- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Still waiting for your answer as to why exactly this would be true. Tick tick....
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Still waiting for your answer as to why exactly this would be true. Tick tick....Doesn't matter. Rapid evolution won't produce the distribution of genetic variation that we observe.
Sorry, but scientists test things from the past all the time. They study the past, they give scientific talks about the past, they write scientific papers about the past, scientific journals publish those papers about the past, and scientific funding agencies fund their studies of the past. The idea that we can't study the past is something you made up.That's the foundation of science. We can test things now and in the future.
But we can't test things in the past. Sorry.....but time has screwed you.
Sorry, but scientists test things from the past all the time. They study the past, they give scientific talks about the past, they write scientific papers about the past, scientific journals publish those papers about the past, and scientific funding agencies fund their studies of the past. The idea that we can't study the past is something you made up.
Until, of course, the past involves having to uncover a miracle or two, then suddenly uniformitarianism takes precedence over catastrophism ... doesn't it?
The past is fun to ignore/rewrite, isn't it?
Until, of course, the past involves having to uncover a miracle or two, then suddenly uniformitarianism takes precedence over catastrophism ... doesn't it?
The past is fun to ignore/rewrite, isn't it?What miracles?
Thanks for the QED.
Yup.Sad.
Nope. If you can offer empirical evidence for a miracle, science can address the event. What have you got?Until, of course, the past involves having to uncover a miracle or two, then suddenly uniformitarianism takes precedence over catastrophism ... doesn't it?
Nope. Ignoring reality is your specialty -- and your boast -- not mine. i feel constrained to deal with reality, not tell it to take a hike.The past is fun to ignore/rewrite, isn't it?
It could happen if people didn't experience the time.
Which would be the case as described in scripture.
I got nothing -- which is more than science has got.Nope. If you can offer empirical evidence for a miracle, science can address the event. What have you got?
That's your prerogative.Nope. Ignoring reality is your specialty -- and your boast -- not mine. i feel constrained to deal with reality, not tell it to take a hike.
But not the DATE it reached us?It is ridiculously simple to then calculate the TIME it took for that light to reach us.
Putting on fast forward is fine. A rapidly expanding population, though, leaves very clear genetic traces. Whatever genetic variation was in the original tiny population remains, at a frequency not too different from what it started with. For Noah and family, that would mean a minimum frequency of 10%, since there were 10 independent copies of the genome on the Ark. As the population expands, some of those variants will drift down in frequency some, so that you'll find lots of variants in around 10% of chromosomes (and around 20%, etc), some around 5%, and fewer and fewer as you look at rarer variants. There will also be a sprinkling of rare variants, from new mutations.
Real genetic variation data looks nothing at all like this. There are roughly ten times as many variants at 1% frequency as there are at 10%, and more than a hundred times as many at 0.1% frequency.
So that's the challenge: explain why there are millions of low frequency genetic variants in the human population.
ETA: Mind you, that's not the only genetic problem with the Flood, but it's probably the easiest to explain.
Focus. The question under discussion was, can science study past events? Your (and my) personal beliefs are not relevant to that question unless they involve science.I got nothing -- which is more than science has got.
God created the universe ex nihilo, that means "out of nothing."
But I have a feeling they won't believe it.
John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
That's your prerogative.
That kind of study is trying to estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor of human beings. Genetic variation depends on the time to the most recent common ancestor of chunks of DNA. The two are fundamentally different because people have two parents while DNA only has one parent; each piece of DNA you have descends from a piece that one of your parents had. The number of genealogical ancestors you have doubles every generation, and quickly grows to be an enormous number as you look back into the past -- quickly enough that you don't have to go back very far until everyone alive is descended from the same set of ancestors.I'm afraid I don't understand your argument in light of statements like this from the literature:
Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans - Nature 2004
In particular, the MRCA [Most Recent Common Ancestor] of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors.
So maybe you can elaborate...
The question under discussion was, can science study past events?
That kind of study is trying to estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor of human beings. Genetic variation depends on the time to the most recent common ancestor of chunks of DNA. The two are fundamentally different because people have two parents while DNA only has one parent; each piece of DNA you have descends from a piece that one of your parents had. The number of genealogical ancestors you have doubles every generation, and quickly grows to be an enormous number as you look back into the past -- quickly enough that you don't have to go back very far until everyone alive is descended from the same set of ancestors.
The number of DNA ancestors does not increase at all as you look back. If you're looking at a set of ancestral DNA for, say, the modern population, the number of ancestors only decreases as you look back, as some modern pieces share a common ancestral piece (in the language of population genetics, the number of lineages decreases as they coalesce at different times in the past).
The time to the most recent genealogical ancestor of all humans is indeed a few thousand years (unless Australia was completely cut off from gene flow, in which case it was ~65,000 years). The time to the most recent common ancestor of all human DNA varies from place to place in the genome, but averages around a million years.
Meanwhile, no creationist has explained how the Flood is consistent with observed genetic diversity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?