Another Flood Question

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The video is pseudoscience. The airplane where we actually performed tests with clocks did not turn around.

An object moving on a curved trajectory is accelerating; that means it is in a non-inertial frame.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They are used to date the strata in other places from which they were originally identified.

The strata are not themselves uniform around the entire world.

My gosh...

Are you listening to yourself? If the strata is not uniform, then index fossils found in specific strata could not be used to date other strata, unless the strata was uniform and in a consistent order.

Think it through man. If the strata and order is not uniformly consistent, then fossils found in one strata can not be used to date other strata not found in any consistent or uniform place in the geological column. If it was random, such would be impossible.

Your argument would be better applied against the ability to accurately date any fossil found.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

An object moving on a curved trajectory is accelerating; that means it is in a non-inertial frame.

Sort of like the earths orbit? So we agree non-inertial frames are the same as accelerating frames, in which the twin could perceive nothing correctly. And btw, I am still waiting for a single thing the twin in motion got correct?

And what does the earths curved trajectory therefore tell you about our clocks? Go ahead, finish out the logical conclusion. Don’t stop thinking now.

It might help you understand if you study kinetic energy. It is gained on acceleration, then remains the same until the speed changes.

Such is why the twins clock fails to match on return. It slows during acceleration, remains at that rate for the coast to the turn around point. At deceleration it speeds back up to its original rate. It again slows during acceleration, then again remains at that rate until the final deceleration at landing. At which point it now ticks again at the same rate. It is simply behind from the time spent coasting without acceleration as it proceeded at that slower rate.

This is why the laws of physics hold good in inertial frames moving in relative velocity to one another. They both possess the same amount of kinetic energy. They would also hold good in non-inertial frames moving at the same accelerational rate. but the airplane is not accelerating at the same rate as the earth’s surface.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sort of like the earths orbit? So we agree non-inertial frames are the same as accelerating frames, in which the twin could perceive nothing correctly. And btw, I am still waiting for a single thing the twin in motion got correct?

Correct from what reference frame?

 

[tas8831]

Few more minutes...

What you are indirectly referring to is the use of index fossils, and you have totally butchered how they are used (what else is new).

HINT: their use does NOT rely on universal strata. Almost the opposite, really.

The hallmark of someone confused. They are index fossils precisely because they are found every one in the same type of strata for its believed age.

Fossils are dated by the strata they are found in. If the strata were not consistent, then they could not be of the same age.

You need to study up on fossil dating before you provide more false data.

Try studying up on the geological column....

"Index fossils are commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span. They help in dating other fossils found in the same sedimentary layer. For example, if you find a fossil from an unknown era near a fossil from a known time, you can assume that the two species were from about the same time. "

Where do any of these definitions say anything about 'universal' or everywhere on the earth?

After all, you wrote:

"it’s your own geologists that claim they can date the earth and fossils by the order in which the strata was laid down, and confirm its consistency by existing worldwide."


Remember?

Then isn't it odd that you did not provide an example, a name, a link, a citation to this universal sedimentary stratum.

Which do you want to start with, the Cambrian or another?

View attachment 211712

Sure - I suggest you look at the title of that figure:

'Generalized Stratigraphic Column
Horsetooth Reservoir Quadrangle, Larimer County, Colorado'

which is here.

That is not world wide.
Please show me where you link indicates that this is universal or worldwide.

You might have a point if there were a sizeable chunk of modern evolutionary biologists advocating Lamarckianism, and if you understood what Darwinism/neo-Darwinism are, and if you understood that gradualism does not - and never did - prohibit catastrophism.

IOW - you should try reading about the nature of the claims you make BEFORE you make them.

The point now becomes you deny your own multiple theories about evolution and your own inconsistencies.

Are you having a hard time understanding things again?

I commented on the tendency of creationists to contradict each other and even themselves. You mention unrelated issues that you do not understand - you seem to think, for example, that gradualism does not allow for catastrophes to occur. That is nonsense.
You posited that Lamarckianism is a current 'contradiction' - there are no current biologists that posit Lamarkianism as a legitimate counter ot Darwinian processes.
You mention Darwinism and neo-Darwinism - I am guessing you think that they are currently in conflict? Nonsense.

owever, I have taught classes on evolution, and in those classes I have discussed index fossils and geological phenomena, and if there were consistent, uniform, world-wide layers of sedimentary rock, then I know that there would be no need for the use of index fossils.

