|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Thanks for the reply mindspawn,
Hi Granny Magda, sorry to be slow to reply, but I enjoyed your post and was waiting for the time to reply. Don't worry about time. Better a well thought out reply than a hasty one.
I'm on this site. both to challenge evolutionists on some points they may not have thought through, You're not just challenging evolutionists, you're challenging geologists, physicists, chemists... pretty much the entire scientific consensus.
I also agree on the unlikelihood of a novice like me discovering anything new, but in my defense Google is actually an effective tool to research across a number of disciplines and latest research extremely rapidly, and although this isn't the best form of research academically I do believe it is easier than in the past for a novice to discover unique trends through deductive reasoning. Well then, that's where you are going wrong. It is not possible for an amateur to self-educate by means of Google, to the point where they are able to seriously challenge the scientific consensus. That is a delusion. It is especially unlikely when you are starting from a belief in falsified biblical dogma like the Flood. Trying to teach yourself leaves you too open to cherry-picking, confirmation bias and a host of other flaws and fallacies. Think about it; can you name one example of a self-taught novice overturning the status quo after a stint at "Google University"? No you can't. And part of the reason you can't is because all of those papers you might read online, the source of the information from which you are working, were written by scientists. You're not going to tell them anything they don't already know. They, on the other hand, can tell you a great many things that you do not know. i don't mean to be condescending, but you should be listening to them rather than trying to prove them wrong.
This is my point, that there is an overemphasis on swamp-based fauna and flora during the carboniferous, and other environments could have easily existed. You are misunderstanding the situation. There are lots of swamp and wet woodland fossils in the Carboniferous record because that's what fossilises. For fossils to form you need certain conditions. By far the commonest condition is deposition of sediment. For that, you need water. That's why you see so many wetland fossils in the Carboniferous; not just because they were common (although they were indeed common) but because they were the organisms that lived in conditions that lent themselves to successful fossilisation. Wet swampy lowlands are good at producing fossils. Arid highlands, dominated as they are by erosion rather than deposition, are very poor at producing fossils.
but the land-based carboniferous layers are mainly identified by swamp fossils, the swamp formed carboniferous coal is even the reason for the name "carboniferous". And the Devonian is named for the little English county of Devon, but that era is not defined by being in Devon. You're getting too hung up on the name.
Could you post links on the Pangea interior to back up your point that there has been research on dryer interior regions. What exactly are you after? A quick Wiki search is enough to disprove your strange notion that there were no mountains in the Carboniferous. Check out the Appalachians. I have been focussing on land based areas because of the questions posed to me regarding mammal and angiosperm fossils in the carboniferous. It makes no difference. The marine record disproves your pet theories just as much as the terrestrial. Disagree? Well then, just show me a Permian whale. Or a Carboniferous turtle. Or an Ordovician sea-snake... Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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. You are missing my point by referring to the HLA REGION of genes. MY point relates to specific genes at specific locations, to count the alleles in an entire region of genes to make your point, actually completely misses my point. Furthermore, my original point does not refer to humans, because the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood, and therefore a few more alleles remains consistent with the partial human bottleneck at the flood. It's animals like cows that we should be looking at.
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. I'm fine with this, but a few alleles is at least consistent with a bottleneck. Have you got any proof of any lack of bottleneck in large terrestrial animals?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
It is not possible for an amateur to self-educate by means of Google, to the point where they are able to seriously challenge the scientific consensus. That is a delusion. It is especially unlikely when you are starting from a belief in falsified biblical dogma like the Flood. Trying to teach yourself leaves you too open to cherry-picking, confirmation bias and a host of other flaws and fallacies. I don't see much evidence generally for the flood already having been falsified. Not much on this thread either. Your post is pretty theoretical, name some evidence that disproves "biblical dogma like the Flood". Its easy to make sweeping claims, this thread is about evidence.
You are misunderstanding the situation. There are lots of swamp and wet woodland fossils in the Carboniferous record because that's what fossilises. For fossils to form you need certain conditions. By far the commonest condition is deposition of sediment. For that, you need water. That's why you see so many wetland fossils in the Carboniferous; not just because they were common (although they were indeed common) but because they were the organisms that lived in conditions that lent themselves to successful fossilisation. Wet swampy lowlands are good at producing fossils. Arid highlands, dominated as they are by erosion rather than deposition, are very poor at producing fossils. This has been my own point from the start, so I don't see how I could be misunderstanding this point, when I have been pointing out this very fact about the Carboniferous on this thread.
What exactly are you after? A quick Wiki search is enough to disprove your strange notion that there were no mountains in the Carboniferous. Check out the Appalachians. I was a bit confused with this answer, I was curious regarding your proof of carboniferous studies of interior non-wetlands land-based regions and asked for a link. Instead you give me a link regarding the Appalachians which are full of sea, coastal and wetlands fossils. I would really appreciate it if you could back up your original point about terrestrial non-wetlands regions in the Carboniferous. Have you got links to prove that these regions have been studied? Regarding the Appalachians, have you got proof that they were highlands before the carboniferous? There are some terrestrial fossils high in the Appalachians, but these are normally of a low wetlands or rain forest type landscape of fauna/flora. If you have proof of high altitude fauna/flora carboniferous/permian fossils in the Appalachians you would have a point that the Appalachians were not low lying before the PT boundary.
