Summations Only

What would have happened is that most mammal species would have been found in the Arabian plate/Egypt/Ethiopia region. But more likely Africa , because that is where the larger populations would have commenced.I showed evidence that Africa for a wider than normal fossil mammal representation in Egypt. I thought that made my point all on its own? Earliest mammal diversity is concentrated in Africa.Department of Anatomical Sciences | Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University (from Post 456)
In collaboration with Duke University and the Egyptian Geological Museum, vertebrate paleontological field research is currently focused on the recovery of late Eocene and early Oligocene mammals and other vertebrates from fossil localities in the Birket Qarun, Qasr el-Sagha, and Jebel Qatrani Formations in the Fayum Depression of northern Egypt (see image below). The continental sediments in this area document at least 8 million years of terrestrial mammalian evolution, and have produced the most complete remains of Eocene-Oligocene anthropoid primates, hystricognathous rodents, hyracoids (hyraxes or dassies), proboscideans (elephants), embrithopods (extinct horned relatives of elephants and sea cows), macroscelideans (sengis or elephant-shrews), tenrecoids, creodonts, and anthracotheriid artiodactyls. A number of other mammalian groups, such as strepsirrhine primates, bats, ptolemaiids, and marsupials have also been recovered from the Fayum localities.Note the above list even includes African marsupials in the late Eocene.The oldest relatives of New World monkeys are found in Africa:
Why Anthropology? | Anthropology | Mesa Community College
Most interesting from the standpoint of human evolution is the appearance of two groups of diminutive higher primates, anthropoids, in the fossil record of the Fayum. One of these groups has the three premolars characteristic of the New World monkeys, a trait that is today no longer found among the primates of the Old World. This group, known as the parapithecids, probably accounts for the origin of the New World monkeysOther evidence:
All cats originate from the Middle East
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...0628-cat-ancestor.htmlCertain Antelope originate in Africa
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/02/110216185404.htmMore original mammal species in Egypt:
Fossils: The Other Ancient EgyptEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia
A population bottleneck is a sharp reduction in size of a population due to environmental stochastic events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, or droughts) or human activitiesIt is the same thing. An earlier bottleneck of females is detected (let's call her Eve), followed by a later bottleneck of males (Noah)http://home.kpn.nl/b1beukema/mitoeve.html
On the other hand, the most recent common ancestor to father an unbroken line of males, "Y-chromosome Adam," appears to have lived only about half as long ago as Eve. This means that another bottleneck, besides the one surrounding Eve, affected the human lineage after her. The fact that the bottleneck in Adam's day appears not to have produced also a matrilineal ancestor of all living humans - a more recent Eve, in other words - illustrates that the branching and disappearance of lineages depends on chance (alternatively, male lineages may dwindle faster, perhaps due to a history of polygamy, which would have allowed only a proportion of males to produce offspring). Some researchers say evidence of this second bottleneck exists also in the mitochondrial DNA data. It is also possible that the mismatched dates of Eve and Adam may illustrate the imperfectness of the molecular clock technique, which continues to undergo revisions. That's according to evolutionary timeframes. Bison and cheetahs show a recent bottleneck of the last few hundred years. Other mammals show thousands of years of diversity, reflected in germline mutations within species. This is consistent with biblical timelines. If you claim no bottleneck, please provide evidence. The first to make a claim must post their evidence.We would expect 28 (14 x 2) or less alleles in each position for each species on the ark (large mammals), and since then germline mutations would have increased the number of alleles, please provide evidence for anything to the contrary.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I make no claims either way. I have not yet seen anything in DNA analysis that contradicts the ark hypothesis. If you have any evidence that contradicts the ark hypothesis, kindly post it. Could you kindly find that evidence and post it to prove your point.

I place the flood at the P-T boundary before the later mountain building tectonic events. The subsequent elevation of the "hills of Ararat" occurred later when the Arabian plate crashed into the Eurasian plate.

Ok I get you. What aspect of the human genome do you think contradicts a bottleneck when a "mitochondrial Adam" possibly could be a reflection of a bottleneck. Fair enough, but all the evidence points to a possible bottleneck. What aspect of the human genome do you think disproves a bottleneck 4500 years ago? 7 pairs of each animal on the ark, 14 animals. Each animal has two alleles in each gene location, this makes 28 alleles. Since then we have germline mutations, adding to the number of alleles. Most mammals were small back then. Most mammals show recent speciation. So the number and size of mammal species was possibly less than today. No idea of the amount of food. Have you got any ideas on that?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

And their ancestors?Like I said, there has been speciation since, and fossilisation is a rare process, so I feel that if the largest concentration of earliest mammal species is in East Africa, this strengthens my point. I am expecting some anomalies, mainly due to speciation in regions separated from Africa.

