Summations Only

The early iocene was also a warm ocean period, much like the early Triassic. Because of my compressed timeframes, the same fauna/flora were more consistent than current consensus. So that limestone could have been early Triassic marine deposition. Its only evolutionary assumptions that place them millions of years apart.

Gee you like to labor points. I am amused at your willingness to change my bible views, into something that is easier for you to refute. Help moderators : strawman argument!
He is preaching to me that my bible interpretation is in his opinion incorrect. Ok I see, I saw minor point mutations as just variations of the same allele. I'm not sure if you looked into this. This mutation rate confirms what I'm saying. To say that each base pair mutates once every 78 million generations, is the same as saying that there is one mutation every 78 million base pairs per generation. there's about 3 billion base pairs in for example, a human.This is about 35-40 mutations per generation. That's a few base pairs per generation as I said.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I'm not too into semantics, they are a huge distraction from the essence of the points being made. The essence of the point is that there will be point mutations and therefore a growing number of alleles in the last 4500 years since the flood. What you are saying, agrees with this. Whether 37.5 of 3 billion base pairs in an individual is a "few" or "many" is missing the main point of discussion.

There is evidence of a unique and large-scale pattern of water-borne sedimentary movement at the PT boundary. No-one has shown evidence in this thread that this unique pattern cannot be caused by the flood.It has been pointed out that normal fluvial patterns exist before and after this unique layer, this highlights the fact that the layer is unique. No, the reality is the PT-boundary reflects the change from a wet environment to a dryer period. The following period , Triassic, is the dryer period. The boundary is the transitionary period to that dryer period.I showed studies of four regions of earth that showed overfill situations. something like the fantasy of desperately looking for transitional fossils and naming one of an extinct species as a transitional fossil? Evolutionists explain away their missing transitionary fossils all the time. thats a copout.I explained some reasons why they would not be found. They were rare, because dry environments were rare. They were rare because dry environments do not fossilize easily. They are rare because no-one is regularly digging deep down into carboniferous dry zones, they are digging deep down into wetlands areas (coal). Carboniferous areas are generally deep down. these reasons seem like a copout to you, but they are more logical than the lack of transitionary fossils found by evolutionists. That's pretty ironic, since that is what you are asking of me. All your specific examples of widespread fauna/flora are simply missing my point. I did not claim that only migratory birds are widespread. MY claim is that you do get localised fauna/flora. Its impossible to find all the carboniferous fauna/flora, because quite simply we haven't dug deep everywhere yet, and some fossils do not fossilize, especially dry region ones.And regarding grasses, its the hardy plants that survived the dry Triassic, that would then have to adapt when wetter conditions occurred after the Triassic. There were more suitable plants in the carboniferous swamps, but when lacking, this gives grasses a chance to survive in regions they never used to exist.

If they can re-date the Appalachians by 120 million years due to a single geological find, nothing is set in stone (excuse the pun). In the light of dating errors, it would be naive for anyone to always believe currently assumed dates are correct. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Yes, in the light of the mutation rate, 4500 years would create a significant number of new alleles, even if there was a bottleneck. So its a hard argument to prove either way. The cheetah does show a more recent bottleneck than the others, I believe it would be possible to compare large terrestrial animals with mice and ants and beetles to determine any relative changes , however even some fish or mice or beetles etc could have bottlenecked through the flood and so the comparison would not always apply.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Yes I do believe in genetic variance and a recent cheetah bottleneck. A biblical flood would move large amounts of sediment, as found in the PT boundary. It would also cause a major transgression, and major regresssion as found geologically at the PT boundary. Some regions would have slow enough deposition as to cause a similar layering to the Mozambique flood, as found in late Permian deposition. Some regions would be stripped of sediment as oceans receded rapidly as confirmed by the regression model at the PT boundary. Fine sediments would drift down last when the flood settles , and when water receded this would leave pools and lakes of water and create a layer of clay at many places during the PT boundary , this is found. Due to the destruction of vegetation, there would be masses of vegetation lying under sediment and under water and masses of vegetation left in the open (trees can float for a year) after the flood. These would cause a sudden spike in marine and terrestrial fungi. This is found at the PT boundary.The clay layer, and the fungal spike layer are argued as boundary markers for the PT transition.

yeah fair enough. I agree that counting alleles is a difficult criteria to judge a bottleneck on, especially considering the mutation rate which would increase the number of alleles over a 4500 year period. I think you missed the heart of my point I said "ok I see", by that I meant that I now see what you mean and understand it better. I then went on to explain my previous misconception. I wasn't "making stuff up", I was agreeing with you. No idea! Tell me.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

exactly! I like this about science. But this means that little is set in stone, if geologists can be so very way out. Sometimes a few dates correlate. Sometimes they do not. Some dating methods are calibrated based on assumed dates of other dating methods and therefore will correlate due to the rate being established like that. The exact measurements of before and after isotopic quantities when measuring rates is not readily available to the public so even the original measurements are not clear. Neither is the size of those sample given, a smaller sample would deteriate slower than a larger sample. What was the size of the sample in laboratory rate measurements?

These are just apporximations:
Well at the given rate of 1 mutation per 78 million base pairs, this would mean about 38.5 mutations per mammal per generation (each mammal having approximately 3 billion base pairs). At a generation per mammal of about 4.5 years till breeding this would mean each mammal has about 1000 generations since the flood. I'm not sure about the rate of accumulation of these mutations, maybe you can enlighten me on that, but if there is 100% accumulation, this would entail 38500 point mutations since the flood. Divide that into 22000 genes and each gene would average approximately two point mutations (1.75) . However this is not precise because certain genes relating to sexual reproduction and immunity have a much higher rate of mutation than other genes and therefore would produce a lot more alleles at that locus.

exactly! without a lot of information you can easily make big mistakes. 120 million year mistakes. Haha, I asked a question first? Without answering you have pointed me to a whole thread. What was the size of the samples used when they established the rates?

There was no mis-impression at all. The article itself is pretty clear as are the quotes from Damian Nance , professor of Geological Science at Ohio University. University publications from 2006 agree with that article I quoted:
Page not Found | Ohio UniversityThe article you quoted is from 1991:
http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/103/6/817.abstract

I think you missed the point. I was not discussing the source of current diversity. We were discussing mutation rates for other reasons.

Cute!How about hiding in a landlocked sea? Suddenly in the Triassic you get ichthyosaurs , warm blooded dolphin-looking air breathing, live young bearing, "reptiles" (warm blooded no egg reptiles?)wikipedia No source has been identified for this warm blooded very mammal like air breathing "reptile" that suddenly dominates Triassic oceans after the marine transgression and regression of the PT boundary.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

But even so each gene has between 40000 and 120000 base pairs, depending on what source you look at for number of base pairs per gene. The 22000 genes would then most likely still have more than half of those 3 billion base pairs.So this would still mean that you would expect each gene to have mutated about once in the last 4500 years. And as I said, point mutations in certain regions are far more rapid than other areas of the genome.