Everything was now to be simply Homo, with three
species: Homo transvaalensis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.""
"Mayr's proposal went so far that even Washburn argued that at
least the South African Australopithecus be retained (instead of
Homo transvaalensis) because it showed such significantly more
primitive anatomy than members of the genus Homo. Mayr simply
countered that the population is what the species designates.
How one determines a genus is arbitrary. The definition is
gauged by the relative amount of difference that one sees
between the genera of other animals and, in Mayr's opinion,
hominid fossils don't show very much difference. To
anthropologists, this statement was a bit like telling a new
mother that her baby looks like every other baby. It did not go
over well."" ~ Noel Boaz, Quarry, (New York: The Free Press,
1993), p. 10

Here is a direct quote from Ernst Mayr:

"Summary

1.There is no conclusive evidence that more than one species
of hominids has ever existed at a given time.
2. It is proposed to classify fossil and recent hominids
tentatively into a single genus (Homo) with three species
(transvaalensis, erectus, sapiens).
3. The recognition of subspecies groups within the species
facilitates classification.
4.The ecological versatility of man and his slowness in
acquiring reproductive isolating mechanisms have prevented
the breaking up of Homo into several species."" Ernst Mayr,
"Taxonomic Categories in Fossil Hominids,"" Cold Spring
Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 15(1951)pp109-117,
reprinted in William White Howells, Ideas on Human
Evolution, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp
241-256, p. 256

Milford Wolpoff, no slouch in anthropology, beleives that Homo erectus, Neanderthal and us are members of the same species. He writes:

"No speciation events seem to separate us from our immediate
ancestors, and cladogenesis, the splitting of one species into
two, last characterized our lineage at the origin of Homo sapiens
some 2 million years ago, when members of what we once called
'Homo erectus' first appeared in East Africa. For 2 million
years, from the end of the Pliocene until now, ancient and modern
Homo sapiens populations are members of the sames
species." Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and Human
Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 34

Franz Weidenreich, one of the discoverers of Peking Man also thought that Homo erectus was merely a subspecies of us.

"His use of 'Sinanthropus pekinensis' was a convenience

'...without any 'generic' or 'specific' meaning or, in other
words, as a 'latininzation' of Peking Man....it would not be
correct to call our fossil 'Homo pekinensis' or 'Homo erectus
pekinensis'; it would be best to call it 'Homo sapiens erectus
pekinensis.' Otherwise it would appear as a proper 'species,'
different from 'Homo sapiens,' which remains doubtful, to say
the least.'""~Franz Weidenreich, "The Skull of Sinanthropus
pekinensis: A comparative study of a primitive hominid skull,"
Palaeontologia Sinica, new Series D, Number 10 (wole series No.
127), p. 246, cited by Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race
and Human Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p.
186

Try Helmut Hemmer who says the same,

"Since these features vary among the recent races no less
significantly than between different fossil groups, or between
fossil and recent populations, it is impossible to draw a line
anywhere for species delimitation unless one intends also to
split up recent man into several species. Therefore it seems
necessary to include all of these fossil and recent groups in the
single species H. sapiens."~Helmut Hemmer, "A New View of the
Evolution of Man," Current Anthropology, 10(2-3):179-180, p. 179

Jan Jelinek advocated that there was only one species of humans in:
Jan Jelinek, "Was Homo erectus already Homo sapiens? Les Processus de l'Hominisation,(CNRS International Colloquium, No. 599:85-89

"Robinson argued that in the broad view of human evolution, 'most
of the obvious physical change had already occurred' at the time
of the appearance of homo erectus. All subsequent human
populations were mainly characterized by a single evolutionary
trend, in his view, 'the realization of the cultural potential.'
he believed homo erectus and Homo sapiens should therefore be
subsumed in the single species Homo sapiens, because it has
priority.""~Milford Wolpoff and Rachael Caspari, Race and Human
Evolution, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 251

Haywood notes:

"From the neck down Homo erectus was, to all intents and purposes, a fully modern human." John Haywood, The Illustrated History of Early Man, (London: PRC Publishing Ltd., 2000), p. 30

Barnouw notes the same:

> > The reality is that only a small difference exists from the neck
> > down
> >
"From the neck down, Homo erectus seems to have been much like
ourselves but the skull was low browed, keel domed and thick
walled, with a cranial capacity ranging between 780 and 1,300
cubic centimeters. Homo erectus had heavy brow ridges and
lacked a chin. Behind the brow ridges there was a post orbital
constriction. The proportion of arms to legs was greater than
for present-day humans."" ~ Victor Barnouw, An Introduction to
Anthropology: Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, 1,
(Homewood, Ill: The Dorsey Press, 1982), p. 137

Most of human differences today are in the skull. Many Chinese and native Americans have extra bones, called wormian bones in their skulls which Europeans lack. I can assure everyone that the Chinese and us are one biological species and my half-chinese grand-daughter is proof of that.

