Summations Only

Well apart from the fact that you got the math wrong, the question would be not how many mutations occur but how many are measurably prevalent.

OK, the problem is that you wrote: But as you probably know most of the human genome does not lie on a "gene position". Most bases are non-coding DNA --- some of it may still have a function, but it's not genes as such, when scientists say that we have 20,000 genes they're only counting the bits of the DNA that code for proteins. So your introduction of the 20,000 figure is just plain wrong, you're dividing by the wrong thing.

How many times do I have to point this out? That's exactly how the Hallam curve is constructed. Geologists have found the high-water mark, how else do you think they know how high the water got?

I speak creationist. By "assumptions" you mean "scientific laws", yes? Translated from creationist into English?

Well, take this paper for example. They are, as they say, trying to estimate eustacy by measuring onlap (that is, how far the sea came inland): After all, you're a bright lad, how else do you suppose it could be done? If we want to know how far the sea rose, what other indications exist in the geological record except sedimentary indications of how far inland the sea came? (The "maximum flooding surfaces" of which Haq and Qahtani speak.) If geologists weren't looking at that to find the answer, what else could they possibly be looking at? How else could the answer be preserved?Answer: it couldn't, and that is what they're looking at.

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.

That's not what genetic bottleneck means.

Well, the Hopeman Sandstone is Permo-Triassic and aeolian.

I was going to say something, but there's no actual need for me to do so, is there?

Um ... then ... apparently ... you're mad?Unfortunately, you're also off-topic. So if you want us to consider your latest piece of deranged lunacy, then you should start a new thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"Evolutionary" is not merely a synonym for "correct" or "scientifically proven" or "indisputable unless you're mad in the head", although sometimes it may seem that way. It actually means "having to do with evolution". It is, therefore, the wrong choice of adjective in this context.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But the particular locales to which you have been referred can't be geologically interpreted as flooding. That's why no geologists do so interpret them.Of course, they can be madly interpreted as flooding. A madman can close his eyes, put his fingers in his ears, and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T SEE THE EVIDENCE I INTERPRET IT AS FLOODING". But that proves nothing --- after all, a sufficiently mad man could claim to be drowning in a flood while standing in the middle of a desert.But it seems to me that you're very much trying to have your cake and eat it. When geologists say there was an incursion at the PT boundary, you declare this is your Flood. When they say that it only came so high, and that certain regions were definitely terrestrial, then you dispute that and come up with your own ideas contradicting the science of geology.Well, if you're OK with doing that then why identify the PT transgression with the Flood? Why not put it halfway through the Jurassic? If your methodology involves ignoring geologists whenever they say something you don't want to hear, then someone who wanted a mid-Jurassic Flood could use exactly the same method as you (i.e. ignoring geology whenever it contradicts his thesis) and feel equally satisfied with his conclusion.And this leads me on to a question I've been meaning to ask you. You must have noticed that most of your fellow-creationists don't agree with you. Some of them put the "Flood layer" at the KT boundary. Some of them identify all the sedimentary rocks as caused by the Flood. (BTW, I should love to see you debating with a KT-Floodist.)Why can't you agree? Because your choice of which bits of geology to ignore are arbitrary.To demonstrate this, I will, if you like, unleash my alter-ego, Dr Inadequate. I will argue that the Flood layer is the KT boundary. You can try to argue me out of it. And every time you point to clearly terrestrial sediment spanning the boundary, I will take a leaf out of your book, and say: "If every spot on earth around the K-T boundary either represents flooding, or can be geologically interpreted as flooding ..."You see, you can't win against my evil twin. Because Dr Inadequate will always interpret perfectly ordinary terrestrial sediments at the KT boundary as being signs of the universal Flood. Using methods that you taught him.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Really? How major? I bet. But doesn't that tell you something? If you can't convince even your fellow-Floodists, how good are your arguments? Yes, but my evil twin would like you to do a little better than that. Specifically, he wants you to show that there's some location at the KT boundary that he can't interpret as signs of a global Flood. Your call. "Clearly"? No. It's an impact event according to the atheistic uniformitarianismistic dogmas of those God-hating so-called "geologists". My evil twin, on the other hand, interprets it as a sign of the Flood.Again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it. You think that geologists are completely right when they say that there was an impact at the KT boundary, but as wrong as wrong can be when they tell you how much land was land at the PT boundary. If you can ignore the geologists when they tell you what you don't want to hear, then so can a KT-Floodist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We didn't realize --- how could we --- that you didn't know what a bottleneck looks like. It's like spending weeks arguing with someone over whether there's an elephant in the room, and then finding out that he has no idea what an elephant is. You talked of the subject with such assurance, how were we to guess that you didn't know the first thing about it? But now you get round to revealing your ignorance, and you try to make it out to be our fault.The signature of a bottleneck is a degree of heterozygosity significantly lower than the equilibrium level.Since "burden of proof" is another concept that seems to have escaped you, here are 23,000,000 peer-reviewed papers which don't describe this as having been observed in all mammals. You're welcome. We've shown you facts in geology, archaeology, and biology. The problem is not that the facts are absent, but that facts do not convince you. Let's try another tack. Here's the sort of argument you find convincing: "I read a book full of stories about wizards, ghosts, and talking animals, and it says the Flood didn't happen". Convinced? Scientists disagree. You know, scientists, those people who, unlike you, know what evidence of a genetic bottleneck looks like? And what the geological record looks like? Those people.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet not one of them thinks their studies point to a global flood. And they also claim to know just how far inland the transgressions came, something that you're ignoring. Perhaps you'd like to explain how it is possible to have a lacustrine environment or an overfill during a global flood.---Your whole argument requires that geologists can't recognize an overfill, they can't recognize a lacustrine environment, they can't recognize aeolian sandstone, they can't measure the extent of a transgression ... etc, etc ... that they're a bunch of bumbling idiots who, despite having devoted their professional lives to geology, know less about it than you do, and that geological science, the basis of their conclusions, is fatally flawed. This is not "embracing geology". It's rejecting it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.