|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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? I am happy with my interpretation of the possibilities in that bible verse ...
I like this forum because its about evidence. Except, of course, when you don't have any evidence for your claims. Edited by JonF, : Bad tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. So no-one knows anything about the Sons of God. They might have been aliens, they might have been angels, they might have been products of "a more sophisticated civilization (let's call it Atlantis)". But what we do know for certain is that they used to fuck human women. And then at some point they stopped descending from heaven and fucking our women, 'cos they don't do that any more. Or maybe they still do that, but they do that on the sly? How would I tell if my wife had been fucking around behind my back with one of the sons of God? I could figure this out better if the Bible told me how many sons God had, but there is nothing in the Bible that tells me that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Ah. So, no evidence. You spoke of "confirmed injection of DNA". So your interpretation of a Bible verse, with no explanation of how these many thousands of others survived the fludde or could mate with humans, is "confirmed injection". We do have Bible forums; this is a science forum. Interpret the Bible in a Bible forum, present evidence in a science forum. If you have no evidence (which you don't), admit it and hie thee out of the scientific arena. I have evidence, which agrees with you. We both agree that there is no human bottleneck. The evidence is consistent with my bible views.
14 to 18 alleles of a highly conserved gene is not necessarily a bottleneck. You need much more information to conclude a bottleneck. Sad that you can't remember what was said a week or two ago.
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.How many alleles do humans have for blood type? I see you still haven't figured out what an allele is.. 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:
The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but estimates of the exact rate have varied by an order of magnitude or more.[3][4] It seems that there are only estimates, no exact figures, and even the ESTIMATES vary by an order of magnitude or more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I could figure this out better if the Bible told me how many sons God had, but there is nothing in the Bible that tells me that. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Hi mindspawn,
mindspawn writes:
So the lack of a genetic bottleneck in humans is due to the sons of god impregnating humans, yes? 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. 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. Did the same sons of god impregnate all the animals which also do not have a genetic bottleneck? (And what did the cheetahs do wrong?) Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I have evidence, which agrees with you. We both agree that there is no human bottleneck. The evidence is consistent with my bible views. You have no evidence other than your interpretation of the Bible. Believe whatever you want to believe for whatever reasons make sense to you, but if you want to convince anyone that your views have some relationship with reality you'll need evidence. Your interpretation of a vague reference to some unspecified time period is not meaningful evidence. I see you are ducking questions like mad. You claimed that "... the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood". The appropriate definition of "confirm" is:
quote:{emphasis added} For confirmation you need at least two sources, one confirming the other. You have only one source. Therefore your claim of confirmation is wrong. Plus the Bible does not explicitly say any such thing, it requires a particularly strained and question-raising interpretation to get to "DNA injections after the flood". Your opinion of what the Bible says is not evidence. The scientific consensus is that a Noachic fludde would require bottlenecks in all animal including humans, and we know there was no human bottleneck, and we have no evidence of bottlenecks in any but a very few animal species. If you want to claim there's some way that humans avoided a bottleneck, in a scientific forum, you need real evidence. Not your personal satisfaction with your interpretation of a very vague phrase.
Would you mind posting my comment in which i reveal my lack of knowledge? OK. You started with:
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. Which I and Dr. Adequate pointed out is gobbledygook. You responded:
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.
As I've pointed out before, any change in a base pair is an allele. Alleles always, not often, differ if only one base pair differs. Plus it's not particularly easy to "analyze the entire allele and see if there are significant differences". I see that you've ignored a rather important question:
How many alleles do humans have for blood type? I'll tell you. Three. Therefore, since you claim that "14 and 18 alleles is a bottleneck" certainly you are claiming that three alleles is a bottleneck and therefore humans experienced a bottleneck. But this contradicts your claim that humans did not experience a bottleneck. The obvious reason for this contradiction is that you haven't a clue how to diagnose a bottleneck. You cannot diagnose a bottleneck on the basis of one gene, two genes, or a few genes. You need to analyze lots and lots of genes. In lots and lots of individuals from the bottlenecked and related species. Here's an extended quote from Genetic Basis for Species Vulnerability in the Cheetah (1985) which indicates how one could establish a bottleneck:
quote: Of course, today we'd rely a lot more on sequencing data. But my point is made.
