Summations Only

What is uncanny is how wrong you can be!Genesis is reported to deal with the last 6,000 years.And according to wiki:

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is a hypothetical name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree). However, the title is not permanently fixed on a single individual (see below).

​

Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam, but the bearer of the chromosome was not the only human male alive during his time. His other male contemporaries could also have descendants alive today, but not, by definition, solely through patrilineal descent.

​

The age for the Y-MRCA has been variously estimated as 188,000, 270,000, 306,000, and 142,000. A paper published in March 2013 reported an older estimate of 338,000 years. Then two simultaneous reports in August 2013 provide younger estimates, one suggested 180,000 to 200,000 years, and another, based on the genome sequence of nine different populations, indicated the age between 120,000 and 156,000 years

In other words, you are wrong again: the age of 40 thousand years is not mentioned anywhere!Not surprising, as you are just making things up, while scientists are reading what the real world evidence says. And if the numbers are as different as they are, scientists will just keep at it until they get it all figured out.This is unlike what creationists do: if they disagree they just have a schism and there is one more denomination or sect out there to join the roughly 40,000 that are already there!

Sure, as long as you are making things up, why be bothered with consistency or agreeing with what anyone else has made up.By the way, this is the science forum, so feel free to provide some evidence once in a while. If you have any.

Your use of the quote "all the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years" is a little misleading.On the website you are quoting from, that is an argument derived from one model of human origins--the replacement model. The regional continuity model is considerably different. There is also the assimilation (or partial replacement) model which attempts to blend the two. The article presents a discussion of each of these three models, along with arguments in favor of each. You have cherry-picked one sentence because it agrees with your a priori religious beliefs, while ignoring the rest of a lengthy article.By the way, I didn't find any mention of Noah's three sons in the article. Nor does the article support the kind of nonsense you are peddling here.What I did find, farther down in the article, is this:

Homo sapiens began migrating into the lower latitudes of East Asia by at least 70,000 years ago. Along the way, some of them interbred with archaic humans, including both Neandertals and Denisovans. Genetic markers from these archaic human populations are found in the gene pool of some Southern Chinese, New Guinean, and other Micronesian Island populations today. Homo sapiens from Southeast Asia travelled to Australia by 46,000 years ago and possibly as early as 60,000 years ago. Because Australia was not connected to Southeast Asia by land, it is probable that these first Australian Aborigines arrived by simple boats or rafts. Modern humans reached the Japanese Islands by 30,000 years ago or somewhat earlier. Around 35,000-30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens big game hunters moved into Northeastern Siberia.

What this shows is the origins of human differentiation, based on geography and migrations, "by at least 70,000 years ago." Again, the web page you are cherry-picking a quote from does not support your argument.http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

mindspawn keeps cherry-picking data, but has talked himself into a corner.He insists that the flood was at the P-T boundary, as that's probably the only place he can find a global flood massive flood transgression (i.e., rising water levels).

--This puts him in opposition to the biblical scholars who place the flood some 4,350 years ago.

​

--It also puts him in opposition to all of geology and paleontology, as at that time the fauna was absolutely different from the fauna at the time when modern humans had developed civilization. Modern humans developed some 250 million years later, and are not found in the same strata as the P-T boundary fauna. Not even close!

​

--And this puts him in opposition to all of the dating sciences, which place civilization and writing some 250+ million years later.

​

--He is also in direct opposition to genetics, which clearly show none of the things we would have to see if the flood actually happened, either 250 mya or 4,350 ya.

​

--And, returning to the topic of this thread, this puts him in opposition to zoology and ethology, as well as most of biology and other life sciences.