Even Richard Leakey wrote:

"I am increasingly of the view that all of the material currently referred to as homo erectus should in fact be placed within the species sapiens [which would]project Homo sapiens as a species that can be traced from the present, back to a little over two million years." R. E. Leakey, 1989, ""Recent Fossil finds from East Africa," in J.R. Durant ed. Human Origins, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989),p. 57

Red hair itself is not a difficult mutation to derive independently, especially as we also have blond hair that is NOT explained by the neander populations AND the two seem to be linked.

I don't think you can say that blonde is not explained by the N's. Other anthropologists have already concluded, prior to the advent of the melanocortin work, that blond and ginger hair came from the N's.

Neanderthals are also traditionally drawn with black hair; but it
seems likely to me that such northern creatures would have been
blond or ginger. With their great manes of read or yellow hair
and their huge red beards their heads would have glowed like
sunflowers in the slanting northern sun, their faces as round as
an orang-utan's, though shaped by hair rather than by flesh. It
is a fanciful vision but it has more thinking biology behind it
than the standard image of the male neanderthal as a kind of down-
and-out." Colin Tudge, The Day Before Yesterday, (London: Pimlico,
1995), p. 220

This hair is found ONLY in the territory of the Neanderthals--amazing that this should be the case if there was no sex with Neanderthals.

This also gets into the area of sexual selection within the human populations, with the evidence being for greater sexual selection within female features for younger appearing females and bare appearing skin in females. Blonds appear bare compared to dark hair, red less so, then brown and black.

That isn't what brings blond hair. What brings it is something that is not found in Africa. Consider this:

"Recently, there has been some evidence that skin colors are
linked to differences in the ability to avoid injury from the
cold. Army researchers found that during the Korean War blacks
were more susceptible to frostbite than were whites. Even among
Norwegian soldiers in World War II, brunettes had a slightly
higher incidence of frostbite than did blonds." ~ Boyce
Rensberger, "Racial Odyssey," in Elvio Angeloni, Editor, Annual
Editions Physical Anthropology 94/95,(Sluicedock,Guilford, Conn.:
The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., 1994), p.40-45, p. 42

Neanderthals needed protection from frostbite, Africans didn't need it and thus didn't bring it with them when they invaded Europe! To deny interbreeding with the N's means that miraculously Africans developed the frost-bite protecting blond hair when they invaded a territory inhabited by a people who had lived 200,000 years in Europe when it was at its coldest. To me, it is amazing that people don't understand this data exists out there.

This puts it smack in that ~70k year bottleneck timeline. Another explanation is that it was in low proportion in the H. sapiens population before the bottleneck event, but happened (luck of the draw) to be in sufficient proportion in the survivors that it could then spread in the resulting population while there was less active selection against new mutations (as occurs in recovery periods).

When in doubt, go to the casino. So, if that is true, why don't we see it in low percentages in the Africans today? Did they go to the casino as well and lose at the roulette wheel? How convenient for your proposal!

Correct it is my argument. But the evidence of a disposition for religious behavior in both neander and sapiens and in both chimps and humans speaks to being evidence for a disposition for religious behavior in their common ancestors.

I challenge you to show me where and at what church chimps will worship this week. I don't buy the crazy idea that chimps have religion. I might sarcastically add, that people think my views wacko! but chimps having religion? Some evidence (other than a mere speculation) would be nice.

... past that, I don't have evidence, but as you said, somethings don't fossilize.

I can accept that not everything will be found, but I have read hundreds of anthro books and thousands of articles. I have never heard anyone suggest that chimps have that old time religion!

Enjoy.

I have. and I have given you the best shot of which I am capable.


