Summations Only

I think they're only misleading to Mindspawn. I don't think anyone else would be led to conclude that the region of greatest current mtDNA diversity must be the origin of mankind (or that papers on the terrestrial deposits of rivers and lakes are actually about the flood, or that marine transgressions at the P-T boundary represent a global flood while those during other eras do not). But I wanted to limit myself to matters of fact, so I only noted Mindspawn's factual error about what his link said about mtDNA diversity.I've tracked down where Mindspawn obtained that image, Matriarchs: mtDNA at a Hebrew apologetics website about the lost tribes of Israel. To me the pies with the greatest diversity indicate the greatest migrational crossroads in human history, please feel free to correct or refine this comment.

The map's standard (you can find it on wiki and elsewhere). It's just trying to give a general idea of human dispersal from Africa, but it doesn't actually show diversity properly. As it is about migration, your last comment seems reasonable if you're talking about "pie diversity" rather than genetic diversity.But it isn't just mindspawn who thinks that the greatest region of mtDNA diversity is likely to be the region of origin of modern humans. That's why I've pointed out that they don't bother segmenting the African Pies. All of the out of Africa stuff comes from M and N, which are divisions of L3. If we did a pie chart map for the time that they emerge, there would be a two segment, two colour pie outside Africa, and a multi-segment (more than 20) multicoloured pie inside. Africa got off to a big head start so far as mtDNA diversity is concerned.Still today, we can find significantly more variations on the mitochondria from a collection of individuals in Africa than we can from a collection from the 5 other continents. That's what biologists mean by diversity, and Africa is certainly where it is.That's the effect we'd expect from any region if modern humans had emerged there and remained there for a long time in considerable numbers before dispersing out of the region in relatively small groups who were mainly from the same area within the region (a likely scenario, if migration was mainly from North-east Africa into the Middle-East).

Bluegenes is the only one to try an attempt to refute the 4500 year timeframe from human DNA data. He does not seem to understand the data as you can see in the biological forum.The data reveals ~2000 variations in 3.2 Mb of the human Y-chromosome, comparing 36 individuals of various haplogroups to the rare Haplogroup G reference. The variations are assumed to be ALL mutations from a Y-Adam however the data does not distinguish which of these variations were from mutations in Haplogroup G. Thus bluegenes has vastly overestimated his data, which is also based on many variables not yet fully established. The comparison with the chimpanzee reference to eliminate ancestral alleles is laughable in its circular reasoning, using the assumption of chimpanzee ancestry to challenge non-evolutionists is ludicrous.Mitochrondial analysis has not reached a point where they have defined the number of female ancestors exactly concurrent with Y-Adam. If you could find such data I would appreciate it.So there is currently insufficient DNA data to refute the flood hypothesis, unless you can post better evidence than bluegenes has posted.Edited by mindspawn, : clarifying

I am pretty sure most people understood what I meant.

Yes, what you meant is that you don't understand the differences between biology and geology or physics, apparently under a delusion that it is all part of a vast conspiracy.This is what fundamentalists that don't understand science usually mean (altho they often use "darwinist" instead of "evolutionist" the meaning is still clear: they think evolution is an enemy of truth).What you really should say is "scientifically validated by multiple sources measurements of age and time frames."For a discussion of the interactive validation of various methods by the scientific process, I direct you once again to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.Patiently waiting for you to tackle this concept of correlations between the various dating methodologies, while noting that all of your sturm und drang on this thread is totally pointless due to your erroneous prima faci assumptions regarding mailable ages and questionable dates:It doesn't matter how much you squeal and wiggle around the arguments given to you showing that you are wrong ...... any argument based on a false assumption is de facto invalid and not worth consideration.The earth is old, according to vast mountains of objective, correlated, consilient, congruent evidence -- get used to it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : "

You seem to stuck on the word "terrestrial". You have to prove that every part of that terrestrial sequence CANNOT represent flooding to make your point. If every spot on earth around the P-T boundary either represents flooding, or can be geologically interpreted as flooding, then a worldwide flood cannot be disproven geologically. Much of the Late Permian and early Triassic sedimentation could very well be flooding. Look at how the clastic rock is formed, look at how the clay is formed. Are you able to disprove that it is flooding? That is my question. Sure it may look like river deposits to you, but does that EXCLUDE the possibility of flooding. No. I find your interpretation of your map naive. Permian/Triassic/Jurassic are represented only 2 dimensionally, you seem to misunderstand that each has layers below and above. Your map is a 2-D illustration of surface exposure, not a 3-D illustration of the extent of the layers, and as such does nothing to prove your point about the extent of the Xuanwei formation at the P-T boundary. This formation covers a vast area, on the map on page 290 of the link, it represents about 120 000 km2. The link goes on to describe how upliftment has exposed the old eastern area which used to be covered by Xuanwei formation as well.http://www.le.ac.uk/...rs%20et%20al%20Chem%20Geol%202007.pdf
"The uplift probably ended in the beginning of the Late Permian (∼258 Ma) because a new transgression and depositional onlap started at that time"Note the "transgression" (sea flooding) that occurred in that region at the end of the Permian. No vast geological layer is perfectly homogenous, however the Xuanwei Formation does consistently cover this vast area, and is associated with a definite flooding event. (transgression) I mean no harm, this is just a chat. Hope chatting on the internet doesn't upset you too much, its not really worth it. And its ok for you to be wrong, we are after all human.The word "terrestrial" is not as important as you think. The flood was for a year or less, and occurred on terrestrial surfaces, that were very temporarily inundated. Other than maybe a slight increase in salinity in the soil, we would not expect a marine environment at all. However there should be some signs of flooding, like clastic rocks or layers of clay, or even unconformities (normally represent a strong regression).http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf
"The two cycles accord with the sequence in the Meishan area, i.e., the Changxingian transgression after Longtanian uplift, followed successively by a late Changxingian regression, the end-Permian-earliest Triassic transgression, and the late Early Triassic regression[29]. Comparison with similar sequences over the whole Yangtze Platform[30] shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"The sequence stratigraphy at Chahe correlates with the whole of South China, this shows a transgression (sea covered the region). This would include the entire region of the Xuanwei. Granny Magda, the paper was not so difficult to understand. I already covered this, clays are formed by fine sediment in water, not just by fine dry sediment. We already agreed that the sediment was volcanic, I have no dispute there and never did. however I have continuously insisted that the formation of clay needs water as well as sediment, a point that you ignore. Clay is normally formed by fine sediment (eg volcanic ash) drifiting to the bottom of a quiet body of water. (lake or ocean). Now you mention terrigenous ashes, please note how the following link associates these land formed sediments with their resulting waterborne deposition. ie these sediments are still referred to as terrigenous by origin, even if they are forming silts and clays in marine environments. http://geology.uprm.edu/Morelock/dpseaterrig.htm I mean no harm. If you see this as a chat, you may not get as upset. thanks for your consent that terrestrial can still involve large areas of water on the land, which is kinda what I have been getting at the whole time. Now the challenge is up to you to find a spot where there is no lake, because if a lake covered the entire region, this means the entire region was covered in water. You are the one that said the Xuanwei region does not show flooding, now you are the one agreeing that it must have had lakes to explain the clay. You have talked yourself into a corner here, and now its your chance to show me a spot in Xuanwei that does not have a lake at the PT boundary. Without an end to the lake, its a rather large lake. Even the link above shows a transgression at the P-T boundary in South China. And I gave more than one link about that in my previous post. So just this disproves your whole argument. Haha, still stuck on the word "terrestrial". My link above shows that the entire Yangtze Platform was covered by a marine transgression during the PT boundary. This includes the Xuanwei region. (This would explain your mega-lake then). You said those particular plants in the clay layer were covered by ash in situ, I asked for a link or evidence for your comment, and instead you say "what is your problem". I would just like backing for your comments please, otherwise it sounds like you are making up stuff.As for the flood layer, I never said I could prove the flood. But it is interesting to me, that everywhere we look, we can see a flood. This transgression across the whole of South china during the PT boundary is documented.

Its only recently that DNA analysis has improved to allow more complete studying of variants and easier interpretation, note this was written less than a year ago:A calibrated human Y-chromosomal phylogeny based on resequencing
"Sequencing technologies have now developed further and allow moderately sized samples to be sequenced at high coverage from either the complete genome or targeted regions (Drmanac et al. 2010; Hu et al. 2012), which should permit more complete ascertainment of variants and simplify interpretation."And this is said in relation to humans who have been well studied, hopefully they start applying these techniques to many species of animals too.

