Summations Only

Fair enough. but as you pointed out there are some scientific studies which predict the rare existence of angiosperms during the carboniferous. If you could point out what studies have been done on the dry highland regions of the carboniferous, we could then have some consensus on what fossils are found from those regions.

You really are choosing the wrong place in the genome to make your point, this locus is ambiguous, with several loci and several genes at each locus. Looking at these particular genes its not a simple matter of two possibilities in each human on the ark (total of 16 possibilities among 8 individuals), this area is known as a super-locus. Many allelic possibilities can be inherited from parents, not just 4 possibilities.
HLA-DR - Wikipedia Interesting point about Jesus, but he is not known to have had children despite the claims of fictional movies like the Da Vinci Code. The bible refers to others, known as the "sons of the gods" who mated with the daughters of men. Kind of reminds me of the Greek myths which say the same thing. I have heard rumours that some genes in humans are of a different pattern than that found in all other life forms. But rather than getting into discussions about mythical stories, let's just say I am not claiming a human bottleneck at the flood, only a bottleneck of other large terrestrial animals. I looked there on that site, and could not find the exact figures you are presenting. Would you mind giving a more specific link than the home page, or quote the figures directly? thanks I am really interested in those figures and the backing for them.

good point, well said.Have you got any proof that the Appalachians or any other mountain range was more than just a series of hills during the Carboniferous or earlier? The fossils seem to indicate rain forest/swampy conditions there, not highlands conditions.You would have thought that radiometric data was sufficient to establish dates of mountains, the revision of the dating of the appalachians by 120 million years, just highlights how inconclusive these studies are. Without Permian highlands fossils found in those mountains, they could have easily been foothills and achieved their height during the Permian/PT boundary upheavals.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/11/061117123212.htmEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm left in the middle of a number of interesting debates here, so to summarise some of my final answers:
Now I'm quoting from the bible, the bible and the flood story claim no human bottleneck after the flood, the sons of God were interacting with humans in those pre-flood days, and also after that. The bible does not claim a bottleneck of humans:Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in THOSE DAYS; AND ALSO AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.There is also undue focus on the HLA set of genes, this is known as a "super locus", more than one gene in those HLA positions. Please just look this up to see that the "ten allele" argument does not apply to the HLA region.The link regarding the cow does not show numerous alleles, this is showing numerous nucleotides at a single locus. Each gene averages over 100 000 nucleotides so of course you will get many in each position.True I did move the goalpost regarding the mountains, the terrain is known as largely flat during the carboniferous, but geologists do acknowledge some mountains. You guys pointed this out, which is a good response to my claim of flat terrain. I am now asking why they would assume such high mountains when the fossils on those mountains are lowlands fossils. I feel this is a valid question.Generally science shows that the PT boundary has a major transgression (oceans flooding land), worldwide sedimentary infilling, massive loss of vegetation, worldwide erosion and a major regression (oceans receding). The atmosphere changed from a fluctuating humid atmosphere to dry. Only water can move all that sediment. Large movements of water moving sediments is known as......... a flood!Thanks everyone for the chat. Special thanks to Percy for his sharp wit , Dr A for his good logic, and Jonf for numerous good points, and all you others too.

Yes floods leave evidence. Layers of sediment. Could you give any evidence that those four studies I linked to, do NOT show flood related sedimentation at the PT boundary. Please read the below link regarding what signs a flood does show, this is pretty consistent with PT boundary layering, although the PT boundary was on a larger scale than Mozambique:
Emuparadise 2022The magnetic field was a lot stronger in those days (Early Earth's Magnetic Field Stronger Than Believed) , and even modern studies show that water vapour densities are higher within the lines of a magnetic field.this study shows a modern elevated water vapour layer:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/...ons/jc.gettelman.2008.pdf You see that? At about 4-6 km up , in the 500-700 hPa region there is a stronger water vapor layer. If the atmosphere was thicker back then, with a thicker magnetic field , there is a chance that this thick water vapor layer would even be thicker.I havent seen your genetic evidence yet?As for humans and mammals, they do not live in Permian swamps, those swamps were not like todays swamps. A rat or mouse would be completely dominated by mere insects. A water buck wouldnt survive 5 minutes. These were in isolated pockets, much like Komodo dragons. They only dominated when the world suited them , and all their major competition died off.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I am happy with my interpretation of the possibilities in that bible verse. I am happy to continue to discuss this in a bible discussions forum. (do you have one?). We can have bible studies together, that would be refreshing :-) . However in this particular thread your argument about human alleles is a strawman argument. Find someone who actually believes in a human bottleneck and show your proof to them. We have consensus here, which is also refreshing, we both agree no human bottleneck. Nothing further to discuss, we agree. 14 and 18 alleles is a bottleneck. Especially since they will often categorize an allele as different even if only one base pair differs (very recent mutation) when its easy to analyze the entire allele and see if there are significant differences. I acknowledge recent mutations, its normally a few base pairs per generation per individual across the entire genome. Over 4500 years there would be mutant alleles at that rate. But the general pattern and sequence of the original 14 (or less) alleles would be distinct , thereafter showing some minor mutations in each allele.

