Genesis Genetics, revisited

[Aman777]

No one who understands Scripture shares your views.

God the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, does. That's WHY no unregenerated sinner can refute my views. It must really be frustrating for them since many have spewed forth the invective ad-hominem you did in the above verse.

No one who has scientific training endorses your views.

Of course not since it goes against their Evol Religion which falsely claims that we evolved our Human intelligence from mindless Nature. It's blasphemy to destroy their precious false ToE which they cannot support either Scripturally scientifically nor historically.

No one with a sound background in history agrees with your views.

History does and shows that the FIRST Human farming began just SW of Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat, Gen 8:4 where the Ark docked. With your understanding, you would probably look for the 450 ft long ship on a mountaintop. LOL

 

[Dirk1540]

Merely quoting Genesis isn't explaining anything.

Creationism is magic. The end.

Magic or miracles?

Ya ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

We've already established that Mr. Khan.

Have you guys met before??

 

[Jimmy D]

God the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, does. That's WHY no unregenerated sinner can refute my views. It must really be frustrating for them since many have spewed forth the invective ad-hominem you did in the above verse.



Of course not since it goes against their Evol Religion which falsely claims that we evolved our Human intelligence from mindless Nature. It's blasphemy to destroy their precious false ToE which they cannot support either Scripturally scientifically nor historically.



History does and shows that the FIRST Human farming began just SW of Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat, Gen 8:4 where the Ark docked. With your understanding, you would probably look for the 450 ft long ship on a mountaintop. LOL

The arrogance and hubris is staggering!

Brilliant.

 

[Aman777]

The arrogance and hubris is staggering!

Brilliant.

Thank you very much. If you agreed, I would know I was wrong. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

What humiliation?

Thirteen paragraphs on genetics ... and you want me to address them!?

I worked hard for my F in biology.

I'm not gonna blow it now.

Thats cute and all, but why write comments if you admit that you are out of your depth?

 

[tas8831]

I know, because you forgot twin's triplets, quadruplets....

"Be fruitful and multiply......"

And no, contrary to your thought of your importance I forgot all about this irrelevant thread....

You forgot that additional implantations increase the rates of spontaneous abortion substantially - and add to that the fact that in 5000 BC, there were no NICUs...

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats cute and all, but why write comments if you admit that you are out of your depth?

Because I don't have to know the nuances of what I'm railing against.

All I have to do is believe its antithesis and let Occam's Razor truncate the details.

If I believe the moon is made of green cheese, I don't need to know what moondust is comprised of at the molecular scale, do I?

And vice-versa, of course.

 

[tas8831]

Hmm, you mean continuously varying traits, just like mutation, except two to three orders of magnitude greater?

You have got to be trolling at this point, or maybe a very patient Poe?

I do this for the readers, as I know that the Dunning-Kruger Effect rules your world -


continuous variation
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun Biology.

1. variation in phenotypic traits such as body weight or height in which a series of types are distributed on a continuum rather than grouped into discrete categories.

How that is 'like mutation' is a mystery, known only to the feeble of mind, tunneled of vision, desperate of motivation.

AMER. ZOOL., 21:795-811 (1981)
Population Variation in Continuously Varying Traits
as an Ecological Genetics Problem
P. R. GRANT AND T. D. PRICE


SYNOPSIS. The niche variation hypothesis is an adaptive explanation for variation within populations and for the differences in variation between populations in morphological, physiological or behavioral traits. It has received only partial support from empirical tests and has been criticized on theoretical grounds. Recent quantitative genetic models have made an advance by exploring the effects of mutation, migration, mating pattern and selection on phenotypic variance. These models are reviewed and their most important features are integrated in a new model. In this model population variation is in a state of balance between the opposing forces of mutation and immigration, which tend to elevate variation, and selection and possibly genetic drift tending to decrease it. Populations exhibiting different levels of variation are interpereted as having different equilibrium points, and it is the task of empirical studies to determine the relative magnitudes of the opposing factors. An example is given from studies of Darwin's finches. Geospiza fortis varies more than G. scandens on Isla Daphne Major, Galapagos, in several morphological traits including beak and body size. This is explained, assuming equal mutation rates in the two species, as the result of more frequent genetic input to the G. fortis population, through occasional hybridization with immigrant G. fuliginosa, and relaxed stabilizmg selection. Stabilizing selection is less intense on G. fortis than on G. scandens because the G. fortis population has a broader niche; there is both a within-phenotype and between phenotype component to the broad niche of G. fortis. The success of theory in explaining population variation is discussed, and it is concluded that empirical studies lag far behind theory.

