Summations Only

... Except, of course, when you don't have any evidence for your claims.Edited by JonF, : Bad tags

So no-one knows anything about the Sons of God. They might have been aliens, they might have been angels, they might have been products of "a more sophisticated civilization (let's call it Atlantis)". But what we do know for certain is that they used to fuck human women. And then at some point they stopped descending from heaven and fucking our women, 'cos they don't do that any more. Or maybe they still do that, but they do that on the sly? How would I tell if my wife had been fucking around behind my back with one of the sons of God?I could figure this out better if the Bible told me how many sons God had, but there is nothing in the Bible that tells me that.

I have evidence, which agrees with you. We both agree that there is no human bottleneck. The evidence is consistent with my bible views. Would you mind posting my comment in which i reveal my lack of knowledge? You seem so confident that I don't know what an allele is, rather than just stating this, maybe you can enlighten me where I went wrong? I don't claim to know everything and thought I had a good handle on it.regarding mutation rates, please post your figures on mutation rates. I am going on mutation rates Taq posted in another thread which he was quite confident about. Wikipedia isn't as confident as you are about these rates: It seems that there are only estimates, no exact figures, and even the ESTIMATES vary by an order of magnitude or more.

Exactly. The whole lack of human bottleneck argument is a strawman argument against the flood based on a limited interpretation of the bible. The bible does not give exact breeding numbers so you have to look elsewhere to the human genome to find an argument against the flood.

Hi mindspawn, So the lack of a genetic bottleneck in humans is due to the sons of god impregnating humans, yes?Did the same sons of god impregnate all the animals which also do not have a genetic bottleneck?(And what did the cheetahs do wrong?)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You have no evidence other than your interpretation of the Bible. Believe whatever you want to believe for whatever reasons make sense to you, but if you want to convince anyone that your views have some relationship with reality you'll need evidence. Your interpretation of a vague reference to some unspecified time period is not meaningful evidence.I see you are ducking questions like mad. You claimed that "... the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood". The appropriate definition of "confirm" is:

quote:

---

to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fac

---

{emphasis added}For confirmation you need at least two sources, one confirming the other. You have only one source. Therefore your claim of confirmation is wrong.Plus the Bible does not explicitly say any such thing, it requires a particularly strained and question-raising interpretation to get to "DNA injections after the flood".Your opinion of what the Bible says is not evidence. The scientific consensus is that a Noachic fludde would require bottlenecks in all animal including humans, and we know there was no human bottleneck, and we have no evidence of bottlenecks in any but a very few animal species. If you want to claim there's some way that humans avoided a bottleneck, in a scientific forum, you need real evidence. Not your personal satisfaction with your interpretation of a very vague phrase. OK. You started with: Which I and Dr. Adequate pointed out is gobbledygook. You responded: As I've pointed out before, any change in a base pair is an allele. Alleles always, not often, differ if only one base pair differs. Plus it's not particularly easy to "analyze the entire allele and see if there are significant differences".I see that you've ignored a rather important question: I'll tell you. Three. Therefore, since you claim that "14 and 18 alleles is a bottleneck" certainly you are claiming that three alleles is a bottleneck and therefore humans experienced a bottleneck. But this contradicts your claim that humans did not experience a bottleneck. The obvious reason for this contradiction is that you haven't a clue how to diagnose a bottleneck. You cannot diagnose a bottleneck on the basis of one gene, two genes, or a few genes. You need to analyze lots and lots of genes. In lots and lots of individuals from the bottlenecked and related species.Here's an extended quote from Genetic Basis for Species Vulnerability in the Cheetah (1985) which indicates how one could establish a bottleneck:

quote:

---

In the past 15 years approximately 250 species have been examined for the extent and character of biochemical genetic variation in natural populations (18). Electrophoretic analysis of isozyme and soluble protein variation has revealed abundant genetic variation, with frequencies of polymorphic loci ranging from 0.15 to 0.60 and average heterozygosity estimates from 0.0 to 0.26. In an earlier study of 55 cheetahs from two separate South African populations (15), we found a total absence of genetic polymorphism in 47 allozyme (allelic isozyme) loci and a low frequency of polymorphism of proteins (polymorphic loci, 3.2 percent; heterozygosity, 0.013) by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. The allozyme survey of the cheetah population has been extended here to include carbonic anhydrase-2, catalase, phosphoglyceromutase, pyruvate kinase, and transferrin (19). All five of these new loci were monomorphic in the sampled cheetahs, including transferrin (Fig. 2), a protein with a high degree of polymorphism in domestic cats, man, and several other mammalian species (18, 20). Monomorphism for transferrin in the cheetah extends to 19, the number of "polymorphic cluster Loci'' (those that tend to be polymorphic in mammals) that are nonetheless monomorphic in the cheetah (15, 21).

​

It was possible that the cheetah's low genetic variation is characteristic of wild species of felids and that the cheetah is only one of several highly monomorphic species. This possibility prompted an examination of genetic variation in other species of the Felidae. A survey of seven cat species was undertaken in which the same 50 allozyme loci that had been examined in the cheetahs were sampled. The species included the leopard, lion, serval, and caracal, which overlap the cheetah's range in Africa. The results are summarized in Table 2 (22). All species showed moderate to high levels of genetic variation, further emphasizing the absence of genetic variability in the cheetah.

​

Isogenidty of the Cheetah at Its Major Histocompatibility Complex

​

The most polymorphic Locus in vetebrates is the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), designated HLA in man, H-2 in the mouse, DLA in the dog, and so forth (23). The MHC, ubiquitous among vertebrates, encodes a group of cell surface antigens responsible for strong cell-mediated rejection of allogeneic tissue grafts (23, 24). The MHC has been the object of intensive molecular and immunological study in recent years and has been shown to consist of a group of tightly linked loci encoding at least three classes of gene products: class I, serologically defined transplantation antigens expressed on the surface of most types of mammalian cells; class II, cell surface proteins (l region-associated antigens) found on B and some T lymphocytes, which participate in the induction of antibody production; and class III, several components of the complement system (24, 25). The MHC system in all species studied to date encodes multiple alleles for class I phenotypes as defined by graft rejection and cytotoxicity reactions with allogeneic antisera. In human populations the variation is so great at the HLA locus that the most common h.aplotype (combination of alLeles of the subloci linked on a single chromosome) has a frequency of Less than 1 percent, so that occurrence of the most common phenotype is 10-⁴ (23). Variation of the cheetah MHC was monitored by measuring the trming of allograft rejection between unrelated cheetahs. In man the average survival time of skin grafts between unrelated individuals is 10.5 days (23).

​

Rejection of grafts between inbred mouse strains of different H-2 haplotypes occurs between 10 and 12 days (23, 26). Similarly, unrelated domestrc cats reject skin grafts between 7 and 13 days after grafting (27). Rejections at this time occur suddenly, progress rapidly, and are accompanied by the production of cytotoxic alloanti sera against donor Lymphocytes. Occasionally, and often when grafts are exchanged between related individuals, slower progression and usually much later rejections are observed in these species. Rapid rejections are interpreted as resulting from a difference at the MHC locus, while slow rejections are the result of allelic differences at one or more "minor histocompatibility loci" in the face of identity at the MHC (23, 25, 27). Reciprocal skin grafts were surgically performed on 14 South African cheetahs- four at the De Wildt Cheetah Breeding and Research Center, South Africa, two at the Johannesburg Zoo, and eight at Wildlife Safari, Winston, Oregon. The pedigrees of the cheetahs used in this analysis are presented in Fig. 3. Six graft pairs were between unrelated animals and one pair was between sibLings. The cheetahs were immobilized at approximately 5-day intervals and the grafts were monitored for signs of immunological rejection and for gross differences between allograft and autograft. The characteristics of rejection anticipated from rapid rejections in domestic cats and other species (23, 26, 27) include darkening and discoloration, changes in skin pliability, absence of hair growth, and induration, scabbing, and sloughing of skin.