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:
The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but estimates of the exact rate have varied by an order of magnitude or more.[3][4] It seems that there are only estimates, no exact figures, and even the ESTIMATES vary by an order of magnitude or more. Yup. Got any evidence (other than your personal opinion) that this is a problem? (and I'm not sure that Wikipedia is correct in that claim) I also don't know about Taq's number, but I suspect you've garbled it. You need to be very careful to use the appropriate units and be sure you're looking at germ-line mutations (i.e. eggs and sperm) From the Wikipedia article you quoted:
quote: Also from Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation:
quote: I see several estimates there that are very close, and none of which are compatible with "its normally a few base pairs per generation per individual across the entire genome".#8722;8sup
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The bible does not give exact breeding numbers Yes it does. Eight. You are making stuff up in a vain attempt to justify your preconceptions. Did Noye decide to toss in a few hundred Elohim even though God hadn't told him to? Did he genetically screen them to make sure of preserving the maximum number of alleles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Note that Buckland was a Christian theologian. He could not have wanted to dismiss the notion of a literal and real deluge. He must have been horrified at the idea that the Flood was not real. One can get some idea of his reluctance from the quote above. But - here's the point - he was too honest to ignore where the evidence led. The geological record did not show a deluge, only a gradual record of much smaller events and formations. I understand your desire to see one of the foundational myths of your religion vindicated as historical record. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. It's pretty doubtful that the stories were ever intended to be read that way anyway. 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.
So - please correct me if I'm wrong here - your contention is that the reason we do not find familiar species before the P-T boundary is that they might have dwelt in areas that did not lend themselves to fossil preservation. Is this an accurate summation of your position? 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.
Does this fit the bill for what you're after? It describes a semi-arid climate in the Carboniferous. Not quite, I was hoping for carboniferous desert fauna / flora to see how they differ from today.
Wetlands are incredibly rich habitats. They positively teem with life of every sort. If organisms like birds and snakes existed before the Flood, and if the Flood is located at the P-T Boundary, then we should be able to find their fossils in the wetlands of the Carboniferous. But we don't. Instead we find mostly extinct organisms that bear little resemblance to the bible's rather naive descriptions. That leaves your P-T Flood idea dead in the water. There's no point in your obsessing over the areas of poor fossilisation when what we know from the good fossil areas completely refutes your claims. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I've already done that with the Sphinx.
quote: Her's an alternative explanation for your "simultaneous overfill". It's a figment of your imagination. I looked at the links which you said supported it and couldn't find any support at all. Oh and the boulder clay layer ? Apparently boulder clay is formed be glaciers, so that doesn't sound like evidence of a flood either. So where IS the evidence for this hypothetical flood ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Yes it does. Eight. You are making stuff up in a vain attempt to justify your preconceptions. Did Noye decide to toss in a few hundred Elohim even though God hadn't told him to? Did he genetically screen them to make sure of preserving the maximum number of alleles? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Hey if you have any evidence against my particular view of the PT boundary flood please post it. The evidence has already been presented. When we look at the P-T Boundary, there is no flood layer! What more is there to say?! No flood layer, no flood. It really is that simple. A global flood would create a global flood layer, a great seam of sediment that extends across the entire world. It does not exist. End of story. It is your job to show a flood layer. It is not anyone else's duty to show you what is not there. You're supposed to show us what is there. Now if you can detect a huge layer of flood sediment at the P-T, then go ahead and show it to us. If not, admit that your hypothesis is busted.
All I've had so far is ONE alternative explanation for the massive movements of sediment then The ones that you only imagined you mean. There were no global movements of sediment back then. They only exist in your mind because you misunderstood a few technical papers that were above your pay grade. The reality is that the P-T Boundary tends to reflect a drier period, not a flood.
It takes water to move sediments to create a simultaneous worldwide overfill situation. Yes. More water than actually exists on the planet. That's already been addressed.
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) So in essence, you think that they were hiding. That is... I'm trying to find a way of putting this without coming across as insulting,, but.. That is nothing more than a fantasy. Sorry, but it just is. 1) Humans need water to survive. Human populations can't survive in deserts and on top of mountains, not for long, not without support. That's why, throughout history, human settlements have been next to water. Your little fantasy depends on humans (and birds, and fruit-bearing trees and all the rest) living in places where they could not possibly survive. That's laughable. 2) Your fantasy is based on inconvenient creatures dwelling in regions of poor fossilisation for one reason only; it means you can wish away the evidence. It reeks of ad hoc reasoning. You are only forced to believe this as a rationalisation to explain away the fact that the Pre-Triassic world contains none of the species that the Bible mentions. 3) Your fantasy about dating mistakes depends is simply naive. Let me remind you; the oldest human fossils are only tens of thousands of years old. The P-T event was 252 million years ago! Geologists do not make that kind of mistake. It is simply absurd. Your fantasy depends on an entire profession being composed of incompetent imbeciles. Geologists are not imbeciles. You are not smarter than them. Don't be so arrogant. 4) Carboniferous layers? What are you talking about? Why are you so obsessed with the Carbonifierous? There's 4350 million years worth of geology before the P-T Boundary! These species - humans, cattle, birds, - should show up in all of them! They were amongst the first living things according to the Bible. Yet they show up nowhere. Your problem goes a hell of a lot deeper than the Carboniferous my friend.
