Extent of Mutational Capability

And probabilities NEVER trump reality. No matter how improbable something is or was, once it happens the probabilities go out the window.

There was no such bottleneck--that's a religious myth not supported by real-world evidence.I have personally obtained several dozen radiocarbon dates from the period 4500-4000 years ago. These were all from the western US. I have mtDNA from before to after that date which is identical, showing no trace of Near Eastern mtDNA as would be required after such a flood event. I have excavated quite a number of prehistoric sites which were occupied from before to after 4500 years ago without any interruption and without any evidence of flood erosion or deposits.Archaeologists all around the globe have evidence showing that there was no worldwide flood ca. 4500 years ago. Historical evidence shows the same thing. From the web: "The great days of Ancient Egypt fell between c. 3000 BC and c. 1000 BC..." That crosses the supposed date for the flood, but we are to believe that the Egyptians never noticed. The construction and use of Stonehenge also crosses the 4500 years ago date you have given for the flood.You can believe what you want, but don't mistake belief for fact.

But as it is non-zero, it must make up some of it, and so you are not entitled to ignore it. I have shown that it is non-zero, which means I can disregard any calculation that treats it as zero.I can especially disregard such a calculation when its purpose has to be to set an upper limit on the genetic distance that could have been produced by non-magical processes. Not according to the evidence. And yet although you "acknowledge" them, you totally fail to take them into account. The higher figure is in fact also the product of measurement, and your speculations about his motives does nothing to cast doubt on the figure that was measured. Do you actually deny that more time will produce greater genetic distance? I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.Do you agree that my second argument shows that the genetic distance between me and a chimp should be of the order of 2μG?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The major source for our current Egyptian chronologies are the works of an Egyptian priest called Manetho. They are still the most popular used today, mainly because they are viewed as the most complete and, thus, the best we have. This is despite the fact that both secular and Christian Egyptologists know that these ‘standard’ chronologies are in desperate need of revision.There is good reason to think these greatly exaggerate the duration of the Egyptian civilization.Many other historical events are dated with reference to Egyptian chronology.[edit] Consequently it is likely that the Egyptian civilization was established not long after the flood, probably after the Tower of babel confusion.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

1. Then do the calculations and prove me wrong.3. Read the article again. The article gives the reason for rejection the directly measured rate.4. No. As I showed it does not support that conclusion."What is Genetic Entropy? It is the genetic degeneration of living things. Genetic entropy is the systematic breakdown of the internal biological information systems that make life alive. Genetic entropy results from genetic mutations, which are typographical errors in the programming of life (life’s instruction manuals). Mutations systematically erode the information that encodes life’s many essential functions. Biological information consists of a large set of specifications, and random mutations systematically scramble these specifications — gradually but relentlessly destroying the programming instructions essential to life." http://www.geneticentropy.org/whats-genetic-entropy

Go back and reread my post Message 272.There were many details in there other than the Egyptian chronology, and you ignored those completely.Particularly telling is the continuity of mtDNA from before to after the dates attributed to the flood. These continuities have been found all over the world. Its so easy that I've found them in my own archaeological research.As for Egypt, why worry about the date of the first dynasty plus or minus a few hundred years when there is a long pre-dynastic record as well? No flood there either...

OK. The amount of heterozygosity before the split will be greater than 0. The odds against the same alleles being fixed in two separate populations are astronomical. Therefore the contribution this will make to the final difference between the two populations is greater than 0. Therefore you are wrong. I never said it didn't. It does. The reasons are as follows: Did you have a point? What an interesting hallucination. Where do you think you showed this? Was it perhaps in post 248, where you admitted that there was "No problem with your second calculation"? Nothing in my calculation bore any relationship to this witless anti-scientific fantasy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well there is Egyptian history and the radiocarbon dating of various archaeological finds: Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt*

quote:

---

... Radiocarbon dating, which is a two-stage process involving isotope measurements and then calibration against similar measurements made on dendrochronologically dated wood, usually gives age ranges of 100 to 200 years for this period (95% probability range) and has previously been too imprecise to resolve these questions.