Can you prove from the DNA of mitochrondial Eve, that she had any predecessors? Evolutionists would claim she had predecessors under evolutionist assumptions, but does the DNA show this? That evidence did not support your position in that thread, and neither will support your position if you post it into this thread. Large populations, like humans and cattle, have more germline mutations than small populations. At currently measured rates of approximately 18 to 45 (let's say 20) germline mutations per generation, in a population of 7 billion humans, means that current humans have 140 billion new alleles. Divided into 20 000 gene positions, that is 7 million new alleles in each gene position for the current population of earth.These figures are approximate, I am merely illustrating approximately how many new alleles one would expect in modern times, let alone 4500 years of germline mutations.The following link supports a germline mutation rate of approximately 1 in 100 million base pairs per generation. This amounts to about 30 per human per generation.
Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families | Nature GeneticsEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I agree it does not guarantee a bottleneck, but it certainly makes one possible. Without mtDNA Adam, the bottleneck of the ark story would already be disproved. Modern genetics has discovered we have a single common ancestor in both genders and in the order described by the bible. Do you feel that it a mere co-incidence? I'm getting old, all I remember is a lot of genetic studies, none of which I felt made a convincing case.
Please see my post below regarding mutation rates. None of your links contradicts what we would expect from 20-40 germline mutations per generation for 4500 years. Rather than comparing allele diversity across populations, it would be more accurate to compare diversity between an individual from each population to be able to predict no. of generations separating the two populations from their common ancestors.For example, the deep divergence time between the forest and savannah elephant does not require that they were separate species on the ark 4500 years ago, because during periods of large populations many new alleles can be introduced through a germline mutation rate of 20 to 40 per generation. When populations diminish, the no. of derived alleles across each population can remain high. This can reflect large historical populations of each species and not necessarily long periods of diversion. But like I said, counting accumulated differences across populations isn't an effective way of predicting the age of a population since diversion.

The bible story involves migrations from the mountains (hills) of Ararat into the Arabian region. I don't see why you can claim that the bible stories do not involve the Arabian plate.There are no definite boundaries between tectonic plates involving continental collisions. The following link describes Mt Ararat as being part of the collision zone, in a highland uplifted plateau. (EAP)
"The EAP is part of the active Alpine — Zagros — Himalayan orogeny, a mountain belt that developed its topographic relief upon the closing of the Southern Neo-Tethyan Ocean, when the African and Arabian plates began colliding with Eurasia (Figure 2). Perhaps the most famous (or infamous) locale in this uplifted highland plateau is the ~5165 m (16946 ft) stratovolcano Mt Ararat"The bible says the ark landed on the "mountains of Ararat", not specifically on the mount itself. I agree the mountain did not even exist then, so the bible is describing the locale of the ark in terms of the dominant mountain that existed when the bible was written. The word for mountains also means hills.The ship rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on Ararat’s mountains
And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia No desperation at all, I have explained where they are. I already posted a link that showed that some scientists predict a pre-boundary biome in northern latitudes similar to modern biomes, containing origins of modern organisms so the concept is not absurd.
Page not found - Plant Index
Stebbins (1974, 1984) thought that alpine biomes of northern latitudes might have been the center of early radiation of angiosperms. A similar idea, the eastern Asian centers hypothesis, was put forth by G. Sun et al. (2001). Based on the recovery and study of fossil pollen casings (palynomorphs) recovered from deep-sea drill holes, Hochuli and Feist-Burkhardt (2004) suggested that early flowering plants might have evolved in a boreal cradle.The carboniferous island of Siberia is the perfect setting for this "boreal cradle" or "alpine biome of northern latitudes". Unfortunately most of this now Central Siberian plateau area is remote and covered by volcanic rock, and so little research on pre-Triassic fauna/flora from this plateau has ever been done. Only when this area is as extensively researched as other areas of the planet can you conclude I am wrong. I agree the world shows Triassic terrestrial fossils. The worldwide appearance of amphibious reptiles becoming terrestrial is what we would expect from a flood that destroyed terrestrial fauna. Reptiles were also suited to the post-boundary environment (hot/dry/low oxygen) and so terrestrial reptiles from the ark would have dominated.

I believe there has been rapid speciation since the flood because of huge ecological gaps post-flood, and then even more ecological gaps after the K-T extinctions. I believe some of the post-flood reptiles (early Triassic) were of amphibious origin and were therefore not even on the ark. I believe that there were size increases due to post-flood conditions, and so the size of fauna during the flood was smaller than post-flood and modern conditions. So my answer is no, they were not all on the ark, only some smaller versions of later fauna, and most likely younglings.The ark was a huge ship. The area was slightly larger than a football field, and more than 3 stories high. First mammals were small in stature. Due to lack of space, its more likely that they used calves. 14 elephant calves of small elephants wouldn't have taken up much space. Even the much larger modern Indian elephants have very small calves. (91 kg)
"The first true known member of the family, and therefore the great-great ancestor of our modern elephants was Moeritherium. Moeritherium was about the size of a pig and it is believed to have lived in swampy environments." (14 piglets) Yes you can get an approximate time of divergence if you know approximate mutation rates and generation times. You do not need to know population size if you are comparing individuals, because that reflects actual germline mutations. But to compare populations brings in too many variables. The average differences between two populations would make sense, but the links you posted did not express mutations in that manner, so far nothing has been presented that indicates a conflict between DNA analysis and the ark story.