Ok but this isn't exactly proof that the mountains were high. They could have been rising and been eroded at the same rate they were rising, and remained low-lying until the PT boundary. IF you have any geological evidence contrary to this, please post it. Too philosophical for me. I like this forum because its about evidence. Sure the Permian traps could have caused vegetation to die off through overheating or super cooling and then erosion run-off increased even though precipitation remained the same. Alternatively flooding could explain the loss of vegetation and masses of sediment movement at the PT boundary.The evidence we have is masses of sediment movement and build -up at the PT boundary, flooding is therefore a possibility just because of that fact. Your argument that "scientists say" is not strong enough for an evidence based discussion forum like this. Nice and philosphical, but lets just take each point on its merits. If I'm wrong, point it out. To say "scientists say" is not good enough, let's look at what they say, and how they concluded it.I don't get most of your point here, are you saying only the qualified should post on these forums? Are you saying that only the qualified can challenge the status quo?

yeah it seemed to stop soon after the flood. who knows who the sons of god are, its sometimes translated as angels, some people see them as aliens (other race-groups in the universe). Others have a simple more practical view that a certain group built a more sophisticated civilization (let's call it Atlantis) and these men because of superior technology were known as gods. Just the fact that the bible is open on the topic, and fairly unclear, makes the biblical view on humans non dependent on a bottleneck situation.

I have evidence, which agrees with you. We both agree that there is no human bottleneck. The evidence is consistent with my bible views. Would you mind posting my comment in which i reveal my lack of knowledge? You seem so confident that I don't know what an allele is, rather than just stating this, maybe you can enlighten me where I went wrong? I don't claim to know everything and thought I had a good handle on it.regarding mutation rates, please post your figures on mutation rates. I am going on mutation rates Taq posted in another thread which he was quite confident about. Wikipedia isn't as confident as you are about these rates: It seems that there are only estimates, no exact figures, and even the ESTIMATES vary by an order of magnitude or more.

Exactly. The whole lack of human bottleneck argument is a strawman argument against the flood based on a limited interpretation of the bible. The bible does not give exact breeding numbers so you have to look elsewhere to the human genome to find an argument against the flood.

You guys should be philosophers, lol!Hey if you have any evidence against my particular view of the PT boundary flood please post it. Some guy's comment isn't evidence. All I've had so far is ONE alternative explanation for the massive movements of sediment then. But a flood can fit in then as well. It takes water to move sediments to create a simultaneous worldwide overfill situation. So we have two explanations, I don't see how that disproves the flood. Yes I believe there are few familiar species before the PT boundary for the following reasons:1) They were rare, secluded in some rare eco-system that was dryer.
2) Due to the dryness they were not easily fossilized
3) If that eco-system was found, this could be easily mistaken for post PT fossils, due to them being on higher ground, and their familiarity with more modern fossils.
4) There is little motivation to dig deep down into carboniferous layers, hence the concentration on swamp regions (carboniferous coals)Under the assumption that the Carboniferous world was lush, full of rainforests and swamps, there was no ecological need for grasses. However in the harsh Triassic climate, the grasses would have taken time to spread from those few seeds, but being one of hardiest plant life in arid conditions it would have spread out, coming to be dominant when conditions had recovered from the difficult Triassic. Not quite, I was hoping for carboniferous desert fauna / flora to see how they differ from today. If you observe eco-systems of today, there is surprising diversity of fauna/flora. Each set of animals in each continent is largely exclusive. Including birds. Some migrating birds are found extensively, but in general there is a localized habitat of fauna/flora throughout earth. And there are foten concentrations of certain according to patterns. For example marsupials in Australia, proteaceae in the Cape floristic region. Proteaceaea is entirely restricted to a small region of earth, if there is a world disaster and most vegetation on earth dies out, and most of the earth ends up with a semi-arid Meditteranean climate, there is a high chance that the biodiversity of proteaceae would survive and then start spreading out. Now to find that secluded carboniferous "island" of mammals and grasses is difficult because there is little motivation to dig deep everywhere to find rare fossils in non-fossilizing environments. Coal is mined, its easy to find fossils in coal mines. There is no financial motivation to dig km deep everywhere on significant scales.Now just as you DO NOT find proteaceae throughout the world, it is impossible to do so, and yet there is a wide variety of proteaceae that could spread if world conditions change, the same could apply to angiosperms. Angiosperms could have possibly been merely a minor isolated plant family during the carboniferous, suddenly its hardiness, diversity and universality makes it a dominant phylum during later times. The secret is the ability to survive low oxygen, fluctuating temperature, high heat dry environments, which the other plants of the carboniferous were unable to survive.Same as birds, its easier to imagine a few birds secluded in a dry climate hilly island , away from the dangers of the mega-insects of the carboniferous, than to imagine the unlikely process of evolutionary gene creation, or even biogenesis.

You guys seem to want to continue with this strawman argument and also seem to desire to do bible studies. If you read Genesis 6 combined with Numbers 13:33 it appears that these giants were there before and after the flood.

Well if I'm claiming a biblical flood it would be wrong to claim a bottleneck in fish, they continued to swim. It would be wrong to claim it for insects and lizards and mice, there's an extremely high likelihood they would have been on the ark in large numbers, it was a massive ship. It would be wrong to claim a bottleneck for humans because of subsequent breeding possibilities.So its the large terrestrial animals that would have significant allele bottlenecks. Some point mutations would be expected in 6500 years. The evidence produced so far seems to emphasize greater bottlenecks in large terrestrial animals. As usual the information confirms a flood.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm fully in support of the concept of Gondwanaland.I see you are correct about the proteaceae , I came across them when looking at the unique "fynbos" of the Cape region, and misunderstood them to be unique to the Cape area too. Nevertheless my point stands that some plant life are isolated in certain areas, even if not proteaceae. The fynbos of the Cape is one example, where two thirds of the plants are unique to one small region.

Lol! funny - hey maybe there were alien bulls too pregnating cows..I really want to see this genetic variety we are talking about. (in large terrestrial animals). Not one or two point mutations, these can be expected at current mutation rates since the flood. But genes that show signiciant uniqueness to the others. Do we see more than 14 of these significantly unique alleles in any large terrestrial animal. Everyone seems to want to point to the HLA region or the equivalent in animals, but this region is known for its high mutation rate, so there would be more point mutations.