Summations Only

Google Translate gives a fairly readable translation of that paper (I changed your link above to point to the translation). They discuss the issue of "excess argon" "frozen" into the lava due to rapid cooling which produces an unrealistically old age but, (IMHO), don't provide a convincing argument that this is not a problem. They are convincing in their argument that the samples crystallized in the magma rather than being suddenly cooled, but they could well have crystallized in equilibrium with the surrounding magma and therefore included excess argon.Still, as Coyote pointed out, individual cases of disagreement aren't convincing. The overwhelming number of concordant (agreeing) dates means that the only realistic argument against radiometric dating would have to be asystemic analysis that explains the concordance (agreement) of dates obtained from different geologic formations and dated using methods which use different isotopes and decay schemes. That's no easy task, and nobody has come close to successfully attacking radiometric dating.

There is free online OCR for many languages including Russian, but the resolution of the lettering is too low to get a result.

If you don't understand excess argon, you can't understand that paper. Excess argon is a somewhat rare but well-known phenomenon of magma retaining argon that was in the rock that melted to form the magma. It works because of the great pressure at which magma forms. There usually isn't excess argon in lava that solidified slowly in air, because the argon escapes from the liquid fairly quickly. But in "pillow lava" and the like, which solidify quickly, "freeze" the excess argon in place before it can escape. This causes K-Ar dating to read too high, sometimes way too high. The same thing applies to rock that solidifies way underground. The Ar-Ar method can often produce a valid date and is always usable where K-Ar dating is, but the paper claimed that rocks of this type often produce poor plateaus, which I'm not going to explain now, and I didn't bother to check their reference so I'll buy that.{ABE}Of course, the argon got into the lava by the decay of potasssium-40 in the lave{/ABE}If you are interested in understanding radiometric dating, I can provide some good resources.But this thread isn't a class in how radiometric dating works. You can question radiometric dating but, as has now been pointed out three times, pointing to a few individual anomalous results that you obviously don't understand isn't an effective or even relevant argument. OK so far That's what we call an "unsupported assertion". Got any evidence for your claims of faking results and fraud on the part of all geochronlogists? That's quite a serious allegation.Edited by JonF, : Add afterthought

I'm sorry to see that you do not have any support for your claims that "This makes it possible to choose from a series of analyzes of the analyzes, which gave the expected result. Concordia probably composed in the same way - unwanted results discarded." Do you intend to retract those claims?Yes, I knew the paper was not about pillow lava. I just mentioned pillow lava as an example of a rock that often has excess argon.But I also pointed out that excess argon was a distinct possibility in the sampled rocks, and their arguments why it was not there are not very convincing.Even if it is an unexplained wrong result (I don't think it is, but there's room for disagreement), for the fourth time it's not significant evidence against the validity of radiometric dating. There is a vast number of radiometric dates that form a coherent and concordant (meaning "in agreement") whole. There will always be some outliers, dates that don't agree with the vast majority and may or may not be explainable. But there's no question that the Earth is old and the vast majority of radiometric dates are correct within error limits.If you want to seriously question radiometric dating on this board, Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 is the place to do it. This thread should be reserved for flood geology, which you have discussed and is still worth discussing.

Discarding results without objective reasons is fraud. Not very convincing. especially the one numbered 2. Hearsay evidence from someone who identifies himself as a creationist (that is, you didn't mention an important fact, that he has a hidden agenda; did you know that?). I see from the RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR IGCP: ANNUAL REPORT ON IGCP-RELATED ACTIVITIES 2010 that he was inded co-leader of the named project; so what? Doesn't look like a particularly relevant qualification. He is certainly not an unbiased source, and I don't see any reason to label him particularly "respected". Respected by whom?

Seven of each clean animal and bird, and Noah the geneticist made sure that they didn't share any alleles.Two of each unclean animal and bird, and of course therefore four alleles.

Do you really think Noah screened the animals for common alleles?One study found many alleles, up to 21, for some loci, in Sudan alone. There are more than 2,000 of some alleles in the HLA complex (HLA Alleles Numbers). No recent bottleneck for humans! Starkenberg et al listed 19 alleles in cows at the DRB3.2 locus (see Table 1). Not much of a recent bottleneck for cows! The Coat Colors of Mice covers lots of information, for example (picked randomly) the "a" gene has 397 alleles in mice. Definitely no recent bottleneck for mice!So there definitely has not been a world-wide population bottleneck for all species, which is a requirement of your recent flood scenario. Case closed. Unless, of course, you can show evidence of hypermutation in the last few thousand years.

Your link says "There are Russian reports of spores similar to pollen grains of angiosperms from the Carboniferous period (cf. Seagal et. al. 1965) but these surely merit further study." An unreplicated report of something similar to an angiosperm pollen grain is not discovery of angiosperms in the Carboniferous. And a breakthrough discovery like that is not mentioned anywhere since 1968?At Mono or polyphyletic? Molecular evidence and phylogeny I find:

quote:

---

Molecular analyses show increasing support for a pre-Cretaceous separation between angiosperms and gymnosperms. A study in 1989 by Martin et al. puts the split between monocots and dicots at 300 million years ago in the late Carboniferous, suggesting that the angiosperms split from the gymnosperms before then. A comparable study in the same year by Li et al. on the DNA of chloroplast sequences estimates the monocot separation from the rest of the angiosperms at 250-220 million years; there is therefore a 100 million year discrepancy between the two dates.

