Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,498 Year: 3,755/9,624 Month: 626/974 Week: 239/276 Day: 11/68 Hour: 5/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 68 of 409 (679287)
11-13-2012 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
11-13-2012 7:35 AM


Re: Evolution is not science
Faith writes:
It doesn't invalidate the field of geology at all, the age of the earth is entirely an interpretive scheme. The only actual science it contradicts is radiometric dating, which someday will be proved to be false but meanwhile that's the only science that takes a hit. Everything else is interpretation or theory. Everything in geology is quite easily accommodated in 6000 years.
Since there is no 6000 year old genetic 'bottleneck' in humans, it would also invalidate Genetics.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 7:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:11 AM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 88 of 409 (679659)
11-15-2012 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:11 AM


Re: bottleneck
Faith writes:
The bottleneck you have in mind, Panda, occurred about 4300 years ago at the Flood, not 6000 which was the Creation. And my answer to that challenge is that how a recent bottleneck shows up genetically today, with its drastic reduction to homozygosity for all the traits that define the breed, otherwise known as "fixed loci," isn't how it would look after the Flood bottleneck when there had to have been far greater genetic diversity, meaning far more heterozygosity, also a great many more functioning genes which have since become dead or junk DNA... ...That would not have been the case when there was so much greater genetic variability than there is today.
So, according to you, removing 99.99% of the human population does not show up as a genetic bottleneck because you think there was massively more heterozygosity in the 8 people on the ark then in the 7 billion people that currently exist.
Faith writes:
If there was 98% heterozygosity before the Flood ...
We have DNA from people who lived more than 4300 years ago - and it doesn't show more heterozygosity.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:56 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 106 of 409 (679873)
11-16-2012 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:56 PM


Re: bottleneck
So - acknowledging Coyote's eloquent, educational and erudite post:
Faith writes:
Sorry you don't have DNA from people who lived 4300 years ago, you only think you do.
Sorry, but we do have DNA from people who lived 4300 years ago, you only think that we don't.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024