Summations Only

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'm not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to direct you to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread if you have complaints, and I was trying to encourage you to explain to Jar what form you think evidence against genetic bottlenecks would take.What I'm seeing now is that in addition to confusing how one uses evidence to draw conclusions, you're now confusing the concept of genetic bottleneck with most recent common ancestor. This isn't taking sides. I'm just pointing out to you errors of logic and fact (in this case, definitions) so that the discussion can move more constructively forward.

What I honestly feel is that when someone says the evidence offered isn't convincing that it is incumbent upon them, especially when asked several times, to describe what evidence they would find convincing.You went on to describe what that evidence would be anyway, and its evidence that's already been offered and that you rejected, claiming that mutation rates could actually be an order of magnitude higher than what's been measured. Perhaps there should be more discussion about mutation rates.

You're not even close to being banned. I find your efforts and demeanor in this discussion laudable. But you shouldn't be surprised at scornful responses because you've mustered as much evidence for your position as geocentric people have for theirs.Those on the science side are a flighty, promiscuous group. Show them evidence and they'll follow it anywhere. Decades of belief in a decelerating universe can be overturned with just a few seconds examination of evidence of acceleration. The same is true of the disproven but once long-held belief in fixed continents. Ignoring evidence or turning it on its head or cherry picking evidence is anathema to a scientific attitude. The strengths of one's scientific opinions should be commensurate with the evidence supporting those opinions.I think what you're mostly experiencing here is the reaction to the disparity between the strength of your opinions and the paucity of your evidence.Edited by Admin, : Improve word choice.

Hi Mindspawn,Everyone is being asked for evidence. There's no bias. The point of evidence I'm raising is that you don't seem to understand what evidence of absence looks like. If someone says, "DNA analysis disproves the ark," because current genetic diversity could not arise from a tiny population in just 4500 years, and they offer evidence of mutation rates, and the moderator suggests that there should be more discussion of mutation rates, then perhaps you should respond to one of the participants with evidence of mutation rates instead of accusing the moderator of bias.

Hi Mindspawn,Let's try to take the cow discussion in a constructive direction. Obviously cows can eat more than grass. Anyone who doubts this should read this and this.I think what people are actually trying to get at is where the food for foragers would come from. Modern cows eat around 50 pounds of forage a day, but we're not trying to fatten the ark's cows, just make sure they survive, so let's call it 10 pounds per day. On day 1 after leaving the ark, what did the cows eat? What did the camels eat? What did the elk eat? What did the moose eat? Based on the answers to questions like these people can determine which animals would survive and populate the Earth (which is the topic of this thread).I think people are telling you that it seems to them that there would be no grazing food available for a long time after the flood, and that therefore it doesn't seem like grazing animals would have had much chance of survival.

You're right, that's a better place for that discussion, here's a link: Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?But let's avoid the definitional issue this time. The most recent common ancestor is not a genetic bottleneck.

Hi Mindspawn,This began when I responded to your complaints (which should have been posted to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread) and continued when you expressed a concern that you might be banned, at which point I explained to you why you're meeting with so much scorn and skepticism. When I mention the paucity of your evidence it isn't because you don't keep referring to evidence, because you obviously do. But that evidence doesn't seem to have any influence on your conclusions. The evidence appears to be there only so you can claim to have looked at evidence.You look at the 65-million year old P-T boundary with no fossils either before and after that even vaguely resemble modern fauna, and certainly no signs of human presence, and then you reach conclusions completely at odds with that evidence, and then you expect protection from ridicule and derision? Do you think moderators are here to prevent honest responses to outlandish propositions? I know you don't think your ideas outlandish, but surely even just a modicum of self-awareness would hint that there's something amiss when no one else in the world sees the evidence leading to your conclusions.I am not a participant in the discussion, but in order to keep discussion on a constructive footing I will step in when relevant issues of fact are at stake. If you come up on the wrong side of a fact and I make note of it, that is not an indication of bias, just as I wasn't biased against whoever was claiming cows can only eat grass.

Evidence of absence is when examination reveals the object in question is not there. The DNA evidence for humans says there was no bottleneck 4500 years ago. You keep complaining about treatment and bias. Nothing would help your cause more than to stop making claims that are fundamentally opposed by facts. Human DNA has been minutely analyzed over and over again, including the Human Genome Project, Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. There's more than enough data, far more, and so you should examine that data and follow it where it leads. You need to deal with the data, not deny it.

According to your own link, the biggest range of mitochondrial DNA is in southwestern China. The second biggest range is in Mongolia.

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.

That's a discussion from another thread, but it does highlight the backward reasoning you're using to draw conclusions, and it's causing discussion to focus more on that than anything else.It isn't impossible that it rained here yesterday, but did it? For that answer we turn to evidence. For instance, we could look at a rain gauge. But we certainly don't say, "It wasn't proved impossible that it rained, therefore I'm entitled to believe that it rained."In the same way, it isn't physically impossible that the Earth was at one time entirely covered by water, but did it ever really happen? For that answer we turn to evidence. We certainly don't say, "It wasn't proved impossible that there was a global flood, therefore I'm entitled to believe that there was a global flood."Your claim that a global flood is not impossible is just a starting point for seeking evidence, since it would make no sense to seek evidence of the impossible. You need to find evidence for a global flood. It would also be very helpful if you would stop misinterpreting the word "terrestrial", and would understand that marine transgressions occur in all geological eras and typically take at least decades.Off course, the flood isn't the topic of this thread, but the focus on the flood developed out of discussion of the original topic, so I see no reason that the flood discussion shouldn't continue.

This mischaracterizes what's been said. I said it isn't impossible that the Earth has been entirely covered by water at some point in its history. Catholic Scientist said it's impossible while human beings lived. Granny Magda said your whole scenario is impossible, which includes human beings and a global flood at the K-T boundary where no humans, indeed even few mammals, are found. I think people can be forgiven for using the term impossible to apply to incredibly unlikely scenarios. You have no evidence supporting your position, and much evidence against it. No, logically it doesn't mean that. If the highest terrestrial points had been flooded then obviously the lowest would have been flooded, too. The evidence we have says that rivers and lakes at the K-T boundary occasionally flooded just like rivers and lakes today.A global flood would be entirely different in character than local floods. Only the lowest regions near rivers and lakes would resemble local floods because they would be flooded first and would be characterized by sediment laden water cascading into them. The rest of the world would be flooded by water rising upward rather than cascading downward, and land covered by such a flood would have a completely different appearance.

Please don't get hung up on the particular word anyone happens to use to characterize the likelihood of something for which there is no evidence and much counter evidence. If in your view they have misused the word "impossible", please don't take it as an excuse to misinterpret their meaning and go off half-cocked. Let's keep the discussion constructive and on-topic.