Summations Only

You have not provided evidence of such. Instead you cited various papers, misinterpreted them and got repeatedly smacked down.Remember that? How you cited a paper in Message 172 and got it wrong? How it wasn't even about flooding?Or do you remember how your link from Message 195 only mentioned marine transgressions "in one section in the Canadian Arctic"?Do you remember how you cited another paper in that message only talked about climate change, rather than flooding?Remember how in Message 209 you cited evidence of " change across the Permian-Triassic (P/T) boundary in CTM from sparse channels contained within thick floodplain deposits in the Permian Buckley Formation to stacked channels with sparse floodplain deposits in the Lower Triassic Fremouw Formation." as if it were evidence of a marine flood?That was all wrong. that was just you Googling a few key words, finding a few papers and getting them really badly, embarrassingly wrong. Sorry, but that's not evidence of anything except your own poor grasp of the topic. You do realise that the word "fluvial" means "pertaining to rivers", right? Because changes in river systems do not a global flood make. In fact, when you cite a paper that looks at the P-T and sees only changes to fluvial flood systems, that only serves to disprove your argument. If you were right, the authors should be saying "Holy crap! Check out this massive marine transgression!And it's a huge sonofabitch!" Instead, they only see minor localised changes. That leaves your argument dead in the water. Again. Exactly. You showed us local events. You failed to show us a global event. Poor attempt at deflection.There is no comparison here. You are suggesting that the entire groupings of mammals, birds, and angiosperms hid on a mountaintop (where they could not possibly survive) for billions of years without leaving a single trace. That is just nonsense. It's your argument mate. But yes, it is a cop-out. And dry environments do not support human populations. The populations you are dreaming about could not possibly have lived.The real reason that these fossils have not been found is that they do not exist. There are no pre-Triassic mammals, or angiosperms. There never were. All the rest is just you, rationalising in desperate fashion.Humans live near water. Birds live near water. Flowering plants live near water.Water means fossils. No fossils means no humans, no birds, no flowering plants and thus no P-T Flood, no matter what flimsy and preposterous excuses you conjure up. You are asking me to show you fossils from environments that do not produce fossils.I am asking you to show me fossils from environments that do produce fossils.Specifically, I am asking you to show me fossils of creatures that we know are superbly adapted wetlands, that thrive by the millions in wetlands the world over. And I am asking you to show me fossils from those very wetlands, environments that typically produce tons of superb fossils.I am only asking you to show me the life forms that the Bible says should be there (if the Flood were at the P-T layer). You can't though. You can't because the evidence just isn't there and because the evidence that does exist contradicts your fairy tale scenario. No, you are missing the point. Species X or species Y might be localised, but larger groupings, like the ones we're dealing with here, are not localised. They are ubiquitous. Flowering plants are not localised. They are ubiquitous. Mammals are ubiquitous. Humans are ubiquitous. Birds live on all continents. The Bible demands that flowering plants precede the Flood. But they don't. None of these huge groups do. Your fantasy depends on some of the most successful groups of living things on Earth being highly localised to areas that could not possibly support them. It's pathetic ad hoc excuse making.I mean, seriously, I'd love to know; where did the whales hide all those billions of years? On a mountain? Or in a desert? Really, it's no sillier than your idea about all the inconvenient absentee creatures living in mountain hideaways. I'm perplexed by the way you keep referring to the Triassic as "dry". That's not quite right. The period was dry overall, sure, but there were still plenty of wetlands around. The era had its swamps and forests as well, but still it had no grasses. Grasses would have been ideally placed to fill the environmental niches freed up by the P-T extinction event, but they're not there. If your theory were correct, we should see grasses in the Triassic, but we don't. The dating doesn't even matter; you are still screwed even if we ignore the dates and use only relative dating. Your P-T Flood theory must accept at least relative dating of the various geological eras. If you don't accept this, you have no basis to place anything at the P-T Boundary or anywhere else.Using only relative dating we can say that the Permian is before the Flood, as is the Carboniferous. But we can also see that these eras occurred well after the first life. The organisms that the Bible lists as being amongst the first created living things should be visible in those layers. They're not. Childish pipe dreams aside, that leaves your Flood theory dead. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace, or at least it would if you'd show some intellectual honesty and face facts; there is no global flood layer t the P-T boundary. There's no global flood layer anywhere. There never was a global flood.Mutate and Survive

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?

Hi again mindspawn But is this kind of error (which I take on faith at this point btw) frequent or rare? How much information is sufficient to make an educated estimate? No, you first asserted that you had issues with dating methodology. This was the second time I suggested you should look at that thread and see what you can explain. Your previous response was to ask a question rather than to go to that thread.Enjoy.

Naturally some individual species are specific to localised areas - this was a major piece of evidence for Darwin when he was formulating his theory of evolution. But you seem to assume under your model that entire classes were once limited to small regions and thus were not fossilised. Lets look at your model again: Looking at some of my local (ie Australian) geology:
In the mid Proterozoic rocks here I can only find fossils of stromatolites. Your claim seems to be that nearly all other genera existed but were somehow not fossilised.
I move up the sequence a little to late Proterozoic, I'm still seeing stromatilites but I also see Ediacara. Nothing else.
Above this is the Cambrian where I start seeing arthropods as well as stromatolites. Ediacaran fossils have also been reported in the Cambrian. However, no fossils of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals etc.
By the time we get to Ordovician rocks in eastern Australia we start seeing verterbrates - jawless fishes as well as arthropods, etc, etc. No marine mammals, no marine reptiles, no marine amphibians and no marine birds for some reason.I could go on, but you know the pattern. In every succeeding geological epoch we see, not just new species, but often new genera, plus nearly always examples of the pre existing genera. Isn't it a much more elegant solution to this observation to admit that the over time new species and genera are appearing rather than to try and come up with some convoluted theory that genera start coming out of hiding for no apparent reason? It might be worth having a look at the cognitive dissonance thread.