So show me a link or a paper or or something.

index fossil
“Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.”

Anything else you need corrected on? Your students probably were more confused than you are.

I am waiting for you to correct me on anything. Here is the text for your entire link:

Index fossil, any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata. In marine strata, index fossils that are commonly used include the single-celled Protista with hard body parts and larger forms such as ammonoids. In terrestrial sediments of the Cenozoic Era, which began about 65.5 million years ago, mammals are widely used to date deposits. All of these animal forms have hard body parts, such as shells, bones, and teeth, and evolved rapidly.​

I must have missed where it mentions that there are universal, worldwide sedimentary layers. Can you point it out for me?

Thanks.

I know about mass extinctions, but I don't know anything about floods causing all of them, and I should think that such events would have been God's work, yet in the bible, there is but one flood mentioned, and there is zero evidence for that.

Please, all fossils but the very few found in lava flows are found in sedimentary strata. How much evidence of floods do you need?

You seem to think that mass extinctions are basically single, short duration events. That is laughable.
Tell me genius - why would FISH suffer a mass extinction during a flood? Why would only certain plants and animals die in a mass extinction if it was a world-wide flood?

Regarding the K-T mass extinction, wiki tells us:

"With the exception of some ectothermic species such as the leatherback sea turtle and crocodiles, no tetrapods weighing more than 25 kilograms (55 lb) survived.[5] It marked the end of the Cretaceous period and with it, the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era that continues today.... It is estimated that 75% or more of all species on Earth vanished."

Not 100% - including humans, which would have happened in your scenario.

And estimates are that it took 10s of thousands of years, not 1 year as for the Noah flood.

And chapter and verse for the 4 other world wide floods?

And by the way - do you really not understand why fossils are not found in volcanic rock?

How can I remember that for which you have not offered anything of merit?

So, you are saying that the 'stratum' that we are living on today proves that there are strata around the entire world formed by these five world-wide floods that you claim (without evidence) occurred?


Creationists twist and turn, and are never straight shooters.

You simply confuse mans ancestors as being more ape like to conform to your theory.

Actually, I rely on the application of tested methodologies used to analyze the g reatest source of data points:



The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "

I don’t expect the people before the flood to look like us.

So you don't accept that Adam was the first man? Interesting.

Just as I don’t expect a poodle to look like a wolf.

Yet according to your zany naive 'genetics', we should be able to cross 2 poodles and get a wolf.

You have many fossils of our pre-flood ancestors, and guess what, they are found in sedimentary strata too.

I'm sorry - did you think that means anything substantive?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I agree. My disagreement with the “evolutionary take” is that it begins with the things it sees happening today, and projects that rate all the way back to the beginning (Creation & Flood times). I think that is what Peter was referring to when he said many err by saying everything goes on as it has from the beginning. The Genesis account is “what” happened; there was something else going on (at a different rate - much faster, violent, puzzling) than has happened since (slow & discernable). You have to look at the bible first for “what” happened (the “how and rate” we cannot begin to fully understand), but then look to science for the “understandable how and rate” that has happened since. Two different epochs with uncommon dynamics.

I must respectfully disagree. It doesn’t begin with what we see happening today and apply it backwards. It ignores what we observe happening.

Asian remain Asian, African remain African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new variation introduced, the Afro-Asian. Neither the Asian nor African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky remain Husky, Mastiff remain Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is a new variation, the Chinook produced. Neither Husky nor Mastiff evolved into the Chinook.

This applies to every single animal on the face of the planet.

So if we apply what we observe to the past, then fossil A mated with fossil B to produce fossil C. Neither of which evolved into fossil C. Hence all fossils remain the same from the oldest one found of that type to the youngest fossil found for that type. And the new variation comes into existence suddenly, just like the Chinook or Afro-Asian.

No, they refuse to apply what we observe to the past.

 

[tas8831]

Are you listening to yourself? If the strata is not uniform, then index fossils found in specific strata could not be used to date other strata, unless the strata was uniform and in a consistent order.

Wow, dude, OK...


Wow...

So.... You seem to be implying that a "stratum" is, and must be, a single, worldwide, uniform layer of sediment.

Is that accurate?

Let's ask our creationist pals at the Institute for Creation Research about this - it is from an essay titled "Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column"

Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.