The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2007 9:53 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2007 10:43 PM grmorton has responded

    
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2665 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 70 of 130 (392053)
03-28-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
03-28-2007 10:00 AM


Re: Genesis and Flood - getting back to the topic?
Razd wrote:

"Is this his mis-interpretation of your position? I don't see why it would apply after 5M years and not before."

The Bible says that the flood lasted 1 year, covered high hills, and landed an ark on the Mountains of Turkey. I looked for some place where this could happen. There is no place. The Mesopotamian basin slopes southward from the Turkish mountains to the Persian Gulf. If you pile a bunch of water on to that slope, it does what water does on any hillside, it would flow down hill, towards the Persian Gulf. At the speed of most riverine floods, the water would be largely emptied into the Persian gulf, carrying the ark, in about a week or two even if the water flowed at a very slow, two miles per hour. This argument is laid out and extended at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mflod.htm

Thus, I reject the Mesopotamian flood. Other sites which have been suggested include the Caspian basin. This place was suggested by Hugh Miller in the 1850s. The problem with that is that the Caspian has no big mountains and is far from Turkey. It also can't float an ark and land it on a high mountain without causing a global flood for which there is zero evidence. So I view that place as unlikely.

Ryan and Pitman suggested the Black sea as the site of Noah's flood, but, as soon as they wrote their book, I was online showing geologic data which indicated that they couldn't be correct. First off, the rate of rise of the water was about 1 foot per day. At the gradient the land has, that means that to avoid the flood one only needs to move about 300 feet per day and you will not be killed in the flood. That scenario hardly seems catastrophic. It would be like going to bed and waking to find your bed in the water. But merely moveing about 3 houses down the block, you would be on dry land again. Repeat that for 400 days and that is what they suggested.

One thing about the Black sea flood is that Ryan and Pitman no longer support the concept. I got in a debate with another geologist about it. I was citing the paleontological data which showed that assuming water flow from the Mediterranean into the Black sea, a particular floating animal should have entered the Black Sea earlier than it actually did. Without that animal being carried into the Black sea, it meant that there was no flowage in that direction. I emailed Ryan and Pitman about this issue and normally the use of my work title will elicit responses from professors. They didn't reply and later I lerned that further seismic data came up with data disproving their theory and they no longer seem to suppor the concept. An entire issue of Marine Geology was devoted to debunking the Black Sea Flood with Ryan contributing to it--an amazing thing if he still supports it.

No other place in the world matches the Biblical description except the Infilling of the Mediterranean. Here is the setting. In the Miocene, as Africa moved north, the Tethys ocean (a remnant of which we call the Mediterranean), became blocked both at the east and west ends of the Mediterranean. Evaporation in this area is so great that even today, if you built a dam across the strait of Gibraltar, you would evaporate all the water in the Mediterranean in about 4000 years. Not even the rivers emptying into the Med would provide enough water to keep it full. With the water evaporating, salt would be deposited. And that is what we find in the sediments of this time--salt deposits about 1 km thick.

During this period of time, sediments show land animals on the bottom of the Mediterranean. Sediments which used to be on the bottom of the Mediterranean but have subsequently been uplifted by the collision of Africa into Asia, show these land animals. Here is what was found on the former bottom of the Med.

“One Sunday afternoon in 1972 an amateur fossil collector dug into a hillside outcrop of gypsum-bearing rock in the Tarano Valley in the Piedmont region of northern Italy. He peered at the inside face of the thinly laminated anhydrite rock that had just split apart with the blow of his hammer and saw a specimen of an ancient eel the outlines of its entire body and fins splendidly preserved. The fossilization in this rock was exceptional because the environment at the time the sediment was laid down had been a briny lagoon whose tranquil bottom waters were devoid of oxygen. No scavengers had been able to tolerate such conditions.
“When the quarried slab was delivered to Carlo Sturani, an articulate and energetic professor of paleontology at the Institute of Geology of the University of Turin, he knew imediately that it was equivalent in age to the Gessoso Solfifera of Sicily and the anhydrite and salt recently discovered by the Globmar Challenger. He visited the cliff to undertake a detailed investigation of a succession of fossil-rich rocks. Along with more eels he found foraminifera, corals, echinoderms, conch, herring, small flounder, dragonflies, leaves, acorns, land turtles, freshwater reeds, and roots of trees still in place. In a three-hundred-foot cliff Sturani could observe a moderately deep former sea that had dried out and become a tidal flat with algae and mud cracks. Then it became a shallow lagoon so concentrated by evaporation that its brine precipitated massive banks of selenite from which the first eel had been discovered. After a while the lagoon turned into a brackish lake, sometimes filled with freshwater. Then the lake withered into a peat bog as the region progressed from marshland to a sequoia forest. Abruptly, in the span of a tenth of an inch of rock, it was once again an open deep sea situated far from land. The transformation from sea to land and back to sea had taken less than half a million years. Except for those privileged to have been on the Glomar Challenger, no one else had ever expected that a major sea such as the Mediterranean could have evaporated so rapidly and refilled so quickly.” ~ William Ryan and Walter Pitman, Noah’s Flood, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998), p. 89-90