And from the introduction:

"In this paper we will review the major
explanations for the maintenance of continuous
variation and for the fact that populations
differ in variation for a given trait.
Since we will be concerned solely with continuous
variation we will ignore sexual dimorphism,
a special type of population variation that may have relevance to our primary question..."


So to sum up -

These are NOT NOT NOT "NEW" traits, as you seem to have to believe. The introduction of alleles from one species into the hybrid group alter already-existing traits, it does NOT introduce new ones (in this study).

Get it NOW?

 

[tas8831]

Because I don't have to know the nuances of what I'm railing against.

All I have to do is believe its antithesis and let Occam's Razor truncate the details.

If I believe the moon is made of green cheese, I don't need to know what moondust is comprised of at the molecular scale, do I?

And vice-versa, of course.

No, but you should understand that believing the moon is made of green cheese is 100% at odds with what we do actually know about the make up of celestial bodies.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, but you should understand that believing the moon is made of green cheese is 100% at odds with what we do actually know about the make up of celestial bodies.

I was once asked here what I would believe if the Bible said the moon was made of green cheese.

Would I stick with green cheese, or would I go with what scientists said?

I said I would go with what scientists said, but scientists would need to change their conception of what green cheese is.

 

[Brightmoon]

Hmm, you mean continuously varying traits, just like mutation, except two to three orders of magnitude greater?

If mutation created new information, the link to past traits would be lost and so your claim to continued ancestry would be null and void. Are you now preaching for nullification of past ancestral forms, such has already been done by the overturning of the Tree of life????

If a new trait replaces the old, then that is where the line stops, you can no longer trace back from that point. There would be no linkage to the previous trait, unless it was a continuously varying trait.

Which in reality is exactly what even a mutation is. I'll spell it out slowly so I don't loose you here.

Mutations are copy errors. They take WHAT ALREADY EXISTS and simply vary the existing trait. Nothing new was created. What existed was re-purposed to a new use. Mutations can only change what already exists. It does the exact same thing as mating does, just two to three orders of magnitude less effectively. It varied the existing trait, it did not produce anything new, but only changed the order of what already existed in the way it was written. Just as what occurs during mating, when two separate chromosomes are recombined in a unique way, just at more than one location. In fact the mating is two to three orders of magnitude greater because new genetic information is added from a separate host that did not exist in the other.

Your arguments are null and void, and you refuse to accept the fact that a mutation is a copy error. It simply rearranges what already exists. Nothing new is created in either process. Both do exactly the same thing, one simply to a greater number of loci simultaneously.

This is creationist newspeak nonsense

Because I don't have to know the nuances of what I'm railing against.

All I have to do is believe its antithesis and let Occam's Razor truncate the details.

If I believe the moon is made of green cheese, I don't need to know what moondust is comprised of at the molecular scale, do I?

And vice-versa, of course.

. You’re complaining about something you know nothing about and you see nothing wrong with that ridiculous attitude . Umm in other words Orwell was correct- Ignorance is Strength ! That’s the scariest thing you’ve said yet

 

[PsychoSarah]

History does and shows that the FIRST Human farming began just SW of Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat, Gen 8:4 where the Ark docked.

-_- geography will inform you that Mt. Ararat is Northeast of Lake Van, Turkey. Have you seriously never bothered to look at a map and tell where they were in respect to each other? Both locations also are quite far away from where we find the earliest evidence of agriculture, and even if I felt like being generous, agriculture began a minimum of 500 years before you place it.

 

[Aman777]

-_- geography will inform you that Mt. Ararat is Northeast of Lake Van, Turkey. Have you seriously never bothered to look at a map and tell where they were in respect to each other? Both locations also are quite far away from where we find the earliest evidence of agriculture, and even if I felt like being generous, agriculture began a minimum of 500 years before you place it.

There are two Mt. Ararats in the mountains of Ararat. The is but ONE big Lake which could accommodate a 450 ft long Ark. Noah stayed inside the Ark from July until February and only left when commanded by God Himself. That eliminates the idea that the Ark was on top of 16k high Mt. Ararat since it is covered in Snow.

It is recognized that Northern Mesopotamia, in the valleys SW from Lake Van, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, is the beginning of agriculture on planet Earth. Some other places CLAIM to be the beginning but none of them are labeled the Cradle of Civilization, except Mesopotamia. Perhaps a local Chamber of Commerce or scientist trying to get a grant, has fooled you. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

I was once asked here what I would believe if the Bible said the moon was made of green cheese.