​

Here, we combine several classes of data to overcome these limitations in precision: measurements on archaeological samples that accurately reflect past fluctuations in radiocarbon activity, specific information on radiocarbon activity in the region of the Nile Valley, direct linkages between the dated samples and the historical chronology, and relative dating information from the historical chronology. Together, these enable us to match the patterns present in the radiocarbon dates with the details of the radiocarbon calibration record and, thus, to synchronize the scientific and historical dating methods. ...

​

... We have 128 dates from the NK, 43 from the MK, and 17 from the Old Kingdom (OK). The majority (~75%) of the measurements have calibrated age ranges that overlap with the conventional historical chronology, within the wide error limits that result from the calibration of individual dates.

​

The modeling of the data provides a chronology that extends from ~2650 to ~1100 B.C.E. ...

​

​

This figure shows the distribution of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates against the modeled age. For each measurement, we show the mean and 1σ of the radiocarbon and modeled calendar dates: ... The calibration curve is shown as two black lines (1σ ). ...

​

The results for the OK, although lower in resolution, also agree with the consensus chronology of Shaw (18) but have the resolution to contradict some suggested interpretations of the evidence, such as the astronomical hypothesis of Spence (24), which is substantially later, or the reevaluation of this hypothesis (25), which leads to a date that is earlier. The absence of astronomical observations in the papyrological record for the OK means that this data set provides one of the few absolute references for the positioning of this important period of Egyptian history (Fig. 1A).

---

Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2 (+1σ and -1σ )The earliest/oldest dates in Fig 2 are shown at ~2660 BCE, with 7 samples placed together (with two more placed nearby). There are several possible matches for each of these samples, running from 2580 BCE to 2860 BCE -- due to the wiggle of the 14C amounts in that portion of the graph -- I get 5 possible matches for the lowest point with an average age of 2693 BCE, 8 possible matches for the next point with an average of 2660 BCE, 6 possible matches for the third point for an average of 2702 BCE, 12 possible matches for the fourth point for an average of 2733 BCE, 9 possible matches for the fifth point for an average of 2754 BCE, 6 possible matches for the sixth point for an average of 2750 BCE, 8 possible matches for the seventh point for an average of 2771 BCE, 8 possible matches for the eight point for an average of 2787 BCE, and 6 possible matches for the highest point for an average of 2788 BCE. Assuming these points all represent the same age, the overall average age is ~2740 BCE with σ of +/-88 years (2827 BCE to 2651 BCE). Shaw's date for the tomb is 2660 BCE, so this is in close agreement with that dating. Note that +/-88 years in over 4,700 years of tree ring chronology is an error of +/-1.9%. The error is partly due to the two stage process of using 14C data to convert to dendrochronological calendar age, but mostly due to the wiggle of the 14C levels that match these points.Note that this conversion does not depend on the calculation of 14C 'age' -- that is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured amounts of 14C and 12C in the samples, and then comparing those 14C/12C values to ones found in the tree rings to find the best match to the tree rings, but it does introduce an error due to the number of rings that match those levels inside the +/-1σ margins of error.So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 99% consilience between history and European oak chronology. This chronology extends back to 12,410 cal BP (before 1950), or 10,460 BCE, and ~40% of its length is consilient with documented historical events\artifacts, and most of it's length, to 8650 BCE, is consilient with the Bristlecone pine chronology with 99.5% accuracy and precision and to the German oak and pine chronology back to 7980 BCE. This results in very high confidence for the accuracy and precision of the dendrochronologies.Enjoy* - Ramsey, C.B., Dee, M.W., Rowland, J.M., Higham, T.F.G., Harris, S.A., Brock, F., Quiles, A., Wild, E.M., Marcus, E.S., Shortland, A.J., Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science 18 June 2010: 328 (5985), 1554-1557. [DOI:10.1126/science.1189395] Just a moment...

This is one of those times where creationism has apparently failed to notice the previous century or so of historical and scientific research.I have next to me a chronology of ancient Egyptian history written in 1904. It dates the start of the first dynasty to 4,400 BC. As you can see, you are quite correct that a naive counting back through Manetho's king lists causes one to overestimate the antiquity of Egyptian civilisation. However, you are quite wrong that this is what modern chronologies are based on. Thankfully, people didn't stop doing research in 1904, and with the advent of radiometric dating modern estimates put this about 3,100 BC.