The notion that the earth's crust has on "onion skin" structure with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath; 94% of the earth's surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system.2 Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland). Even where the ten systems may be present, geologists recognize individual systems to be incomplete. The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!​

That last sentence is horse hockey - no geologist ever claimed what Austin implies, but the fact is, even creationists understand that what you are implying is nonsense.


So, back to index fossils.

Say we have Fossil X in stratum Y in area A.

Someone finds Fossil X in another part of the world in which stratum Y doesn't exist, in area B - let's call it stratum Z.

The index fossil is then used to DATE stratum Z due to the presence of fossil X.

See, index fossils are about DATES, NOT finding a stratum that circles the earth.

Look at it this way - let's say there is a mass extinction and humans are wiped out.

Millions of years in the future, aliens or something are doing some paleontology on earth, and they find human fossils in what we now call Chicago. Then, they find human fossils in Australia. Hmmm.... Very different geology. Different composition of strata. But they conclude that these strata are contemporaneous due to the INDEX FOSSILS they find in both.

Get it now?


But no, you 'know' all about these things.

Geology, genetics, etc. - it is truly amazing...

 

[tas8831]

Asian remain Asian, African remain African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new variation introduced, the Afro-Asian. Neither the Asian nor African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Still waiting for your genetic evidence for as to where the Asian and African came from in the first place.

You claim that Adam and Eve had nearly identical 'allies', so where did the diversity come from?

 

[ruthiesea]

Only one problem with the K-T boundary. All the dinosaurs went extinct before it, not a single dinosaur fossil can be found in that layer or even immediately after it. And every single one but maybe a few hundred are found in sedimentary layers before it.

To date, only one, count them, one fossil has been found just before the K-T layer.

But perhaps, just perhaps, if evolutionary supporters did their research first before just accepting everything they were told to believe, they might have discovered this for themselves. Perhaps, but I won’t hold my breath on any evolutionist thinking for themselves.

Actually, some dinosaurs survived the extinction event. The evolved into birds. There is some discussion about dinosaur fossils found in Europe after the event, but it is surmised that they are not in their primary location.

Yes, there are dinosaur fossils present right up to the K-T line, just as there are many fossils of mammal, plant, and others organisms which did not survive right up to the line.

....the resolution in the fossil record isn’t fine enough to tell us whether the dinosaurs survived a few decades across the boundary. However, I think that’s not worth seriously considering. For practical purposes, breeding populations of dinosaurs did not survive the K/T boundary. ~ Dan O'Dea, Studied geology, microfossils, and dinosaurs in graduate school

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Few more minutes...

"Index fossils are commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span. They help in dating other fossils found in the same sedimentary layer. For example, if you find a fossil from an unknown era near a fossil from a known time, you can assume that the two species were from about the same time. "

Where do any of these definitions say anything about 'universal' or everywhere on the earth?

After all, you wrote:

"it’s your own geologists that claim they can date the earth and fossils by the order in which the strata was laid down, and confirm its consistency by existing worldwide."


Remember?


Sure - I suggest you look at the title of that figure:

'Generalized Stratigraphic Column
Horsetooth Reservoir Quadrangle, Larimer County, Colorado'

which is here.

That is not world wide.
Please show me where you link indicates that this is universal or worldwide.

“Precambrian rocks, mostly pegmatite, granodiorite, tonalite and metasedimentary rocks underlay the park and are exposed over the western two-thirds.”

Hmm, so they are easily identified as Precambrian rocks, just as all Precambrian strata is easily identified, because they are uniform in consistency world wide.

Are you having a hard time understanding things again?

I commented on the tendency of creationists to contradict each other and even themselves. You mention unrelated issues that you do not understand - you seem to think, for example, that gradualism does not allow for catastrophes to occur. That is nonsense.
You posited that Lamarckianism is a current 'contradiction' - there are no current biologists that posit Lamarkianism as a legitimate counter ot Darwinian processes.
You mention Darwinism and neo-Darwinism - I am guessing you think that they are currently in conflict? Nonsense.



