Summations Only

I believe you have shown that a flood of water did not happen,......especially 40,000 years ago.That would have been the moment when all other humanoids disappeared in a mass extinction.

Only the three racial stocks of the present seven genetically different types of humans now roam the earth.

This would imply that the "flood" was really a major population explosion of modern man, an Out-of-Africa emmigration, which lasted 40,000 years of "days and nights" is factually what happened.

All other man-types disappeared, and modern man flooded the earth to the tops of the mopuntains.

It would also imply that Genesis (out of necessity) had to tell the truth, couched in this metaphor-like flood talk.

Because the Ark was really the skull of Modern man, capable of carrying all the names and visions of the animals into the next age of stone:

kofh2u in Message 320 writes:The 40,000 year ago "Out-of-Africa"theory which supports a massive and successful emmigration out of Africa after numerous exodus and returns as Ice Ages came and went is further supported by the most recent genetic study that claims all men living today are related to just one man, presumably this Noah type, who lived 40,000 years ago.

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.

Well, think about this. Let's take the Appalachians as an example.In the first place, they have obviously been worn down by erosion. Anything that was on the top of them when they were uplifted won't be there any more.In the second place, the standard geological explanation of them is that they were low-lying prior to their uplift. That's what uplift means. The constituent sedimentary rocks of the Appalachians used to be at the bottom of the sea or something, then they were uplifted. They became high ground.In the third place, fossils aren't deposited on high ground. How would that even work? The fossils we have are 99.9% stuff that was deposited in the sea, in a lake, in a subsiding sedimentary basin --- in a place where sediment is deposited. Sediment isn't deposited on the tops of mountains. The tops of mountains are where erosion takes place.

You can't do this, it really doesn't work. If "flood geologists" are right, then real geologists are a bunch of fools motivated by ideology and prejudice --- you can't rely on them to tell you anything. They tell you that there were marine transgressions in the Carboniferous? Yeah, but they also tell you that these transgressions never covered the whole of the Earth, that there has never been a global flood, that the Earth is about a million times older than YECs think it is, and that "flood geology" is the most ridiculous bunch of lies they've ever heard. If "flood geology" is right, then you need to remake the whole of geology from the bottom up, you can't rely on real geologists to tell you when and where there were marine transgressions, because they are wrong and wouldn't know a marine transgression if it punched them in the face while shouting: "I'M A MARINE TRANSGRESSION, BITCHES!" Your whole case has to be that you can't rely on geologists to tell you anything, we have to go right back to the rocks and start again.

I'm sure someone else is going to turn up and explain to you why this is nonsense, so I'm not going to lecture you on it.What I will point out is that you're talking about things you've never studied. You are talking about these things fluently and authoritatively, only when I read you saying: "The link does not show numerous alleles, this is showing numerous nucleotides at a single locus" then I know that you have no idea what you're talking about. You couldn't have written that sentence if you'd read the first couple of chapters of any textbook on genetics.And you must know that you haven't actually studied genetics. But you still presume to lecture us on this subject with the same calm assurance with which you patronized Percy by telling him that if only he studied the subject more carefully he'd know that the landscape of the Carboniferous Period had no mountains.Now, this issue goes beyond a mere debate about who's right and who's wrong. This is an ethical issue. You are standing up in what is, after all, a public forum, that anyone with internet access can read, and you are blandly assuring everyone that this and that is true about subjects that you know you have never studied. You lecture everyone on the geography of the Carboniferous, which you have never studied, and now you're telling us about genetics when you plainly have never studied it even so far as to know the meaning of the word "allele". And you know that you have never studied these topics with any seriousness. But in public, you behave as though you know all about them --- and you actually chastise Percy for not having studied enough to agree with the stuff that you've made up in your head!As I say, this is an ethical issue. We can all be wrong about stuff, that happens to the best of us. But you are setting yourself up in public as an authority on areas of science that you know perfectly well you've never really studied.I should add that I've only gone on about this at such length because I'm sure that at heart you're a nice guy who intends to do the right thing. But the fact is that in this case you haven't done the right thing. You're lecturing people, in public, on subjects that you haven't spared five minutes to understand. This is a bad thing to do.

However in this particular thread your argument about human alleles is a strawman argument. Find someone who actually believes in a human bottleneck ...

I had to go back and read through all your posts to find out why you wrote that. It's because the sons of God descended from heaven to fuck human women, yes? Thus enlarging our gene pool, right?But this doesn't happen any more, apparently. The Bible just stops mentioning them. Did God, so to speak, ground his sons at some point, and say: "OK, no more descending from heaven, you just do it to chase after human ass. I'm taking away the keys of your Heavenmobile"? One has to wonder.

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