Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone?

Well, that was surely a quick thread. I thought we were going to have to sit through a bunch of evidence and logic.

You would probably need to be able to do some self verification. But by your own admission, you are utterly incapable of doing so. You cannot then reach the same conclusion that bluegenes has reached.Of course none of that will be any kind of meaningful assessment of whether the science is correct. But you can pretend otherwise.

Perhaps jbozz21 is simply saying that the kind of evidence that he can or will consider must be approachable with the kind of knowledge he currently has. Given that we are talking about displacing a strongly held belief, maybe he's just being honest about his frame of mine.IF your goal were to convince him, rather than to berate him, would you use different evidence, or would you attempt to bridge the gap by some means other than requiring him to go to grad school?

Whoa dude. You are getting ahead of what you can demonstrate on the UV part. UV radiation has very low penetrating power and it is counter-intuitive that it would have an effect on the mutation rates of complex animals. If you want to link sunlight to inheritable mutations either you need to take some kind of Lamarkian approach or you should consider something other than visible and ultraviolet light. And what kind of human mutations are discussed in the article? Skin cancer. The article also talks about mutations in single celled organisms like yeast. You haven't even begun.Besides that, changes in mutation rate by a factor of 2 or so really aren't all that helpful to your argument are they?

Isn't it time to quit doing that? That was the point of my post. More than the factor of two that I mentioned in my post?

If you are going to do some research, I hope you don't use the reading skills you are displaying in this forum. I gave you reasons why your research is unlikely to be fruitful, and suggested some alternative approaches. UV radiation simply does not get into human gonads. You clearly have not thought this through.

Why have you not done so? Go for it. The OP has already thrown down the gauntlet.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

When will those goal post stop moving?Your claim is that a factor of two greater than rate implied by the OP is enough to explain the issue raised by the OP. You haven't done anything even close to that.

18 might be high. Chimps, for example live to be only about 40ish. One thing that is fairly non-symmetric about the two arguments (evolution from non-humans and evolution since Noah) is that mindsprawn is pretty much stuck with what works for people pretty much like us. On the other hand our common ancestor with chimps did not survive, but that ancestor must have been very different from us in many ways. We did not actually evolve from chimps, and chimps have evolved too.

There cannot be a fixed number. The diversity expected would increase with time after the bottleneck. And surely mutation rates vary among organisms.

What should the rest of us make of statements like this? Because what this statement looks like to me is naked dismissal of evidence or argument provided by others without having to provide an evidence or logic based argument of your own.There is no reason to give your "regard" any credit at all.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The caption under Figure 1 talks about the roles of both the chimpanzee reference and the human reference. I did not find the caption to clearly answer the question, but it does at least provide evidence that there is a human reference involved.Beyond that, bluegenes explanations for why the reference cannot be the chimpanzee are fairly strong. Why do you keep ducking them?Also aren't there 36 humans involved? Why are you reducing the count to 34? What a strange thing to say. Isn't that your claim?

Of course you do. Now that your butt has been totally kicked, you are copping out. How long did you google to find your weak exit point?Q: Is the purported uncertainty enough to make a difference for you?A: Nope.From the first line of the article you cite:

quote:

---

Our early human ancestors may have left Africa more recently than thought, between 62,000 and 95,000 years ago, suggests a new analysis of genetic material from fossil skeletons.

---

In other words, not only is the uncertainty in rates only between a factor of 2 or 3, the evidence for mutation rates completely rules out the Young Earth Creationist model including a Flood occurring only 1500 years after the earth was created. This kind of uncertainty would still place Y chromosome Adam at a point well before Noah and the YEC date of creation of the universe.How can you possibly be debating in good faith here?You are not. I don't see any way to continue to give you any benefit of the doubt.Isn't it well place time to start blaming the observed diversity on the Nephilim? That's what you fellow YECers normally do once pressed to this point. Because multiple lines of genetic evidence show that mutation rates are way to low, by a factor of 10 to 30, to have the current diversity arise from the 8 people on the arc; particularly when 3 of them are direct offspring of two of the others.Bottom line -- the evidence all shows no relevant bottleneck for humans at anything like a relevant time, and you are left with making excuses why that evidence is not enough.

Perhaps it is huge. But would not be large enough to prevent ruling out a YEC model based on genetic evidence alone. I've provided arguments for why not that I note are completely ignored. Red herring. You must think the people you are debating are complete idiots. And the dates expressed in the article are quite obviously not carbon dates because they are greater that 50,000+ years ago.But Yes; a factor of 2 two three would be huge for carbon dates, but of course we can calibrate carbon dating so we know that it is not so inaccurate. And of course even a factor of two or three does not help you win that debate either. Wouldn't that make those cave paintings in France and Spain only about 20,000 years old? How does that help you?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This would seem to be okay when comparing people in a single generation, but I don't think that it works when comparing people of disparate generations. How does this affect your calculations?