Summations Only

What would be the mechanism for passing on macroevolutionary changes through mutations if those changes did not occur on a genetic level? I cannot make any sense out of that, and I doubt that you can either.How would you pass on changes in allele frequencies and still allow species to breed true without those changes occurring on a genetic level. Do you postulate some kind of Lamarkian mechanism of inheritance?

You mean there is nothing other than evidence for dating that contradicts the Bible that you cannot ignore or make excuses for. As long as you accept high rates of macroevolution and then claim that there is no time for evolution at normal rates, you can pretend to have made a case.Are you going to explain how "adapted" traits are passed to the next generation without genes? Your logic is pretty well trashed in the thread. You don't need me doing more of it.

You underestimate the power and ease of denial as a strategy. If three monkeys can do it, surely mindspawn can too.And stir in a healthy heaping handful of making stuff up and denying even the words in Genesis and you've got a posting strategy that can survive thread after thread of convincing evidence.

I disagree somewhat. Plenty of people are claiming that the possibility that the Flood happened has been conclusively ruled out. All that should necessary to debate such a claim is a plausible sequence of events that is not countered by the evidence.In my opinion, mindspawn has been successful at challenging at least some of the assumptions people have made. He has scored some points. But he only needs to lose on a single issue in order to lose the argument, and he's made some pretty weak arguments on a number of issues.

Yes, except that the premise for this thread is that the Flood happened. Mindspawn should not be required to prove conclusively that there was a flood unless someone raises such conclusive proof that there was no flood to close off all possible discussion.Of course mindspawn attempts to spit into that particular wind were failures. But in a sense, those arguments are cheating. You are supposed to have that hand tied behind your back.Perhaps an example of a situation where mindspawn can be said to be playing the game correctly even for a science thread would illustrate my point. Someone proves that some particular fauna shows more diversity than can result from a mere pair of them on the ark. A perfectly legitimate counter is to ask why that person thinks that the particular animal is unclean. (Assuming that multiplication by seven would be enough to address the issue)In such a situation, I don't believe it is mindspawn's issue to prove that the fauna in question is actually clean at least until the questioner raised significant proof that the animal is unclean. In fact, I think he was fairly successful at casting doubt on whether we actually know which animals were which.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

self removed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It's just Creation Science. I know that the Noah story isn't a creation event, but mindspawn is certainly applying the Creation Science versions of geology, biology, radiometric dating, and methodology to the Flood.Coyote likes the term apologetics. I don't like the term because Apologetics actually refers to something completely different from making stuff up and calling it fact. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That statement does not say that science and technology were insufficient prior to 2009 for the task of answering the question of a 4500 year ago genetic bottleneck. It instead talks about recent breakthroughs. And in any event, the question really is whether the science as applied to humans is sufficient right now.Not finding a relevant bottleneck in humans alone is sufficient to rule out the possibility of the flood in Genesis being as recent as you suggest. And that's true even if we never analyze any other animals. That's not the impression anyone would get from actually following the discussion. What a visitor to your thread would see is you making attempt after attempt to find an error in bluegenes presentation, followed by bluegenes correcting you. If you've got a new argument, why is it here instead of in that thread?The currently level of science is sufficiently accurate to place both Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam at a point well prior to 4500 years ago even if it cannot establish whether or not they were contemporaries. That analysis is sufficient to rule out a recent flood that wiped out all humanity except those people on the ark. So unless you want to claim that an uncounted number of humans stowing away with those rats and mice you claim were there, your position is refute.

Translation: You are getting your butt kicked on something like a daily basis because you cannot keep your delusions separate from your reading of a few article pages. I'm not sure why you need to bother. After all, nobody is saying that there is no genetic bottleneck in humans; only that the last one of any significance happened on the order of 100,000 years ago. If bluegenes manages to convince you of that, aren't you simply going to 'regard' that to be pre-flood?What's my point? The goal of this thread is not to convince you, but simply to pin you down to silly positions so that we can post hilarious summaries at the end. Your current objections to cabon dating are excellent examples of that kind of success.Added by Edit:For a preview of what you are up against when you make ridiculous and arbitrary claims like modern science cannot detect bottlenecks further in the past than 200 years. I recommend looking at the wikipedia article on population bottlenecks. The article describes a number of animals for which DNA analysis can determine that the last significant bottleneck was > 40,000 years ago. Each of the references could be the basis of yet another thread like the one you and bluegenes are having.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think your own logic contains an error. Phat may conclude as he does because he makes other assumptions that you don't make and holds beliefs that you do not hold. That does not make his conclusion process process faulty. It just means that if you want to convince him, you are going to have to visit those other beliefs and assumptions.ABE: Well no, that is simply incorrect. There are lots of non textual possibilities to allow us to conclude that a given story is factual. Do we rely on the text to tell us that Moby Dick is fiction? Do we really use only textual reasons to conclude that Aesop's fables are pure fiction.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not quite. He said that the argument convinced him that the story was myth rather than real. Yes that is right.However you are arguing that the argument should have convinced him not only that the flood never happened, but also that the story in the Bible had no value. I don't believe that to be a necessary conclusion. Phat's impression that the Bible almost certainly has bases not discussed in this thread.I think it is silly to assume that Phat has no previous belief that the stories in the Bible are valid regardless of how you parse out his sentence in his post. That is the mistake that you are making here. You cannot be serious. I know the story is fiction, but it ought to be obvious that some people believe otherwise. Phat may well have been one of those people.Yes it is possible to read his statement as you say, but I'm 100% sure you are parsing out a meaning that was not intended.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Possibility 327 - I think the flood actually happened and I also think the story in the Bible tell us of the value of faithfulness in the face of ridicule by his neighbors.If you hold the belief expressed in possibility three, then learning that the flood did not actually happen does not require changing your mind about the value of the story.Edited by NoNukes, : change number from 3 to 326 for effect.

I agree with the latter half of your statement it leaves the possibility that the Flood was intended as history unexamined leaving Phat to his own devices on that point. And surely the idea that the Bible does contain parables is not so difficult to come by.We can reach the conclusion that the story is a parable by a combination of 1) The argument that the story could not have actually happened, where such argument is as provided by jar, and 2) a pre-existing belief or premise that all of the stories in the Bible have value regardless of whether they are true.You are arguing that Phat cannot derive (2) from jar's argument. I agree with that, but that's no big deal. It is sufficient that Phat not find himself dissuaded from premise 2 by jar's argument.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is rare, but is it supposed to happen at all?I thought we were supposed to stick to our positions, no matter how silly, until someone started calling names, then the other poster complains to Moose who puts the thread into summary mode. Then we take a couple more swipes at each other in the summary.But actually agreeing, even when I see I'm wrong? Nope, that's weak .

You are just making up stuff here. You know full well what such a bottleneck would look like because you are discussing exactly that issue on another thread. "I say it is easy over a few hundred years" is totally without any merit", and enough evidence to the contrary has been presented such that you are on the hook to support your statement.The genetic bottleneck observed in cheetahs is estimated to be only an order of magnitude or two of older than what you claim is the time when the flood happened and that bottleneck is clearly visible. Do you want to claim that bottleneck to be only a couple hundred years old? Or that there cheetahs were the only animals that did not manage to sneak extras onto the ark?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.