​

Critics point out that these studies are based on the erroneous phylogeny treating monocots and dicots as two monophyletic lineages. The studies also assume that molecular evolution has progressed at a steady rate through geological time, which appears not to be the case. A larger study in 1999 by Qui et al., analysing the three cellular genomes — the mitochondrial, the nuclear and the chloroplast gene sequences — thus avoiding the problems of the previous single-genome analyses, has placed the split between angiosperms and gymnosperms as early as the late Carboniferous, 290 million years ago. There is, however, no fossil evidence to back this estimate.

---

So we're still looking for a Carboniferous angiosperm fossil.

.Edited by JonF, : Duplicate

100% incorrect. You are really confused and don't have a clue about genetics and bottlenecks.Any human has one or two alleles of a gene, no more. With 8 humans on the boat, three of them being descendants of Noye and his wife, they could have carried a "realistic" maximum of 10 alleles (four from Noye and his wife, all shared by their sons, and six from the son's wives) and an absolute maximum of 16 alleles (if all three sons had different mutations at both their copies of that gene in the germ cell line).If there was a bottleneck, any gene you care to pick would show it. There just hasn't been time for 10 HLA alleles to evolve into thousands. Therefore, no human bottleneck. A small number of alleles of one gene is not necessarily a bottleneck; it may be a strongly conserved gene.Many alleles of any gene disproves a bottleneck but the converse is not true; few alleles of one gene does not prove a bottleneck. To prove a bottleneck you need further information.

Ah, I see that I mis-spoke a bit and you didn't look at my link. The "over 2,000 alelles" refers to each of two specific genes, each one gene at one specific location. The single HLA-1A gene has 2,132 alelles and the single HLA1-B gene has 2,798 alelles. HLA-1C has a mere 1,672 alelles. DNA injections after the fludde? From whom?Over 2,000 is not "a few more". Tell exactly how many alleles could have been added.(Jesus may have been haploid; if not, He added at most one allele). Well, there's the IPD-MHC Database, which lists 60 BoLA-DQ1 alleles, 130 BoLA-DRB3 alleles, 82 BoLA-DQB alleles, and 60 BoLA-DQA alleles in cattle. Lots of other large animal data available there.

I'm not referring to HLA-DR, I'm referring to HLA-1A and HLA-1B. And other single genes found on the site I linked to.10 possibilities is much more reasonable (remember what mutations have to take place for there to be 16 possibilities) than 16, and most likely less, unless you think Noye selected his wife and his son's wives based on complete sequencing of each of their genomes. Pre-fludde. Irrelevant. Goodie for you. I notice that you haven't come up with a hint of a ghost of a valid reason we should not expect a human bottleneck at the alleged fludde. I am claiming that the diversity of human genes precludes the possibility of the human race arising from 8 people a few thousand years ago. I've presented evidence to support that, which you keep ducking. Really? You can't find it! Wow.On the left side click "Cattle". Under that click "Alignments". Select a locus from the drop-down list, and change any other boxes that you wish. Click "Align sequnce now". Count the number of alleles listed. Same for any other large animal.

He thinks that the "sons of gods" which may have mated with humans pre-fludde magically added thousands of alleles to each human, which allowed Noye et. al. to carry them all, and then they disappeared after the fludde to be replaced by the usual one or two alleles. Or something like that.

Here's an interesting paper: Allelic Genealogy and Human Evolution:

quote:

---

Genetic variation at most loci examined in human populations indicates that the (effective) population size has been ∼ 10⁴ for the past 1 Myr and that individuals have been genetically united rather tightly. Also suggested is that the population size has never dropped to a few individuals, even in a single generation. These impose important requirements for the hypotheses for the origin of modem humans: a relatively large population size and frequent migration if populations were geographically subdivided. Any hypothesis that assumes a small number of founding individuals throughout the late Pleistocene can be rejected. Extraordinary polymorphism at some loci of the major histocompatibility complex (Mhc) rules out the past action of severe bottlenecks, or the so-called founder principle, which invokes only a small number of founding individuals when a new species emerges.

​

...

​

The Noah’s Ark hypothesis with a bottleneck effect is not particularly supported by data on the mtDNA genealogy. The shallowness of the genealogy (fig. 3 ) can simply be a natural consequence of genetic drift ceaselessly operating in a population of effective size 10⁴ and therefore cannot be any direct evidence for the bottleneck that might have taken place when modern H. sapiens began to spread. However, the HLA polymorphism indicates that the long-term N_e over 10s of Myr could not be small, possibly ∼ 10⁵. The discrepancy between the two estimates of N_e, 10⁴ from presumably neutral variants and 10⁵ from HLA alleles, likely arises from the different time scales of these polymorphisms, suggesting that human populations were either larger in size or relatively isolated from each other > 1 Mya. In any event, the HLA polymorphism is clearly incompatible with any model that invokes severe bottleneck effects, and thus the Noah’s Ark hypothesis with a severe bottleneck is not acceptable.