​

The fate of 14 reciprocal split-thickness grafts are summarized in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. 4. None of the 14 cheetahs showed rapid graft rejection, and clear evidence of slow rejection was observed in only three animals (Rhett, Mkia, and Blondii). A photographic chronology of the progress of two grafting experiments (Molly and Kali) is presented in Fig. 4. In every case the allograft and autograft were virtually indistinguishable 2 weeks after surgery. The De Wildt and Johannesburg studies were terminated early (day 23), but none of the six animals showed evidence of rejection of allografts, which were similar to control autografts in hair growth, texture, pliability, and appearance. Since all the allografts were apparently accepted through the rapid rejection stage, the possibility existed that cheetahs were immunologically incapable of rejecting an allograft. To control for this alternative, skin from a domestic cat also was grafted to two of the Oregon cheetahs, Tamu and Kali (Fig. 4). These xenografts were rapidly rejected (after 10 to 14 days) by both animals, while the autografts and allografts survived and were apparently accepted (Table 3). Surgical biopsies of the autograft, allograft, and xenograft of Kali taken on day 14 revealed that the xenograft was heavily infiltrated with mononuclear inflammatory cells, characteristic of a cell-mediated immune reaction, while the allograft and autograft were not. We conclude that 14 of 14 reciprocal skin grafts (12 of which were between unrelated animals) were accepted beyond the rapid rejection stage, suggesting identity of donor and recipient at the cheetahs' MHC locus.

---

Of course, today we'd rely a lot more on sequencing data. But my point is made. Yup. Got any evidence (other than your personal opinion) that this is a problem? (and I'm not sure that Wikipedia is correct in that claim)I also don't know about Taq's number, but I suspect you've garbled it. You need to be very careful to use the appropriate units and be sure you're looking at germ-line mutations (i.e. eggs and sperm) From the Wikipedia article you quoted:

quote:

---

... these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.510⁻⁸ per base per generation.[3] Using data available from whole genome sequencing, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.110⁻⁸ per site per generation

---

Also from Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation:

quote:

---

Although the estimated base-substitutional mutation rate derived in this study, 12.8 (2.0) 10^-9 per site per generation, is approximately 25% lower than an earlier estimate of 17.0 (0.2) 10^-9 derived by Kondrashov (8), it is nevertheless higher than the rate for any other well studied species. A recent pedigree-based estimate derived from highthroughput sequencing of Y chromosomes separated by 13 generations (4) yields a base-substitutional mutation rate estimate of 17.3 (8.6) 10^-9 when scaled across the sexes under the assumption of a 6.5-fold inflation in males (see Methods), which is compatible with both previous estimates.

​

There are several potential explanations for the deviation of the current results from Kondrashov (8). First, the set of genes employed here extends beyond that used by Kondrashov (8), as a number of relevant data sets became available in the intervening period. Second, with new information on the incidences of disorders and the fractions of affected individuals as a result of de novo mutations, the estimated per-locus mutation rates to defective alleles are in some cases substantially different between our two studies. Third, because of data judged to be inadequate, three loci employed by Kondrashov (8) were discarded (ABCD1, AR, and EMD), and when these are excluded, Kondrashov’s estimate declines to 16.0 (0.2) 10^-9, which is statistically compatible with the estimate provided here. Fourth, whereas the Kondrashov study (8) was confined to mutations to nonsense codons, the current investigation integrated over a wider range of contextual sequence space by incorporating both nonsense and missense mutations.

---

I see several estimates there that are very close, and none of which are compatible with "its normally a few base pairs per generation per individual across the entire genome".#8722;8sup

Yes it does. Eight. You are making stuff up in a vain attempt to justify your preconceptions. Did Noye decide to toss in a few hundred Elohim even though God hadn't told him to? Did he genetically screen them to make sure of preserving the maximum number of alleles?