Why do you say that 30 mutations are needed on the y chromosome?
You posted a link in another thread that showed about 1600 germline mutations in the y-chromosome since a single common ancestor. We disagreed on generation times, you assumed a 20+ generation period, I believe generations were less than that. In medieaval times, life expectancy was sometimes only 30. they could not have kids at 25 years old, they would be too old to parent them. During Roman times they were getting married at 12 years old. Unless you can prove otherwise I would put the average age of parenthood at about 18-20 years old during the last 4500 years. Thus , using 20, there are 225 generations since Noah. That means each generation should average 7.1 mutations in the Y-chromosome. The y-chromosome represents about 2% of the genome and has a germline mutation rate about 4.8 times higher than the rest of the genome:Y chromosome - Wikipedia
The human Y chromosome is particularly exposed to high mutation rates due to the environment in which it is housed. The Y chromosome is passed exclusively through sperm, which undergo multiple cell divisions during gametogenesis. Each cellular division provides further opportunity to accumulate base pair mutations. Additionally, sperm are stored in the highly oxidative environment of the testis, which encourages further mutation. These two conditions combined put the Y chromosome at a greater risk of mutation than the rest of the genome.[10] The increased mutation risk for the Y chromosome is reported by Graves as a factor 4.8.[10] However, her original reference obtains this number for the relative mutation rates in male and female germ lines for the lineage leading to humans.[17]1000 Genomes Researchers Find Variable Germline Mutation Rates in Humans | Genomeweb
"Researchers have long speculated that males might pass on more germline mutations than females, since far more cell divisions are needed for sperm than egg production, upping the chances that glitches will occur when DNA is copied and partitioned into these sex cells.
Even so, germline mutation rates remain murky, the study's authors explained, since past estimates of germline mutation rates have relied on indirect measurements based on substitution rates between related species, such as humans and chimpanzees, or from mutation rates extrapolated from disease studies."Mutation rates are variable , but are measured around 1.5 germline mutations per 100 million bp. This equates to 48 per generation:
Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Review on germline mutation rate in humans (Campbell and Eichler 2013)Summarizing the above data, considering the Y chromosome has about 1600 mutations since a single common ancestor and 225 generations since Noah, we would need 7.1 mutations per generation. Considering that the Y-chromosome represents about 9.6 % of all germline mutations, we would expect 74 mutations per generation in the whole genome. We observe about 48 per generation. This is close considering we cant measure mutation rates in the earliest humans. If we factor in modern studies that show higher mutation rates related to lifestyle, its possible lifestyle factors affected those earlier rates:http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2013/07/130701135550.htm
"Researchers looked for DNA mutations in the children and found that they were more frequent in the group with low income fathers than in the group of high income fathers. These results suggest that the parents living conditions before conception may directly impact the health of their children."

The y-chromosome has about 2 % of the base pairs in a human.
What is the Y Chromosome?
In humans, the Y chromosome spans about 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and represents approximately 2% of the total DNA in a human cell.The Y-chromosome has high mutation rates (factor of 4.8)
Y chromosome - Wikipedia
The human Y chromosome is particularly exposed to high mutation rates due to the environment in which it is housed. The Y chromosome is passed exclusively through sperm, which undergo multiple cell divisions during gametogenesis. Each cellular division provides further opportunity to accumulate base pair mutations. Additionally, sperm are stored in the highly oxidative environment of the testis, which encourages further mutation. These two conditions combined put the Y chromosome at a greater risk of mutation than the rest of the genome.[10] The increased mutation risk for the Y chromosome is reported by Graves as a factor 4.8.[10] However, her original reference obtains this number for the relative mutation rates in male and female germ lines for the lineage leading to humans.[17]2 x 4.8 = 9.6

Good point, maybe there were a lot of adults too. But remember there were a lot of extinctions as well, so I am not denying high extinction rates. Mammals were a lot smaller then, so I don't foresee space problems on that huge ark.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Regarding rates, I'm in a middle of a discussion with bluegenes regarding these rates. If you can fault my logic and come up with completely different figures you are welcome to point it out, but currently accepted mutation rates are a more of a problem for evolutionary assumptions than the Noah story.I don't claim impossible co-incidence, but its just interesting that nothing contradicts the bible. (except for dating assumptions)

The problem I have with human/chimp diversity is the ability of nature to regularly add effective genes to the genome. I haven't seen any proof of rates of increased genetic complexity to explain modern organisms with lengthy genomes compared to the original bacterial forms.I am a great believer in DNA analysis, I don't believe phylogenetic trees that are based on physical characteristic in fossils are accurate enough to confidently determine ancestry. So I cannot give an answer about the moerotherium, I believe it could be possible. (I do believe in rapid macro-evolution but not on a genetic level.) You are welcome to post evidence for this to back up your statement. I have posted my maths to indicate that currently measured mutation rates are in the general region expected by the Noah story, Y-Adam can certainly fit in with Noah less than 10000 years ago at germline mutation rates of 48 per generation. This goes completely against current estimates of Y-Adam being over 40 000 years ago.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.