More unsubstantiated comments. Are not floods proof of how hardy vegetation is, and how rapidly vegetation recovers? Evidence has been posted of the Japanese tsunami and the quick recovery of vegetation. I need your evidence now to show how most floods do not involve a quick recovery of vegetation. You should only apply that rule to large terrestrial animals, otherwise its a strawman argument. Show me such an animal that does not have a bottleneck. So many alleles can form in 4500 years that a bottleneck is very difficult to establish if its not in the last two hundred years.

You don't need to make mistakes about the papers you haven't yet understood on two different threads. Go to the correct thread, and make your mistakes there. Tell us why the authors somehow forgot to compare the "Y" of individual "A" to any others.

Not so. I have posted several times about mtDNA that has been found to be continuous over the purported flood boundary at about 4,350 to 4,500 years ago.One from my own work -- a skeleton dated to 5,300 years ago that has mtDNA identical to Native Americans currently living in the same area. No evidence of a discontinuity with replacement by mtDNA from the Middle East or thereabouts.This one bit of evidence alone disproves your global flood.(And don't start in about the P-T boundary and your "beliefs" concerning dating--that just makes you look even more foolish.)Rather than having a global flood, you're blown out of the water.

What you need is recovery of vegetation, on a mountain top no less, that will feed grazing animals from day one. You and I both know that a good grass crop is not going to grow on rocks and snow, nor is it going to grow fast enough to keep the grazers from starving. I know my horses look for two square meals a day and get very testy if they are not on time. Lots of luck feeding critters up here: Humans.

In my experience, when someone continuously weasels out of answering a question, it's because he knows he doesn't have an answer. So again; where is the Flood layer?Your repeated failure to answer is telling.The Flood should be easy to spot, so where is it?The Xuanwei covers the time whne you said the flood occurred, so where is it? That is because "terrestrial" means "Not marine". You're looking for a marine incursion. There is no marine incursion here to see.Disagree? Then tell me where the Flood layer is. I have made my point, you're just too dense to understand it. I'll explain again.You need to show a marine layer to prove your Flood. None of the layers in the Xuanwei are marine, they're all terretsrial. So none of them can possibly be from a worldwide flood.Further, if any one of the strata from the Xuanwei were the Flood layer, it would be repeated all around the world. None of these layers are repeated all around the world, thus none of them is the Flood Layer. Of course it can't be a marine Flood, there are no marine fossils present. This entire formation is fossiliferous. None of the fossils are marine. thus it cannot be a marine incursion. This is so blindingly obvious that I shouldn't need to explain it. For fucks sake...This is a map of exposures. Do you understand what that means? They don't have anything above them except the sky.The Xuanwei doubtless extends under much of the younger rock, but it cannot possibly extend under the older rock - unless you'd like to add the Principle of Superposition to the list of things you're wrong about. The Xuanwei is surrounded by older rock. It can't extend beneath that. that is a crude, over-simplified map. It shows the overall extent of the formation. It's not saying that the entire area was covered by water at any single point in time, because that's not how fluvial deposition works.Flood layers on the other hand, they cover huge areas. Like the deposit form a worldwide flood. Where is the Flood layer mindspawn? Note the fact that this paper, like all the others considers the Xuanwei to be terrestrial.Oviously it didn't cover the area of the Xuanweui, since those formations are terrestrial. If there had been a marine transgression in that area it would have left marine fossils. it didn't.If you think otherwise, show me where the Flood layer is. Are you seriously claiming that a worldwide marine incursion would leave a terrestrial layer?You are mad.A marine incursion would leave a marine layer, because it''s a fucking marine incursion. It would certainly include terrestrial remains, but it would also include marine remains.If you can find such a layer, present it. Show me the Flood layer.Unless you think that a global flood could somehow be invisible. Once again, you cite a paper that disproves your case. This paper, as I've mentioned before, describes the Xuanwei as fluvial/lacustrine. It says this because the layers are chock full of terrestrial plants with no marine material. That means that whatever transgression you care to name could not have reached this far. I know how clays are formed. I described how they're formed in the last message. Of course they need water, no-one is denying that. The water in this case is freshwater, not marine. *AHEM* I know that clays require water. I collect extensively from fossiliferous clay beds. I know that clays require water.You seem to think that just by pointing to some water, you have evidence for a flood. that's just silly. this is freshwater, deposited by lakes and rivers, not a marine incursion. When are you going to get it through your head that a freshwater environment at the point where you claim a flood disproves your case? But these weren't deposited in a marine environment, as attested by the lack of marine material and the abundance of terrestrial material. These are fluvial and lacustrine deposits. Rivers and lakes are, pretty much by definition, terrestrial features. Good God. Not all the region was deposited at the same time. There was no single lake, nor is this a single deposit. The deposition would only have taken place where the waters moved. No waters, no deposition.Can you describe to me what an undersea lake would look like? Because if you can't, you have to accept that this area wasn't under the sea. Nonsense. You have not shown that a marine transgression covered this area. Your link shows nothing of the kind. Plants and plant fragments were surrounded by sediment and fossilised. I wouldn't have thought that this needed explaining.Wheat at you driving at exactly? Where else could the plants have come form? What does it matter? Can we? WHERE?WHERE IS THE FLOOD LAYER?A flood leaves a trace, so where is it? If you can't point it out, your argument is refuted. So where is it? No it isn't. You made that up.Mutate and Survive