Would I stick with green cheese, or would I go with what scientists said?

I said I would go with what scientists said, but scientists would need to change their conception of what green cheese is.

That is scarily delusional and what I would expect from a member of a cult.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is scarily delusional and what I would expect from a member of a cult.

I think the term you're looking for is: No True Scotsman.

 

[tas8831]

I think the term you're looking for is: No True Scotsman.

No, it is the ranting of a cultist. Discussions with you go nowhere, and you clog up threads with your off-topic pseudo-clever gibberish. Bye now.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it is the ranting of a cultist.

I'd like for you to repeat after me please:

OOOOOWAAAAA

TAAAAAGOOOOO

SIIIIIAAAAAM

Start very slowly, then go faster and faster until you get the message.

(In the meantime, I'll be chanting KUMBAYA.)

 

[Brightmoon]

Ooo eee ooo ah ah
Ting tang walla walla bing bang
Ooo eee ooo ah ah ting tang walla walla bing bang !
You see, AV I can make silly comments too of course I borrowed my silly comment from Alvin and the Chipmunks circa 1960

 

[PsychoSarah]

There are two Mt. Ararats in the mountains of Ararat.

Little Ararat and Great Ararat are very close to each other, so both are Northeast of Lake Van. Tried as I may, I could not find a single map that depicted a mountain range called Ararat that was Southwest of Lake Van. Recall also that your earlier post claimed that it was within these mountains that agriculture began, but the area of Mesopotamia associated with the earliest evidence of farming is in a less mountainous area. Which makes sense because mountains are generally terrible for agriculture.

Here's a picture of both Little and Great Ararat https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._and_the_Yerevan_skyline_in_spring_(50mm).jpg

The is but ONE big Lake which could accommodate a 450 ft long Ark.

-_- what are you talking about? There are at least two other large lakes in that general area. Lake Sevan and Lake Urmia. How about learning from your mistakes and looking at maps from now on BEFORE you make geography claims? Judging by your confused geography, Lake Sevan fits your claims better than Lake Van (since the mountains of Ararat are Southwest of it).

Noah stayed inside the Ark from July until February and only left when commanded by God Himself. That eliminates the idea that the Ark was on top of 16k high Mt. Ararat since it is covered in Snow.

-_- 16,854 feet would be cold, sure, but people climbing Mt. Everest usually start using supplemental oxygen at 23,000 feet. Although, you could settle for the shorter Little Ararat that is 12,877 feet tall. Cold either way, really, considering that the entire region is very mountainous and cold.

It is recognized that Northern Mesopotamia, in the valleys SW from Lake Van, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, is the beginning of agriculture on planet Earth. Some other places CLAIM to be the beginning but none of them are labeled the Cradle of Civilization, except Mesopotamia. Perhaps a local Chamber of Commerce or scientist trying to get a grant, has fooled you. Amen?

My issue is both with your timing of agriculture, which is at least 500 years later than what historians think for the region you are mentioning, as well as the fact that according to historical evidence, agriculture began independently in at least 11 different places. If Noah's family was the source of agriculture alone, evidence of farming should all spread out from the Middle East, but it doesn't.

-_- Mesopotamia is called the "Cradle of Civilization" in reference to the fact that it is the area where we find the earliest evidence of complex urban centers. However, complex urban centers popped up all over the place independently of it. Just because it is called that doesn't mean it is literally the source of all civilization.
.

 

[Aman777]

My issue is both with your timing of agriculture, which is at least 500 years later than what historians think for the region you are mentioning, as well as the fact that according to historical evidence, agriculture began independently in at least 11 different places. If Noah's family was the source of agriculture alone, evidence of farming should all spread out from the Middle East, but it doesn't.

I don't argue dates. I accept the secular map which I post. It could be 11k 12k more or less, and it wouldn't change the fact that the Ark arrived in the area around the same time. The Lord Himself scattered Noah's Human descendants all over the world, which would spread agriculture seemingly from all areas at once. Gen 11:9

-_- Mesopotamia is called the "Cradle of Civilization" in reference to the fact that it is the area where we find the earliest evidence of complex urban centers. However, complex urban centers popped up all over the place independently of it. Just because it is called that doesn't mean it is literally the source of all civilization.

We find all traits of modern Humans came from the area. Agriculture, city building, math, history etc. had their origins there. Can you tell us HOW ancient men could have started these traits of modern Humans all over the Earth at about the same time? Of course not, not in an age of little or no transportation. It's proof of God. Amen?