In that message, yes. By Making Stuff Up I was referring to your oft-repeated claim that a number of alleles of one gene in the teens indicates a bottleneck. You Made That Up.Stop doing that.

The vast majority do correlate. That's done extremely rarely, and when it's done it's clear that the calibrated date is not independent of the "calibrator". None of Razd's correlation are of this type. Of course it's available to the public, and even fairly easy to find. You are Making Stuff Up again. E.g. Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use, THE URANIUM HALF-LIVES: A CRITICAL REVIEW, Precision Measurement of Half-Lives and Specific Activities of 235U and 238U.MIT's Barton Library will send any paper to you as a PDF for $15.

100% "accumulation" (which I presume is what a geneticist would call fixation) is not realistic. Yes some genes mutate more and some mutate less.So you think that two new alleles could have arisen since the fludde. How many alleles did the average mamal set on the Ark carry?

If what you are describing is what I think it is, then...,...this is a creationist myth that has most likely been passed from book to website to blog and back for a long time without anyone ever checking on it's accuracy.It's most likely that you are describing "time stratigraphic markers."First, some background. A "time stratigraphic marker" can be anything that is widespread, durable, easily identifiable, and which has a short temporal span. A classic example is the recent "pull top" from beverage cans. These were introduced about 1964, went out of style in the late 1970s, are everywhere, and are made of aluminum so they are very durable. Given all of these features, these little jewels will be great for identifying that specific narrow time period to archaeologists for thousands of years to come. Certain styles of glass bottles and pottery and a host of other items can also be excellent markers.Now, we can apply that same principle to fossils in stratigraphic layers. Some layers contain fossils not found in the layers above or below them. Once those layers are dated using other means, then they can be dated wherever they occur by the "index fossils" they contain. These are simply time stratigraphic markers as used in geology. They work just the same, have good accuracy, and save the expense of radiometric dating. Why bother to do expensive dating when it has been done elsewhere, and those index fossils are easily identified to particular time periods?But this simple technique is apparently enough to confuse creationists who 1) are looking for anything they can find to bash science, and 2) who generally know next to nothing about the science they are seeking to bash.

There has been no correction in the age of the Appalachians. MindSpawn got this misimpression from a lay-press science article he cited in Message 294, Geologists Find New Origins Of Appalachian Mountains.A much more clear explanation can be found in Isotopic studies of the Acatlan complex, southern Mexico: Implications for Paleozoic North American tectonics. The Appalachians in north eastern America have not been redated. They are still thought to be 480 million years old, but the article describes subsequent stages of mountain building that added to the range, one of which occurred in what is now southern Mexico about 180 million years later (not 120).There was no 120 million year error in the dating of what are commonly known as the Appalachian Mountains, but a previously unknown and younger extension of the once mighty range has been discovered in southern Mexico. MindSpawn's claimed 120 million year error is actually just a figure his cited article used while describing events. The article's title should have been, "Geologists Find Origins Of Newly Discovered Subrange of the Appalachian Mountains."I didn't have any free time when MindSpawn first made his claim of a 120 million year dating error, but when it got mentioned again I decided to check it out. I liked your description of the self-correcting nature of science.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.

No, don't. Because a lot of the genome isn't genes, it's non-coding DNA.You can't start off with figuring from 3 billion base pairs, which includes all the DNA, and then divide by the number of genes.

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.

From your source:

quote:

---

The scientists recently discovered a piece of the Appalachian Mountains in southern Mexico, a location geologists long had assumed was part of the North American Cordillera. The Cordillera is a continuous sequence of mountain ranges that includes the Rocky Mountains. It stretches from Alaska to Mexico and continues into South America.

---

As I interpret the article: The Appalachian Mountains were created much earlier than the Cordillerian ("Rocky") mountains. They were studying an area of complex/complicated geology that had (wrongly) been thought to be part of the Cordillerian chain. It was found to instead be of the Appalachian chain. This made it part of the older mountain chain.Further study indicated that the area was a late formed aspect of the Appalachian Mountains, much younger than what was found elsewhere in Appalachian Mountains study. This area was formed 120 million years later than the older Appalachian Mountains. This is independent of age considerations elsewhere in the Appalachian Mountains.Seemingly, the article could have been more clearly written. My interpretation may be wrong, and if so, I welcome and encourage the better geologists to correct me.MooseABE3 note:The http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/11/061117123212.htm article
and
the Page not Found | Ohio University article
are the same.Percy supplied the "a much more clear explanation"
http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...nt/103/6/817.abstract article.
I not sure about that "more clear" claim.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix quote box and turn off signature. Yet another failure to use "preview" before posting.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Damn, I thought I turned that signature off.Edited by Minnemooseus, : ABE3.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Tweak subtitle. Better but still not good.

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.