I am waiting for you to correct me on anything. Here is the text for your entire link:

Index fossil, any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata. In marine strata, index fossils that are commonly used include the single-celled Protista with hard body parts and larger forms such as ammonoids. In terrestrial sediments of the Cenozoic Era, which began about 65.5 million years ago, mammals are widely used to date deposits. All of these animal forms have hard body parts, such as shells, bones, and teeth, and evolved rapidly.​

I must have missed where it mentions that there are universal, worldwide sedimentary layers. Can you point it out for me?

Thanks.

No problem, evolutionists simply have a hard time grasping what’s right in front of their noses. Like finches mating, only took 200 years to see it.

“In terrestrial sediments of the Cenozoic Era”

Palaeos Cenozoic: The Cenozoic Era

“More than 95% of the Cenozoic era belongs to the Tertiary period, an unreasonable division which reflects the arbitrary manner in which the geological epochs were first named. From 1760 to 1770, Giovanni Arduino, inspector of mines in Tuscany and later professor of mineralogy at Padua, set forth the first classification of geological time, dividing the sequence of the Earth's rocks into Primitive, Secondary, and Tertiary. During the 18th century the names Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary were given to successive rock strata, the Primary being the oldest, the Tertiary the more recent. In 1829 a fourth division, the Quaternary, was added by P. G. Desnoyers. These terms were later abandoned, the Primitive or Primary becoming the Paleozoic Era, and the Secondary the Mesozoic.“

Doesn’t sound all jumbled up to me, sounds like they are distinct and in successive layers.

You seem to think that mass extinctions are basically single, short duration events. That is laughable.

And where are the fossils for the last 10,000 years? None are even forming as we speak, even from local floods. We killed millions of Buffalo, certainly some of there bones should be fossilizing for someone to find in 65 million years?

Tell me genius - why would FISH suffer a mass extinction during a flood? Why would only certain plants and animals die in a mass extinction if it was a world-wide flood?

Ok I’ll tell you.
Flooding causes fish kills in Withlacoochee River

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/634570/Fish-Kills-FAQ-August-2011.pdf

But let’s ignore the increased mud in the waters, lowering oxygen. Reduced visibility for hunting... nah, let’s ignore reality so you can sustain your fantasies.

There you go genius, reality.

Regarding the K-T mass extinction, wiki tells us:

"With the exception of some ectothermic species such as the leatherback sea turtle and crocodiles, no tetrapods weighing more than 25 kilograms (55 lb) survived.[5] It marked the end of the Cretaceous period and with it, the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era that continues today.... It is estimated that 75% or more of all species on Earth vanished."

Not 100% - including humans, which would have happened in your scenario.

I know, they were on the Ark.

And estimates are that it took 10s of thousands of years, not 1 year as for the Noah flood.

Yah well, others on here dismiss relativity too.

And chapter and verse for the 4 other world wide floods?

Every fossil is found in sedimentary strata, how many chapters and versus if the actual creation do you need?

And by the way - do you really not understand why fossils are not found in volcanic rock?

Sure I do, but do you not understand why with but a few exceptions they are found in sedimentary rock?

Actually, I rely on the application of tested methodologies used to analyze the g reatest source of data points:



The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

Hmm, from inbreeding, we’re you not the one arguing animals don’t do that in the other thread? And now want to present inbreeding as evidence? Of course we get exactly what we expect to see, significant deviations. They were genealogically relations to begin with, so you reproduced what you started with?

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

Hmm, I predict that I can predict the lineage of known ancestors, and my test will confirm they are ancestors, and then I’ll claim see, I predicted it with 98% certainty, knowing the answer before I started.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.

I’m other words if we leave in a big enough fudge factor so we can say what we like by playing with the numbers.

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




So you don't accept that Adam was the first man? Interesting.



Yet according to your zany naive 'genetics', we should be able to cross 2 poodles and get a wolf.




I'm sorry - did you think that means anything substantive?

A whole 90 kB in a dna strand billions of bits long? My, so comprehensive. And of course the most favorable section cut from the rest of the parts that had no relation.

Let’s see, I’ll start with 20 red apples and 500 green apples. I’ll throw away 499 of the green apples, compare what’s left to 20 other red apples and declare, why look, all apples share a 98% similarity in color. If you say so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually, some dinosaurs survived the extinction event. The evolved into birds. There is some discussion about dinosaur fossils found in Europe after the event, but it is surmised that they are not in their primary location.

Yes, there are dinosaur fossils present right up to the K-T line, just as there are many fossils of mammal, plant, and others organisms which did not survive right up to the line.

