Summations Only

I'm here. Is your complaint about the characterization of arrogance? What adjective do you think should apply to someone who believes they understand a field better than the field's own experts? Do you think participants should be permitted to utter inanities without comment? To what degree should participants be required to ignore the behavior of other participants?The goal of the Forum Guidelines is to keep discussion focused on the topic, not to force participants to put on blinders, become unemotional robots, or refrain from calling a spade a spade.There is no complaints forum, only a complaints thread. Please take any complaints and any replies to this message to this thread: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

We've been over this before. The evidence that there is no elephant in your living room is that you just walked through your living room and saw no elephant. The evidence that there is no faunal-wide genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago is that the analysis of scores of genomes has revealed no such bottleneck. Perhaps it would help if you went through the exercise of describing for Jar just what you think such evidence would look like. You have this backwards. This is the celestial teapot thought experiment all over again. We do not believe something is true simply because there's no evidence it is not true. If you think there was a faunal-wide genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago then you should bring forward the evidence that led you to that belief.Please reply to Jar, not me.

self removed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What would such evidence look like?Geneticists have found evidence of bottleneck events in many species including humans.The problem is, if the Biblical Flood myths were true then a genetic bottleneck event signature MUST show up in all the species that are descended from critters on the Ark. In addition, that genetic bottleneck event must show up in the same time frame for every one of the species. If it does not show up in even one species then the Biblical Flood myths have been totally and completely refuted.Perhaps you are asking if geneticists ever specifically looked for a Biblical Flood Bottleneck and the answer is of course, "No"; and that is for the same reason scientists have not looked for the troll under the bridge, leprechauns, garden gnomes or unicorns. Honest geologists, biologists, geneticists and ecologists all know that the evidence is overwhelming (as you have been show repeatedly in this thread) that the Biblical Floods did not happen.The topic though is "If the ARK was real here is what we must see."The answer is that if the ark and Biblical Flood myths were true we MUST see a genetic bottleneck event at 4500 years ago in the descendents of EVERY species that are were on the ark.Seems a simple enough experiment. Ever wonder why those folk claiming to be "Creation Scientists" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) have never done so?

Because you almost did the research!... oh, wait, you just made shit up about those "dry hot desert landscapes" that would have existed just after a global flood. And would have killed all the amphibians except the ones that survived.By the way, did you just make a distinction between mammals and marsupials?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I was interpreting the geological formations from a geological perspective. Allegations of arrogance only apply if I am wrong from a scientific geological perspective. If I am right, then allegations of arrogance are unnecessary distractions to a decent debate.

If you make a public comment, I feel its only fair I be allowed to publicly respond to you. If you do not agree, I welcome being removed from a one-sided forum.My role in this thread is to defend the concept of a flood from unscientific comments claiming the impossibility of the flood.I am not stating I can prove the flood genetically. I can't.Others are stating they can disprove the flood from genetics. The onus is therefore on the one making the claim, to back up their claim. Otherwise refrain from making such a claim.This is all obvious. Very obvious. You seem to be defending evolutionists right to make statements without evidence, can you see your bias as an administrator?

What part of, "Please take any complaints and any replies to this message to this thread: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0," didn't you understand?

The Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread is just as public as this one. It also happens to be the thread for making complaints. Which is what you're doing.I posted messages to you because you don't seem to understand how evidence works. When you conceded there was no evidence of a genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago, then that's the evidence that there was no genetic bottleneck 4500 years ago. If you imagine that the evidence against a genetic bottleneck would take some other form then please describe what that evidence might look like. To Jar, not to me.

I found this statement to be lacking in evidence:
"Honest geologists, biologists, geneticists and ecologists all know that the evidence is overwhelming (as you have been show repeatedly in this thread) that the Biblical Floods did not happen."Please show me where any large mammal CANNOT be traced back to 14 originals, or 28 original alleles. Any single animal.Sure evolutionists make honest assumptions, but when it comes down to actual evidence for your position, actual studies that preclude all possibility of bottlenecks, then you are sorely lacking. For example, all marsupials in Australia have a common genetic signature with a species of South American marsupial, talk about a genetic bottleneck.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/07/100727174911.htm
Using sequences of a kind of "jumping gene," the team has reconstructed the marsupial family to reveal that all living Australian marsupials have one ancient origin in South America. This required a simple migration scenario whereby theoretically only one group of ancestral South American marsupials migrated across Antarctica to Australia.

My stance is that in most cases there has not been enough DNA analysis to make clear conclusions about bottlenecks. Detailed SNP analysis across thousands of specimens in each species would be required to create a profile of the originators within each population. o far its only humans that have been analysed to this degree and it has been confirmed that all humans do come from only a few individuals.Until there is enough information, evolutionists should refrain from making wild claims that simply do not have supporting evidence.I hope you can understand my viewpoint, and hope you can see my logic in requiring more information when I am already well aware that DNA analysis has only touched on finding ancestral origins in a few animals.

What part of "All animals that are descended from the critters on the Ark MUST show a genetic bottleneck event 4500 years ago and such a 4500 year ago bottleneck even marker is not found in humans, marsupials, cattle, our cousins the other great apes, horses ...?" don't you understand?

I saw the conclusions of that study as supportive of my position:Object not found!
"As expected, mangroves were least affected by the effects of the tsunami in the short and long term; however, mangroves in the flooded zone were sparsely dispersed and covered a small land area before the tsunami, and were thus protected from the largest waves. Our results also suggest that vegetation classes other than mangroves were also quick to recover from damage."As for grasses, I was not proposing that grasses recovered quickly. Cows do not eat only grass, there are many types of vegetation that would recover from a flood. Beans that float and germinate in saline soils, roots that are covered by shallow sediment and start to grow under the soil while it is being washed clean, seeds that tolerate waterlogging well. Its these sparsely distributed plants that could have provided a source of food until the soil was ready for a wider variety of seeds.(unless anyone could provide proof that these processes that I describe are impossible)

Until further DNA analysis, I feel neither of us should be using genetics to back up our views on bottlenecks. Certainly humans have shown modern diversification from a few individuals, and both evolutionary assumptions and creationist assumptions would predict many more such scenarios across many species.

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."