It makes no difference. The marine record disproves your pet theories just as much as the terrestrial. Disagree? Well then, just show me a Permian whale. Or a Carboniferous turtle. Or an Ordovician sea-snake... What you are asking for is completely illogical. The ocean before the PT boundary was oxygen rich, and cold. The ocean after the PT boundary was oxygen depleted and warm. The marine life that survived into the oceans of the Triassic would have been in isolated salty oxygen depleted warm lakes, something of complete rarity in the carboniferous. Find that rare lake, and I will find you your fossils. Only problem is that lake would be filled with Triassic marine life and therefore dated to the Triassic instead of the carboniferous. To find a turtle in Carboniferous oceans is as illogical as trying to find a lion in carboniferous swamps. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Lol, good one. I gave you a Cheers for that. But my point still stands, the carboniferous is well known for its relatively flatter landscape compared to today. I'm not sure if this is true, we'd have to look stuff up. However, I am sure that that wasn't your point. What you were talking about was the amount of water necessary for a global flood. Now, the existence of even one substantial mountain in the Carboniferous undermines your point. And geologists tell me that in their youth the Appalachians must have been at least 5km high. Now even if they were the only mountain range in the world back then (which they weren't) and the rest of the Earth was as flat as a pancake, that would still leave you with a lot of water to account for.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I did some research on this lately. What I found, in summary, is that after all these excitable reports of things like pollen and fern spores even as far back as the Cambrian, scientists looked at the reagents used to prepare rock samples for microscopic examination and found that they were contaminated with microscopic organic material such as ... yeah, you guessed it, pollen and spores.
This explains the anomalous observations; it also, you will note, explains the nature of the anomalous observations: they were always of microscopic stuff that could get into the factory where the reagent is produced and find its way into a bottle, and never something like a human skull, which couldn't. Or, for that matter, an entire angiosperm plant, rather than just the pollen of one.
Here's a paper:
A suite of core samples for palynological examination was macerated, observing the usual precautions against contamination. The resulting microflora assemblage was erratic. Contamination was introduced through the technical grade reagents used. Examination of the slight sediment present in technical grade hydrochloric and nitric acid reagent bottles revealed abundant plant tissue, diatoms, and some spores and pollen. It is suggested that chemically pure grade reagents will eliminate contamination. Now, if the reagents are contaminated with microscopic material such as pollen, which they are, then we would expect palynologists to find pollen in the wrong places, and they do. But we wouldn't expect anyone to find angiosperm plants in the wrong places, and they don't. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
You are missing my point by referring to the HLA REGION of genes. MY point relates to specific genes at specific locations, to count the alleles in an entire region of genes to make your point, actually completely misses my point. 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.
Furthermore, my original point does not refer to humans, because the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood, and therefore a few more alleles remains consistent with the partial human bottleneck at the flood.
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).
I'm fine with this, but a few alleles is at least consistent with a bottleneck. Have you got any proof of any lack of bottleneck in large terrestrial animals? 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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
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 The genetics of HLA-DR is complex. HLA-DR is encoded by several loci and several 'genes' of different function at each locus 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). 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.
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 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I'm not sure if this is true, we'd have to look stuff up. However, I am sure that that wasn't your point. What you were talking about was the amount of water necessary for a global flood. Now, the existence of even one substantial mountain in the Carboniferous undermines your point. And geologists tell me that in their youth the Appalachians must have been at least 5km high. Now even if they were the only mountain range in the world back then (which they weren't) and the rest of the Earth was as flat as a pancake, that would still leave you with a lot of water to account for. 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.htm Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You say, and I quote: "you should read up on the landscape of the carboniferous. FLAT. Not mountainous like today'.
Now, we have read up on the landscape of the Carboniferous. It turns out that according to geologists, there was this great big Appalachian orogeny that made big mountains all over the place. We did indeed "read up on the landscape of the carboniferous". And you were completely wrong. So now you move the goalposts. You don't like what geologists found, so now you wish to say: "Have you got any proof that the Appalachians or any other mountain range was more than just a series of hills"? You told us to read up on the landscape of the Carboniferous, and we did. It was not flat, it had mountains. This is what geologists tell us. And you yourself were quite happy to believe every word they say so long as you could believe that they were saying that there were no mountains in the Carboniferous. Now that I say otherwise, you want a standard of proof more rigorous than you found sufficient to believe in your own dumb daydreams.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
let's just say I am not claiming a human bottleneck at the flood, only a bottleneck of other large terrestrial animals. But you need to claim a bottleneck in humans, and ALL large land animals. The bottleneck would have to appear in essentially all alleles. While there is some flexibility among some of he animals, we know exactly how many humans are alleged to have been on the ark, and for three of the eight, we know their parentage. There should be a bottle neck in the human genome.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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 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.
The bible refers to others, known as the "sons of the gods" who mated with the daughters of men. Pre-fludde. Irrelevant.
I am not claiming a human bottleneck at the flood, only a bottleneck of other large terrestrial animals. 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.
Would you mind giving a more specific link than the home page, or quote the figures directly? 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But you need to claim a bottleneck in humans 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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. Well once magic is invoked, there is no point in asking for evidence. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Here's an interesting paper: Allelic Genealogy and Human Evolution:
quote: 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 Ne 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:
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024