|
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: |
If you read Genesis 6 combined with Numbers 13:33 it appears that these giants were there before and after the flood. That's your opinion. It's not, as you claimed "confirmed". Nor is your opinion particularly meaningful in a scientific forum. I see you are giving up claiming that there's a been a bottleneck any any but a very few species in which we would see a bottleneck if there had been a fludde. Case closed. Again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
That's your opinion. It's not, as you claimed "confirmed". Nor is your opinion particularly meaningful in a scientific forum. I see you are giving up claiming that there's a been a bottleneck any any but a very few species in which we would see a bottleneck if there had been a fludde. Case closed. Again. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
So the lack of a genetic bottleneck in humans is due to the sons of god impregnating humans, yes? 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?) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
So you want evidence of genetic variance; well it is pretty readily available and has been since even before we knew anything about DNA and how it worked.
Consider transplants. One reason we knew about the bottleneck in Cheetahs long before we knew about how DNA worked was that it was possible to transplant skin from one cheetah to another without rejection. That is simply not true for humans or almost any other species of animals. There is simply too much genetic variation between individuals of ANY other species of animal for transplants to succeed without major efforts to repress rejection. But of course, that is irrelevant to the topic and just another example of your inability to address the subject. The thread is about Flood Geology. Here is your chance to explain how the Biblical Flood might explain what we see.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
So its the large terrestrial animals that would have significant allelic This would be expected in 6500 years. Looks like a bottleneck to me. As usual the information confirms a flood. I've already pointed out, twice, that the information presented in this thread does not look like a bottleneck. Your only reason for believing in a bottleneck is that you want it to be so. You ignored the data I posted on jaguars. Here's the bottomline:
quote: 47 genes with only one allele. The remainder of genes studied well below the average of other species, and of other similar animals in similar environments. And more. That's a bottleneck. 16-18 alleles of one gene in one animal indicates, if anything, no bottleneck. You haven't presented anywhere near enough data to claim a bottleneck. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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. Not according to the Bible:
quote: Regarding genetic bottlenecks:
As usual the information confirms a flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
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. Define "significantly unique". I already pointed you to 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. Please show your calculations of how this is consistent with your hypothesis. No hand-waving of "high mutation rate", let's see the numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2690 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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:to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fac {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. 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. 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". Ok I see, I saw minor point mutations as just variations of the same allele.
12.8 (2.0) 10-9 per site per generation 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Your whole argument relies on geologists correctly identifying the PT boundary. So what evidence do you have that they have gone horribly wrong here ? I note also that you still haven't offered any evidence for your claim of simultaneous overfilling of basins. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
mindspawn writes: This is about 35-40 mutations per generation. That's a few base pairs per generation as I said. No, that is a huge number per generation. That is 35-40, potentially different mutations, in every individual in that generation. In humans right now, that would be 7 billion times 35-40 mutations per generation. 245-280 billion mutations! Do you get it?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Gee you like to labor points The correct word is "belabor". It's a natural reaction to creationists ducking significant issues. E.g.:
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. So I've pointed out exactly why your made-up "criterion" for a bottleneck is wrong, in several different ways. Yet you are still looking for more than 14 alleles, and hand-waving away the examples I've given of many more, and ignoring the fact that your "criterion" requires claiming a bottleneck in humans.
He is preaching to me that my bible interpretation is in his opinion incorrect. I'm pointing out that your interpretation of the Bible is very poor evidence at best in a scientific setting. I'm also pointing out that your claim of confirmation is flat-out wrong.
Ok I see, I saw minor point mutations as just variations of the same allele. OK, you're wrong. Why is it that you (and so many other creationists) are so in love with Making Stuff Up rather than Finding Things Out, and then presenting your Made Up Stuff as established fact? (In looking back I see you saying "only one base pair differs (very recent mutation) ", which is yet another error; single base pair variations are not necessarily recent).
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. Well, 35-40 sure doesn't sound like a few to me, but "few" is an imprecise term. So, calculate how many different alleles should have arisen and fixed in any particular population for which we have data in your time frame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
He did originally say "I acknowledge recent mutations, its normally a few base pairs per generation per individual across the entire genome.". So he was not talking about within the population, he was talking about per person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Thanks.
I guess I missed that in the middle of all his Made Up Stuff. It doesn't have much to do with flood geology anyway.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024