This land slab has been verified by drilling cores into the sediments even today on the bottom of the Med. In about 1/10 of an inch, the sediments go from continental land sediments and fossils to deep deep marine muds and fossils. The benthic foraminifera (bottom-dwelling animals, benthic=bottom dwelling, not floating), show that the collapse of the Mediterranean dam was at least 3000 feet (1000 meters) deep. Cibicidoides kullenbergi is found on the deep ocean bottom in the Atlantic and on the ocean bottom immediately in the sediments deposited by the flooded Mediterranean.

"This species, usually typical of water depths greater than 1000-1200 meters is biconvex with the involute side more convex than the evolute." ~ Ramil Wright, "Neogene Benthic Foraminifers fro mDSDP Leg 42A, Mediterranean Sea," in R. B. Kidd and Paula J. Worstell, editors, Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Vol. XLII, (Washington: U.S. Govt Printing Office 1978), pp709-726, p. 713

That means that the wall separating the Atlantic Ocean from the Mediterranean basin collapsed at a depth of about 3000 feet! That would be catastrophic and explain why there is only 1/10 of an inch of separation between the desert deposits and the deep sea deposits on the bottom of the Med.

Here is what Kenneth Hsu said:
"Although the flood gate at the Strait of Gibraltar apparently swung open and shut repeatedly during the Late Miocene, the gate was irreparably crushed at the beginning of the Pliocene. It has been mentioned that Pliocene sediment of the Mediterranean is a deep marine ooze. Perhaps the recurrent Messinian 'refills' were caused by eustatic rise of the worldwide sea level, but the final deluge must have followed a drastic event which produced a gap deep enough to permit the immigration of deep-Atlantic bottom faunas into the Mediterranean." ~ Kenneth J. Hsu, "The Miocene Desiccation of the Mediterranean and its Climatical and Zoogeographical Implications", Die Naturwissenschaften, 61, April 4, 1974, p. 140.

I performed a calculation (laid out in Foundation, Fall and Flood) which shows that with a 3000 ft deep gash 15 miles wide and water flowing at 20 mph (which is a speed which has been observed in big floods), the entire Mediterranean basin could re-fill in about a year.

Prior to the collapse of the Dam near Gibraltar, the dried out Mediterranean was a land with towering 10-15,000 ft mountains. After the infilling, the mountains became islands, like that of Malta. Any floating object in the waters of the Med would have been pushed towards the eastern end of the Med--that is, towards Turkey.

Hsu says:
"One can picture the desiccated Mediterranean as a giant bathtub, with the Strait of Gibraltar as the faucet. Seawater roared in from the Atlantic through the strait in a gigantic waterfall. If the falls had delivered 1,000 cubic miles of sea water per year (equivalent to 30 million gallons per second, 10 times the discharge of Victoria Falls), the volume would not have been sufficient to replace the evaporative loss. In order to keep the infilling sea from getting too salty for even such a hardy microfauna as the one found in the dark gray marl the influx would have to exceed evaporation by a factor of 10. Cascading at a rate of 10,000 cubic miles per years, the Gibraltar falls would have been 100 times bigger than Victoria Falls and 1,000 times more so than Niagara. Even with such an impressive influx, more than 100 years would have been required to fill the empty bathtub." ~ Kenneth J. Hsu, "When the Mediterranean Dried Up", Scientific American, December, 1972, p. 33.

Now, I disagree with the rate he uses because of his observation that the gash had to be 3000 feet deep. Such a hole in the dam would provide water much more rapidly than he uses in his analogy. But, since I am not afraid to let people know that people use other rates, I will proudly publish this here.