You guys should be philosophers, lol!Hey if you have any evidence against my particular view of the PT boundary flood please post it. Some guy's comment isn't evidence. All I've had so far is ONE alternative explanation for the massive movements of sediment then. But a flood can fit in then as well. It takes water to move sediments to create a simultaneous worldwide overfill situation. So we have two explanations, I don't see how that disproves the flood. Yes I believe there are few familiar species before the PT boundary for the following reasons:1) They were rare, secluded in some rare eco-system that was dryer.
2) Due to the dryness they were not easily fossilized
3) If that eco-system was found, this could be easily mistaken for post PT fossils, due to them being on higher ground, and their familiarity with more modern fossils.
4) There is little motivation to dig deep down into carboniferous layers, hence the concentration on swamp regions (carboniferous coals)Under the assumption that the Carboniferous world was lush, full of rainforests and swamps, there was no ecological need for grasses. However in the harsh Triassic climate, the grasses would have taken time to spread from those few seeds, but being one of hardiest plant life in arid conditions it would have spread out, coming to be dominant when conditions had recovered from the difficult Triassic. Not quite, I was hoping for carboniferous desert fauna / flora to see how they differ from today. If you observe eco-systems of today, there is surprising diversity of fauna/flora. Each set of animals in each continent is largely exclusive. Including birds. Some migrating birds are found extensively, but in general there is a localized habitat of fauna/flora throughout earth. And there are foten concentrations of certain according to patterns. For example marsupials in Australia, proteaceae in the Cape floristic region. Proteaceaea is entirely restricted to a small region of earth, if there is a world disaster and most vegetation on earth dies out, and most of the earth ends up with a semi-arid Meditteranean climate, there is a high chance that the biodiversity of proteaceae would survive and then start spreading out. Now to find that secluded carboniferous "island" of mammals and grasses is difficult because there is little motivation to dig deep everywhere to find rare fossils in non-fossilizing environments. Coal is mined, its easy to find fossils in coal mines. There is no financial motivation to dig km deep everywhere on significant scales.Now just as you DO NOT find proteaceae throughout the world, it is impossible to do so, and yet there is a wide variety of proteaceae that could spread if world conditions change, the same could apply to angiosperms. Angiosperms could have possibly been merely a minor isolated plant family during the carboniferous, suddenly its hardiness, diversity and universality makes it a dominant phylum during later times. The secret is the ability to survive low oxygen, fluctuating temperature, high heat dry environments, which the other plants of the carboniferous were unable to survive.Same as birds, its easier to imagine a few birds secluded in a dry climate hilly island , away from the dangers of the mega-insects of the carboniferous, than to imagine the unlikely process of evolutionary gene creation, or even biogenesis.

quote:

---

Hey if you have any evidence against my particular view of the PT boundary flood please post it

---

I've already done that with the Sphinx.

quote:

---

All I've had so far is ONE alternative explanation for the massive movements of sediment then. But a flood can fit in then as well. It takes water to move sediments to create a simultaneous worldwide overfill situation. So we have two explanations, I don't see how that disproves the flood.

---

Her's an alternative explanation for your "simultaneous overfill". It's a figment of your imagination. I looked at the links which you said supported it and couldn't find any support at all.Oh and the boulder clay layer ? Apparently boulder clay is formed be glaciers, so that doesn't sound like evidence of a flood either.So where IS the evidence for this hypothetical flood ?

You guys seem to want to continue with this strawman argument and also seem to desire to do bible studies. If you read Genesis 6 combined with Numbers 13:33 it appears that these giants were there before and after the flood.