Under the assumption that the Carboniferous world was lush, full of rainforests and swamps, there was no ecological need for grasses. Bwa-ha-ha-hah! I'm sorry, but that really is a good one. Reeds, remember?
See those plants? They're reeds. In a swamp. With a bird sitting amongst them. Grasses love swamps. So do birds. Your hypothesis requires not only that grasses should only grow in places where they would leave no trace, but that they should not grow in places that are absolutely ideal for grasses. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?
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. Well done, since this is not what did in fact happen, you've just disproved your own argument. Grasses do not appear until the late Cretaceous at the oldest. They did not proliferate after the Triassic. You have disproved your own theory.
Not quite, I was hoping for carboniferous desert fauna / flora to see how they differ from today. So you are deliberately asking for fossils from regions that do not produce fossils. From me, you demand evidence that you have specifically agreed does not exist. For your argument, you accept any paper you can drag off the net and misinterpret. Do you not detect a slight imbalance there?
Each set of animals in each continent is largely exclusive. That's not true.
Including birds. That's not true either.
Some migrating birds are found extensively, but in general there is a localized habitat of fauna/flora throughout earth Nope. That's not true either. This would go a lot easier if you stopped making stuff up.
For example marsupials in Australia, Yeah... How exactly did the marsupials get to Australasia from the ark? None of this matters anyway. Yes, a given species or genus might be restricted to a particular area, but birds as a whole are global. Fruit-bearing trees are global. Grasses are global. Take a look at this distribution map;
That is the range of just one species of bird, the Barn Owl. It is not migratory and it does not live in deserts. Any single bird fossil from any point in the 4350 million years before the P-T would make your case, but there isn't one. Your fantasy about them being restricted to a tiny hidden patch of desert or mountain is completely contrary to reality. The only reason you are forced to resort to this sort of after-the-fact story-telling is because the evidence you need isn't there. A reasonable, rational, honest person would respond to this by conceding that his argument was flawed. You have responded by making hand-waving excuses. Snap out of it. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. If that is true then it is yet more evidence that the Biblical Flood stories are false. The Biblical flood is nonsense but here is your chance to explain HOW the mythical flood could actually create what we see today and I note that you have avoided presenting any model or Flood Geology. How do you explain there not being any pillow lava in the Siberian Traps? What is the Flood mechanism mechanism that can cover over two million square kilometers in lava and produce over a million cubic kilometers of lava in a year and still not produce any pillow lava? How did the supposed flood miss washing Oetzi who would have been a contemporary of Adam downhill? How did the Jomon culture continue pretty much uninterrupted by the imaginary flood? Flood Geology. Where is the model that explains the above?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Granny Magda,
3) Your fantasy about dating mistakes depends is simply naive. Let me remind you; the oldest human fossils are only tens of thousands of years old. The P-T event was 252 million years ago! Geologists do not make that kind of mistake. It is simply absurd. Your fantasy depends on an entire profession being composed of incompetent imbeciles. Geologists are not imbeciles. You are not smarter than them. Don't be so arrogant. And below this boundary we are not missing just fossils of humans, but of the whole mammal clade. One could argue that specific species may not have been found, but a whole clade like mammals? All we see are precursors (ancestors), not one mammal. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Hi RAZD,
And below this boundary we are not missing just fossils of humans, but of the whole mammal clade. Including the whales. I'm pretty sure that whales are quite widepread. Let's take a look;
Killer Whale Range Map That's... pretty widespread. But I guess they were hiding up a mountain for four and a half billion years. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boof Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 99 From: Australia Joined: |
mindspawn writes: ...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... This is a distribution map of Proteaceae:
from Missouri Botanical Garden website. There are other similar ones out there if you bother to look. Not exactly restricted to a small region of the Earth. Interestingly this pattern of distribution is not that different from the global distribuiont of Marsupials. Now, if you really want to blow your mind, check out how these distributions compare to reconstructions of Gondwanaland. Once again, science (geology, biology, botany etc) explains everything neatly - the 'flood' explains nothing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024