....the resolution in the fossil record isn’t fine enough to tell us whether the dinosaurs survived a few decades across the boundary. However, I think that’s not worth seriously considering. For practical purposes, breeding populations of dinosaurs did not survive the K/T boundary. ~ Dan O'Dea, Studied geology, microfossils, and dinosaurs in graduate school

No, there are not fossils found right up to the line. They suddenly stop 3 meters below it, and then to date only a few bones have been found beyond that 3 meter gap.

If you are going to preach, at least preach fact. They are now arguing amongst themselves because someone found a single solitary bone 15cm beneath it. As if one bone in a 3 meter gap shows conclusively dinosaurs were thriving. It shows they almost went extinct several hundred thousands of years earlier by the sediment they were buried in from a global flood, with only a handful surviving which died out before the K-T event.

Now remember, all stories are told by the person who believes them.

Closing the 'three metre gap'

This is still one of the biggest debates in paleontology, us outsiders just never see the inside fighting, but only what someone tells them to say to make headlines.

And no, dinosaurs did not evolve into birds. Go look in the back rooms of museums and see what is not on display with those dinosaur fossils.

Baby Bird from Time of Dinosaurs Found Fossilized in Amber

Rare Dinosaur-Era Bird Wings Found Trapped in Amber

I don’t need some story of dinosaurs evolving into birds when they already existed alongside them.

Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still waiting for your genetic evidence for as to where the Asian and African came from in the first place.

You claim that Adam and Eve had nearly identical 'allies', so where did the diversity come from?

From mating. That’s why there are shared genes between them, yet some are distinct, because inbreeding reduces genetic variability and sets in specific traits. That’s why 98% of the genome is now non-functional because of genetic errors. But, if all humans did not share the same original descendants after the flood, the 98% would not be consistent across races which live in different continents and were therefore subject to different mutational variables. It’s your story that can’t match what is observed, not mine. Even if it isn’t junk DNA.

But non-functional DNA is what you end up with when God deactivates it to shorten mans lifespan after the flood. Go ahead, do some genetic experiments on man and get it working again and see what happens. That’s my prediction, test it.

I understand quite well that for a mutation to become fixed in the entire population, the population had to come from descendants....

No, that’s your claim they were nearly identical, not mine. Where did you get that from my statement one was A/B and the other C/D?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you don't accept that Adam was the first man? Interesting.

Hmmm, so you equate fossils of man dating after Adam as evidence I don’t believe in Adam, interesting indeed. Why would evidence of your family five generations back make me believe your family didn’t start from two originally?

Yet according to your zany naive 'genetics', we should be able to cross 2 poodles and get a wolf.

No that’s your zany naive genetics where we mutate a poodle and get a wolf. Your confusing my beliefs with yours, I understand why you would then consider it zany.

Poodles are bred for specific traits, they no longer have the genetic variability to produce anything but poodles until crossed with another. And why grizzly bears only produce grizzly bears now. Why Asians only produce Asians until crossed with another.

It’s your zany genetics that claims we can get something from one, not two, even if it takes two in real life.

I do notice how you purposefully misrepresent things people say though. That scared because you can’t answer the original you find it necessary to lie about what people have said?

I'm sorry - did you think that means anything substantive?

Of course not, it’s only substantive when an artist draws them with hair all over their bodies so they look ape like. Then it’s substantive evidence, right?

 

[Astrophile]

Which belief on how planets formed was based upon their beliefs of geological history.

No, it wasn't; it was based on the distribution of the planets in our system, with with small dense rock plus iron planets near to the Sun and low-density volatile-rich giant planets at greater distances, beyond the 'snow-line'. The geological history of the planets, after the bombardment episodes during the Hadean era, had nothing to do with how they were originally formed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Correct from what reference frame?

From any reference frame.

He thinks he is stationary and the stationary twin in motion, but we know the stationary twin is stationary.

He thinks his clocks haven’t changed at all, yet his clocks did change. Just like you are thinking yours haven’t changed.

But then I asked you what that curved trajectory implied of our clocks? Ahh, so like the twin you think they haven’t changed, even if you understand curved trajectories are equivalent to acceleration and should know better. That’s why I asked you not to stop thinking, or did it just start to make you question so you found it best to just ignore it?