The evidence has already been presented. When we look at the P-T Boundary, there is no flood layer! What more is there to say?! No flood layer, no flood. It really is that simple. A global flood would create a global flood layer, a great seam of sediment that extends across the entire world. It does not exist. End of story.It is your job to show a flood layer. It is not anyone else's duty to show you what is not there. You're supposed to show us what is there. Now if you can detect a huge layer of flood sediment at the P-T, then go ahead and show it to us. If not, admit that your hypothesis is busted. The ones that you only imagined you mean.There were no global movements of sediment back then. They only exist in your mind because you misunderstood a few technical papers that were above your pay grade. The reality is that the P-T Boundary tends to reflect a drier period, not a flood. Yes. More water than actually exists on the planet. That's already been addressed. So in essence, you think that they were hiding.That is... I'm trying to find a way of putting this without coming across as insulting,, but..That is nothing more than a fantasy. Sorry, but it just is.1) Humans need water to survive. Human populations can't survive in deserts and on top of mountains, not for long, not without support. That's why, throughout history, human settlements have been next to water. Your little fantasy depends on humans (and birds, and fruit-bearing trees and all the rest) living in places where they could not possibly survive. That's laughable.2) Your fantasy is based on inconvenient creatures dwelling in regions of poor fossilisation for one reason only; it means you can wish away the evidence. It reeks of ad hoc reasoning. You are only forced to believe this as a rationalisation to explain away the fact that the Pre-Triassic world contains none of the species that the Bible mentions.3) Your fantasy about dating mistakes depends is simply naive. Let me remind you; the oldest human fossils are only tens of thousands of years old. The P-T event was 252 million years ago! Geologists do not make that kind of mistake. It is simply absurd. Your fantasy depends on an entire profession being composed of incompetent imbeciles. Geologists are not imbeciles. You are not smarter than them. Don't be so arrogant.4) Carboniferous layers? What are you talking about? Why are you so obsessed with the Carbonifierous? There's 4350 million years worth of geology before the P-T Boundary! These species - humans, cattle, birds, - should show up in all of them! They were amongst the first living things according to the Bible. Yet they show up nowhere. Your problem goes a hell of a lot deeper than the Carboniferous my friend. Bwa-ha-ha-hah! I'm sorry, but that really is a good one.Reeds, remember? See those plants? They're reeds. In a swamp. With a bird sitting amongst them. Grasses love swamps. So do birds.Your hypothesis requires not only that grasses should only grow in places where they would leave no trace, but that they should not grow in places that are absolutely ideal for grasses. Can you not see how ridiculous that is? Well done, since this is not what did in fact happen, you've just disproved your own argument.Grasses do not appear until the late Cretaceous at the oldest. They did not proliferate after the Triassic. You have disproved your own theory. So you are deliberately asking for fossils from regions that do not produce fossils.From me, you demand evidence that you have specifically agreed does not exist. For your argument, you accept any paper you can drag off the net and misinterpret. Do you not detect a slight imbalance there? That's not true. That's not true either. Nope. That's not true either.This would go a lot easier if you stopped making stuff up. Yeah... How exactly did the marsupials get to Australasia from the ark?None of this matters anyway. Yes, a given species or genus might be restricted to a particular area, but birds as a whole are global. Fruit-bearing trees are global. Grasses are global. Take a look at this distribution map; That is the range of just one species of bird, the Barn Owl. It is not migratory and it does not live in deserts. Any single bird fossil from any point in the 4350 million years before the P-T would make your case, but there isn't one. Your fantasy about them being restricted to a tiny hidden patch of desert or mountain is completely contrary to reality. The only reason you are forced to resort to this sort of after-the-fact story-telling is because the evidence you need isn't there. A reasonable, rational, honest person would respond to this by conceding that his argument was flawed. You have responded by making hand-waving excuses. Snap out of it.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

If that is true then it is yet more evidence that the Biblical Flood stories are false.The Biblical flood is nonsense but here is your chance to explain HOW the mythical flood could actually create what we see today and I note that you have avoided presenting any model or Flood Geology.How do you explain there not being any pillow lava in the Siberian Traps?What is the Flood mechanism mechanism that can cover over two million square kilometers in lava and produce over a million cubic kilometers of lava in a year and still not produce any pillow lava?How did the supposed flood miss washing Oetzi who would have been a contemporary of Adam downhill?How did the Jomon culture continue pretty much uninterrupted by the imaginary flood?Flood Geology.Where is the model that explains the above?

Hi Granny Magda, And below this boundary we are not missing just fossils of humans, but of the whole mammal clade.One could argue that specific species may not have been found, but a whole clade like mammals? All we see are precursors (ancestors), not one mammal.Enjoy.

Hi RAZD, Including the whales. I'm pretty sure that whales are quite widepread. Let's take a look; That's... pretty widespread. But I guess they were hiding up a mountain for four and a half billion years. Mutate and Survive

This is a distribution map of Proteaceae: from Missouri Botanical Garden website. There are other similar ones out there if you bother to look. Not exactly restricted to a small region of the Earth. Interestingly this pattern of distribution is not that different from the global distribuiont of Marsupials. Now, if you really want to blow your mind, check out how these distributions compare to reconstructions of Gondwanaland. Once again, science (geology, biology, botany etc) explains everything neatly - the 'flood' explains nothing.