​

...

​

Finally, I would like to point out the value of HLA loci in the study of human evolution. It is the trans-specific nature of polymorphism that allows us to trace the population history of human lineage for a much longer time scale than do short-lived neutral polymorphisms. All in all, the 35Myr-old divergence of DRBI alleles implies that, throughout almost its entire history, the human lineage has never experienced severe bottlenecks. If, with respect to polymorphism, any species shows a pattern and a time scale of polymorphism similar to those at HLA loci, then this species must also have evolved without experiencing the founder effect.

---

Note the use of HLA as a marker, and especially note that there twarn't no human bottleneck a few thousand years ago. Ergo, no fludde.(Effective population size N_e is always much smaller than actual population size, until you get down to ridiculously small populations such as eight).Another interesting site is The ALlele FREquency Database. Under Search | Loci | {either choice} we see 80 genes with 50 (chosen for no particular reason) or more alleles, the largest number being 381 for KCNIP4:

Locus Symbol	Chromosomal Position	#Sites
KCNIP4	20731332	381
FAM190A	91055148	311
SORCS2	7190015	288
GRID2	93241587	249
GALNTL6	1.73E+08	238
FSTL5	1.62E+08	194
STK32B	5055774	180
ANK2	1.14E+08	179
UNC5C	96087865	176
ODZ3	1.83E+08	171
INPP4B	1.43E+08	168
FRAS1	78974131	165
SORBS2	1.87E+08	156
PALLD	1.69E+08	153
LDB2	16498825	138
ARHGAP24	86391360	135
MAML3	1.41E+08	129
APBB2	40813714	120
COL25A1	1.1E+08	113
GPM6A	1.77E+08	106
PPP2R2C	6321396	102
LPHN3	62359319	101
NR3C2	1.49E+08	101
BMPR1B	95678443	100
TBC1D1	37227947	99
LRBA	1.51E+08	99
SLIT2	20252267	98
SPOCK3	1.68E+08	95
SHROOM3	77356246	92
RNF150	1.42E+08	89
ABLIM2	7966812	88
LIMCH1	41359624	85
GABRB1	47055106	85
SCFD2	53554583	84
FAM13A	89644931	84
EPHA5	66181030	83
PCDH7	30718333	82
SCD5	83547584	77
C4orf22	81253388	76
LOC285501	1.79E+08	76
SLC2A9	9824619	75
CAMK2D	1.14E+08	75
DCHS2	1.55E+08	74
LOC285441	1.87E+08	73
MAPK10	86932486	72
JAKMIP1	6024426	71
KIAA1239	37244135	71
ARHGAP10	1.49E+08	71
AFAP1	7757650	70
PPP3CA	1.02E+08	69
CLNK	10488568	68
ATP8A1	42407670	68
SYNPO2	1.2E+08	64
LOC285419	1.25E+08	63
ENPP6	1.85E+08	63
C4orf19	37457601	62
LOC100505875	79892811	62
SLC4A4	72063044	60
RBM47	40420437	59
ALPK1	1.13E+08	59
EVC	5716922	58
PROM1	15970349	58
LNX1	54325990	58
PRDM5	1.22E+08	57
CCDC149	24804238	56
DDX60L	1.69E+08	56
GLRA3	1.76E+08	56
IRF2	1.85E+08	56
KIAA1211	57036306	55
TSPAN5	99387827	55
PDLIM5	95370805	54
FAT4	1.26E+08	54
TEC	48138235	53
C4orf37	98477808	53
SPATA5	1.24E+08	53
TLL1	1.67E+08	52
BANK1	1.03E+08	51
LOC100507266	4550448	50
AFF1	87861459	50
TBC1D9	1.42E+08	50

We realize that you don't want to discuss the human bottleneck at the alleged fludde, but the data shows that there was none. If you claim there was a fludde, you need to explain the origin of the many alleles we see. Extra credit if you explain how Noye ensured that there were as many alleles as possible of each gene in the eight people on board.Edited by JonF, : delete garbage at end

Got any evidence that "after that" refers to post-fludde? How did they survive the fludde? If they were on the Ark, they would be a maximum of one pair or four more alleles; far from enough. How many do you think made it through the fludde? I have not been speaking of the HLA region, I've been speaking of specific genes within that region. My sources indicate that HLA-1A and HLA-1B are individual genes. Can you produce any evidence against that specific claim? WTF? What do you think an allele is? Any change in any nucleotide in a gene produces a new allele. A list of how the nucleotides differ is a list of alleles. For example, a quick Google search indicates that BOLA-DRB3 is a gen e with many alleles, e.g. Sequence and PCR-RFLP analysis of 14 novel BoLA-DRB3 alleles and Characterization of 18 new BoLA-DRB3 alleles. Every line of each block on that list is a different allele.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.