The twin thinks the stationary twins clocks slowed. We know he’s wrong, that twin is stationary, his clocks never changed. Even the moving twin realized his error when he returned and found out yes, his clocks had changed, he was younger, and the stationary twins clocks never changed at all.

No, the twin in motion can’t get anything right from even his own frame. And it is his mindset you want to believe in??? I find that, we’ll, astounding really.

 

[AV1611VET]

The geological history of the planets, after the bombardment episodes during the Hadean era, had nothing to do with how they were originally formed.

They weren't formed. They were created ex nihilo. Possibly for R&R.

 

[Astrophile]

Every planet and moon in the solar system is pockmarked with craters from pole to pole. Ever wonder why the earth only has a few? Oh yes, I’m waiting for the inadequate claim of weathering now. And some on earth has been weathered. But actually look at the numbers found on every planet and moon but earth.

If I were going to be pedantic, I should point out that Io and Europa have hardly any craters, and that the northern hemisphere of Mars is only sparsely cratered. Even Venus is lightly cratered by comparison with the other terrestrial planets; there are no giant impact basins on Venus to correspond with Mare Imbrium and Mare Orientale or with the Caloris and Hellas basins. Of course, the Earth has some very large craters, such as Vredefort, Sudbury, Chicxulub, Manicouagan, Acraman and Popigai, more than it could have accumulated within only a few million years.

The simple explanation for the Earth's comparative lack of craters and impact basins is that most of the craters on the other planets and satellites were formed during the first few hundred million years of the solar system's history (the Hadean era). After this time, Mars, Mercury and the Moon, and most of the satellites of the outer planets, subsided into a state of permanent geological inactivity, whereas the Earth remained geologically active. It is this long-lived geological activity that has destroyed most of the Earth's impact scars.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From any reference frame.

He thinks he is stationary and the stationary twin in motion, but we know the stationary twin is stationary.

He thinks his clocks haven’t changed at all, yet his clocks did change. Just like you are thinking yours haven’t changed.

But then I asked you what that curved trajectory implied of our clocks? Ahh, so like the twin you think they haven’t changed, even if you understand curved trajectories are equivalent to acceleration and should know better. That’s why I asked you not to stop thinking, or did it just start to make you question so you found it best to just ignore it?

The twin thinks the stationary twins clocks slowed. We know he’s wrong, that twin is stationary, his clocks never changed. Even the moving twin realized his error when he returned and found out yes, his clocks had changed, he was younger, and the stationary twins clocks never changed at all.

No, the twin in motion can’t get anything right from even his own frame. And it is his mindset you want to believe in??? I find that, we’ll, astounding really.

I think you must have read a different version of the twins paradox from the ones I've read (and perhaps a different version of relativity, come to that).

But hey, GPS will still work, regardless.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it wasn't; it was based on the distribution of the planets in our system, with with small dense rock plus iron planets near to the Sun and low-density volatile-rich giant planets at greater distances, beyond the 'snow-line'. The geological history of the planets, after the bombardment episodes during the Hadean era, had nothing to do with how they were originally formed.

You don’t believe that any more than I do. You and I both understand that they based their beliefs upon what they found here in earth. They had never even sent a probe to the moon, let alone to another planet. They based their entire theory of the other planets by what they saw right here on this planet.

Their entire theory of how planets form is wrong, their entire theory about how solar systems is wrong, based upon incorrect beliefs of how planets form. And their entire theory of how galaxies form is wrong, based upon their incorrect beliefs in how solar systems form.

We based the geology of the other planets on our geology, the only thing at the time we thought we could measure correctly. That belief led them to get everything wrong.

Because like I am trying to get bandersnatch to realize, he can’t trust his clocks or measuring devices because they are in a constant state of change.

He knows this, which is why he’s avoiding treating the earth in its curved trajectory like he was willing to treat an airplane in its curved trajectory. The implications made him question his beliefs of consistency, so he chose to ignore the logical conclusion instead of accepting it wherever it might lead.

I see the same here, the preference to ignore everything was based upon what we saw right here, because that would make you question everything you have believed in. Paradigm shifts are always opposed until no other choice is left.

 

[juvenissun]

Modern science has no interest in proving Genesis wrong.

A true scientist won't do that because they know it is hard or is even impossible.

People in this forum are trying hard to do that. And the consequence is obvious: A Christian scientist is very easy to defend it.