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.
Dear Readers, Peleg was one of Noah's great grandsons.
He lived at the time that HUMANITY was scattered (split) over the whole Earth from Babel.
Babel was built by one of Noah's grandson's child named Nimrod.
Dear SLP, The flood "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 Adam's Earth and all the creatures there, except those on the Ark. No amount of water would "clean dissolve" our Earth because it's a rock containing molten lava. Thus, your ancient thinking is refuted both scripturally and scientifically. Amen? God Bless you.
Creationists have always admitted upfront that they ultimately base their position on faith that the Bible is the true Word of God.
The funny thing is that you guys (evolutionists) can't admit your faith positions, no matter how obvious it becomes.
All anatomical systems in biology, anywhere in existence, *must* have been assembled by natural selection acting on variation. You don't even need to study it, you *know* it's true already.
All of the cosmos *must* have evolved from some mysterious primordial state, and if the evidence doesn't point that way, then it is simply a "god of the gaps" that will be solved in the future.
You guys constantly exude a never-to-be-questioned, faith-based metaphysics
so I can't help but laugh when you do the pseudo-skeptic routine and attack others for their own.
You don't know what all was divided. Some scholars include the continental division in that. I agree. I go further and suspect that the spiritual was more divided also from the physical here, because spirits used to marry women and etc.Dear Readers, Peleg was one of Noah's great grandsons. He lived at the time that HUMANITY was scattered (split) over the whole Earth from Babel. Babel was built by one of Noah's grandson's child named Nimrod. Gen 10:10 Our Earth was NOT split but our Humanity was positioned all over the face of the Earth from Babel. Gen 11:9 God Bless you
In the plain. However that area saw massive uplift and etc which I suspect buried the area where the actual tower was.Where was babel?.
MY ancient thinking?
LOLOL!!!!
Whatever you want to pretend, Einstein.
You don't know what all was divided. Some scholars include the continental division in that. I agree. I go further and suspect that the spiritual was more divided also from the physical here, because spirits used to marry women and etc.
Here is my acid test for you..do you believe that Adam was a real man really created by Jesus, yes or no?? Just be honest and state your opinion.
Dear dad, Adam was a real man, who lived for Billions of years
You can assume any mutation rate you wish as long as you logical reasoning for why you're assuming it.
BTW, "I want it to be this way" is not logical reasoning.
Even when the 'true' word of God is shown to be absurd. How proud you must be.
But if this is the case, then I do wonder why you would try to argue against evolution pretending to use math or science in the first place?
Here we go...
Tell me all about MY 'faith positions', but first tell me how You know about MY faith positions.
God of the gaps is YOUR argument.
That is the only refuge for your deity these days - time was, it was thought that some deity or another was needed for everything. now, we can understand and explain all sorts of things that primitives used to lay at the feet of God.
it is only in the things that we have not yet shown to be understandable and explicable that your deity now lies.
And people like you want to ATTACK people like me for not simply agreeing that God did it is a satisfactory default position.
You conflate and confuse the 'faith' of the realist that since natural explanations have a pretty good track record so far,there is cause to be confident that currently unexplained phenomena will likely also have a natural explanation with the 'Faith' of the religionist that God said it, I believe it, thats that.
So we still have no explanation for contemporary genetic diversity that is consistent with a recent global flood.Dear SLP, The flood "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 Adam's Earth and all the creatures there, except those on the Ark. No amount of water would "clean dissolve" our Earth because it's a rock containing molten lava. Thus, your ancient thinking is refuted both scripturally and scientifically. Amen? God Bless you.
Since you do not seem to have learned very much about evolution from all of your years of arguing against it, call me unpersuaded.Since my feelings are based on years of experience in arguing with evolutionists.. yes I feel they are somewhat relevant.
Your reply makes no sense here. What do you mean, "of course there is consensus"? My point was that 15 years ago there very much wasn't consensus. To the extent that scientists were working from "assumptions", they were working from different assumptions. Some were convinced that humans evolved simultaneously across Africa, Asia and Europe, and others that convinced that modern humans arose only in Africa, and spread from there. What created the consensus wasn't the assumptions scientists started with, but the data.Of course there is consensus. And the consensus is usually portrayed to the public as if it is beyond question, yet it also tends to be based on agreed upon assumptions instead of brute facts.