That statement does not say that science and technology were insufficient prior to 2009 for the task of answering the question of a 4500 year ago genetic bottleneck. It instead talks about recent breakthroughs. And in any event, the question really is whether the science as applied to humans is sufficient right now.Not finding a relevant bottleneck in humans alone is sufficient to rule out the possibility of the flood in Genesis being as recent as you suggest. And that's true even if we never analyze any other animals. That's not the impression anyone would get from actually following the discussion. What a visitor to your thread would see is you making attempt after attempt to find an error in bluegenes presentation, followed by bluegenes correcting you. If you've got a new argument, why is it here instead of in that thread?The currently level of science is sufficiently accurate to place both Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam at a point well prior to 4500 years ago even if it cannot establish whether or not they were contemporaries. That analysis is sufficient to rule out a recent flood that wiped out all humanity except those people on the ark. So unless you want to claim that an uncounted number of humans stowing away with those rats and mice you claim were there, your position is refute.

Looking (or re-looking) at some links :Mindspawn's Permian end transgression is apparently based on this link. I got the link from another topic, but I think it is somewhere in this topic also. From pdf page 19 (journal page 235):

quote:

---

4.2. End Permian

​

Although often still regarded as an interval of lowstand (see above), much recent work has shown that the end Permian mass extinction occurs during a phase of rapid onlap and spread of oxygen-poor bottom waters.

---

Another article covering similar ground is here (note: Would not display in my Firefox tab, but will display in the Adobe Reader). From the first page:

quote:

---

The mass extinction at the end of the Permian marks a serious biotic crisis: both the marine and terrestrial biota suffered near annihilation (1). The timing and causes of this event have been uncertain: Sequence stratigraphic analysis of numerous sections have shown that the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary straddles an interval of rapid, global sea-level rise (2, 3).

---

In the "another topic" (link above) Mindspawn message, he stated (again probably also somewhere in this topic): OK - Also found it in this topic (message 406): While the articles do indicate a rapid transgression, my impression is that it was not "extensive" or "major", at least relative to transgressions of other geologic times. The sea levels of end-Permian were still quite low, and I pointed out in message 402, to which message 406 is a reply.: SourceWell, there's a fine mess of a message.Mooseps: Even further off topic - Being that Mindspawn is not trying to credit vast amounts of stratigraphy as being "the flood deposits" (the common YEC perspective), I must wonder what is his alternative explanation of said stratigraphy. He claims to be a young Earth creationist, but (to me) comes off as being old Earth.

We're not talking about an in-out flood, over in a couple of days or weeks - which is devastating enough as we've seen - this is a flood that covers mountains for a year. No terrestrial plant could survive being covered with water for a year.After a cataclysmic flood which covered the mountains, the top soil has been stripped - soil on slopes has erroded and soil on the plains is now sediment and mud. All is saline. There is no stable top soil for plants to grow in nor are there any seeds. As the new land dries salt deposits on the surface increasing salinity exactly where the few seeds that may have survived attempt to grow.The micro organisms and fungi that live around the roots of plants in normal soil and provide them with nutrients are also dead and the normal nutrients in the top soil have leached away.It would take many, many years for the land to recover enough to sustain any grazing animals at all.