What about the rain? The empty Mediterranean basin would contain 4/1000s of the earth's atmosphere. That much air would rise, cool and dump lots of rain in the surrounding regions to the Mediterranean basin as it re-filled. I did a calculation once that indicated that there would be rainfall for as much as 800 km from the basin edge in all directions. This would flood the land surrounding the basin. If the ark became grounded along the edges of the basin, Noah would observe the waters receding and would report
that.

The geologic data is incredibly good to say that this event happened as described. It is 5.5 million years ago, just about the time that the earliest hominids appeared on earth--something I find to be an interesting coincidence. In addition to Foundation, Fall and Flood, I would point people to an article on this which I wrote for the PSCF which can be found at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html (the address on that article is about 5 addresses ago.)

So, to answer the initial question, the only place which fits the flood's description is from 5.5 million years ago. By the way, this is the event which Charles Lyell used to define the change from the Miocene to the Pliocene.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 03-28-2007 10:00 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2007 9:03 PM grmorton has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 71 of 130 (392065)
03-29-2007 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
03-26-2007 10:30 AM


Re: on Genesis and Floods
Genesis 1 is specifically in chronological order.

jar if it is in chronological order why does Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 2:3 generations given in Genesis 5:1 not match Genesis 1:1?

The man in Genesis 1:27 was made in the image of God.

The book of generations of chapter 5 in verse 1 says this man was made in the image of God.

The Man that was made in Genesis 2:7 was formed from the dust of the earth and God breathed life into him.

The man in Genesis 2:7 was made in the day the Lord God made the earth and heavens.

The man made in Genesis 2:7 fits the generations of Genesis 1:1

Edited by ICANT, : cited wrong verse Genesis 2:4 changed to Genesis 2:3


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 03-26-2007 10:30 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-29-2007 10:30 AM ICANT has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24779
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 72 of 130 (392102)
03-29-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICANT
03-29-2007 12:23 AM


Re: on Genesis and Floods
Because they are different stories written by different people at different times with different ideas of what happened.

You are absolutely right. None of the chronologies match. The order of creations doesn't match, the methods do not match. The stories are mutually exclusive, if one is true then the others are false.

The reason is that they were never meant to be taken as history or science.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 12:23 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 1:05 PM jar has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 73 of 130 (392132)
03-29-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
03-29-2007 10:30 AM


Re: on Genesis and Floods
You are absolutely right. None of the chronologies match.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

But I was trying to point out that there is 2 completely different things talked about in these verses.

1. There was a creation in Genesis 1:1 and should be coupled with
Genesis 2:4 because all this was done in the same day.

2. At a much later date possibly millions, billions or trillions of years later we find earth in the condition it is in, in Genesis 1:2. Thus the 7 days of Moses in a re-creation. Beginning at Genesis 1:2 going through Genesis 2:3 then jumping to Genesis 5:1 and continuing.

The reason I say trillions is we don't know how old the universe is. We can only say what our present methods of scientific dating tell us. In the future we may have much better systems that tell us it is trillions of years old, or older.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-29-2007 10:30 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 03-29-2007 1:30 PM ICANT has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24779
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 74 of 130 (392135)
03-29-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
03-29-2007 1:05 PM


Re: on Genesis and Floods
2. At a much later date possibly millions, billions or trillions of years later we find earth in the condition it is in, in Genesis 1:2. Thus the 7 days of Moses in a re-creation. Beginning at Genesis 1:2 going through Genesis 2:3 then jumping to Genesis 5:1 and continuing.

I'm sorry but that seems like just making stuff up. There is no reason I can see to think that there are two different events being discussed accept to try to pretend that the stories are historical and scientific.

Seems totally pointless and just silly to me.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 1:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 03-29-2007 1:54 PM jar has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 75 of 130 (392139)
03-29-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by grmorton
03-25-2007 10:08 PM


I would interpret it differently. I would say that Gen 1 is the pre-planning of the universe and Genesis 2 is bilions of years later

I disagree.

If God is all knowing why would he have to plan anything?

I read the link and it is well put but I think wrong.

I posted my understanding of Genesis 1-5 in:
Message 71
Message 73

Please evaluate my analysis and tell me if I am incorrect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by grmorton, posted 03-25-2007 10:08 PM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by grmorton, posted 03-30-2007 7:11 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014