Focusing just on zoology and ethology, we are asked to believe that humans and fully modern fauna were kicking around 250 million years ago (in spite of there being no evidence supporting this); we are asked to believe that, upon leaving the ark these critters could survive even though they are all below the minimum numbers for a viable population; we are asked to believe that there was something appropriate there for them to eat besides each other; we are asked to believe that some of these critters, such as the koala, journeyed around the globe to Australia while lacking a suitable food supply for the entire trip; we are asked to believe that all of this and much more happened in spite of the contradictory evidence from the fossil record.Now, even the Queen in Alice could only believe up to six impossible things before breakfast. You would have us believe dozens to hundreds of impossible things.It is far easier to believe that if the non-existent ark landed at the P-T boundary Noah and all the rest of the non-existent critters would have starved to death, eaten each other, or been dinosaur dinner within the week. (Whoops, dinosaurs hadn't even been invented 250 million years ago! They came some 20 million years after the P-T boundary).

Horses and camels both originated in North America.

From wiki:

Although no unequivocal fossils are known prior to the early Eocene, the odd-toed ungulates probably arose in what is now Asia, during the Paleocene-Eocene boundary (55 million years ago).

​

By the start of the Eocene, 55 million years ago (Mya), they had diversified and spread out to occupy several continents. Horses and tapirs both evolved in North America; rhinoceroses appear to have developed in Asia from tapir-like animals and then colonised the Americas during the middle Eocene (about 45 Mya).

Then you should be presenting your evidence for that on the dating thread. I've been waiting for days for you to come up with something other than more "what-ifs" over there.

From the abstract of the article you cited:

The Australasian and South American marsupial mammals, such as kangaroos and opossums, are the closest living relatives to placental mammals, having shared a common ancestor around 130 million years ago.

That common ancestor would have lived roughly 130 million years before the "flood."

Mindspawn can't find anything in the geological record suggesting a major sea level rise until he gets back 250 million years! So, that has to be the biblical flood.In addition to there being no evidence of a global flood at that time, there is nowhere in the geological record any evidence of Holocene, or even Quaternary fauna! All that is off by a couple hundred million years also!And the dating is also off by such a degree that an analogy would have Christ walking the earth about two weeks ago. 250 million years is a huge difference, but Mindspawn doubletalks his way around the problems by cherry picking bits and pieces from journal articles that for the most part actually disprove his claims. He has ducked the thread I set up for him to discuss dating.And then there is genetics: he keeps squealing, "prove it" for accepted science while promoting the most outlandish ideas with no supporting evidence (all in an effort to prop up a religious belief based on old tribal myths).In short, as Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."And a complete waste of our time.

We have seen that creationists abhor the evidence because it doesn't confirm their beliefs, and as a result they have to misrepresent, obfuscate, ignore, quote mine, or deny major fields of study. Additionally, some creationist rebuttals are based on abysmal ignorance of science and/or the scientific method. And when those methods don't suffice, they just make things up!When presented with an observed fact (e.g., radiocarbon dating is accurate) they often come up with a "what-if" such as the following:

Thus, it is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years.
Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating | The Institute for Creation Research

Note: there is no evidence presented here, just a "what-if." But that unevidenced "what-if" is enough to let creationists persist in their beliefs in spite of all the contrary evidence.I guess when you have no evidence you go with whatever you can make up, eh?

No, it becomes appropriate for you to produce evidence. All you are doing with "what-ifs" is trying to shore up your beliefs by casting doubt on evidence-based conclusions.When you say, "What if you're wrong" you need to present evidence that we're wrong. The "what-if" by itself doesn't do that.

Mindspawn is not doing science.He is doing apologetics.

Ignoring your silly ideas on compressed dating, your scenario is contradicted by the mtDNA patterns.There is no "migrated into Africa" shown by the mtDNA patterns. There is an out of Africa migration instead, diversifying from type L1.Just another place where you are wrong.

Grasses did not exist in the Permian flora:

The earliest firm records of grass pollen are from the Paleocene of South America and Africa, between 60 and 55 million years ago (Jacobs et al., 1999). This date is after the major extinction events that ended the age of dinosaurs and the Cretaceous period.

​

Maintenance

So it looks like grasses developed nearly 200 million years after your P-T boundary flood.But that's OK, as cows didn't exist back then either.

This is just plain nuts, on too many levels to even bother with.You have shown yourself to be absolutely impervious to evidence as well as logic.The Queen in Alice would be very jealous! She only believed up to six impossible things before breakfast.