Mind your tenses. That there "has been" a serious debate shows that the model was not beyond question. It says nothing about whether it is currently beyond question. (And of course, it's not beyond question -- no model is in science. It's just very strongly supported by a wealth of genetic data.)That there has been a serious debate at all shows that this model is not beyond question.
Those references are indeed ancient history when it comes to genomics. The first large-scale data of any kind on human genetic variation only appeared in 2002 (in this paper -- which noted that it supported Out of Africa, by the way). The first genome-wide data on genetic variation appeared in 2004 and 2005, with the Perlegen and HapMap datasets. The first unbiased datasets came years later, mostly with the 1000 Genomes Project. I've seen lots of studies that use 1000 Genomes data to support an Out of Africa model, or based on an OoA model, but I haven't seen a single one that interprets it in a multiregional model. Have you?These literature references are not exactly ancient history. Has the absolute truth of human population genetics really been revealed in the last 10 years? I highly doubt it.
So we still have no explanation for contemporary genetic diversity that is consistent with a recent global flood.
It's hard to evaluate the implications of a recent-Flood model when no one will offer such a model. If you assume that all humans started off with the oft-claimed perfect genomes, and therefore had no genetic variation, then all variation now is the result of mutations in the last, say, 10,000 years. Just in terms of the amount of variation we have, that would require a mutation rate 100 times as large as we observe. Never mind detailed analysis: everyone would just have died with that high a mutation rate. It would represent several hundred deleterious mutations per birth. And no, there's no way we could purge them all by purifying selection. We'd each have to be carrying a load of tens of thousands of damaging variants in order for purifying selection to start being effective in this scenario. Leaving aside the "we'd all be dead" problem, we simply don't carry that many deleterious alleles; the actual number is more like a few hundred.I would suspect that sfs has the data to answer these questions. My impression is that a much higher mutation rate and a very recent bottleneck, one needed to produce the observed amount of diversity in the human genome, would not be able to weed out deleterious mutations across the entire human genome. As it is, there is obvious signs of negative selection in the human genome (sfs is much more familiar with the papers).
I think we would also be curious as to how mutation rates slowed down in all species so that the human mutation rate matched those of other modern species. What is the mechanism?
It's hard to evaluate the implications of a recent-Flood model when no one will offer such a model.
If you assume that all humans started off with the oft-claimed perfect genomes, and therefore had no genetic variation, then all variation now is the result of mutations in the last, say, 10,000 years. Just in terms of the amount of variation we have, that would require a mutation rate 100 times as large as we observe.
Never mind detailed analysis: everyone would just have died with that high a mutation rate. It would represent several hundred deleterious mutations per birth.
And no, there's no way we could purge them all by purifying selection. We'd each have to be carrying a load of tens of thousands of damaging variants in order for purifying selection to start being effective in this scenario. Leaving aside the "we'd all be dead" problem, we simply don't carry that many deleterious alleles; the actual number is more like a few hundred.
Note also that mutation isn't a single process: different kinds of mutation happen for different reasons -- some during DNA replication, some during transcription, some spontaneously. Try coming up with a mechanism that would speed up all of those processes by a factor of 100 (compared to similar organisms) and then slow them all down again by the same amount.
Finally, we don't have to make any assumptions about what 4500 year old genomes looked like. All we have to do is look at 4500 year old genomes and see for ourselves. We've got human genomes that are much older than that in the literature at this point.
No. Not at all. You merely seek to preach about your beliefs that the genetics which depend on laws all worked the same in the unknown past. We do not need to look at mutation as it now happens, nor do we need to date a genome in the ways you wish we would. You are selling a package deal faith and it is high time you realize some aren't buying.Finally, we don't have to make any assumptions about what 4500 year old genomes looked like. All we have to do is look at 4500 year old genomes and see for ourselves. We've got human genomes that are much older than that in the literature at this point.
I'm talking about genetics, so models of genetics are what I'm interested in. Creationists do not publish flood- or creation-based models of genetics. If you disagree, find any creationist who offers as simple a statement as what part of genetic diversity dates back to Adam and Eve and how much comes from subsequent mutation.Creation scientists publish on aspects of the flood model regularly. Maybe you should try looking them up.
Money for research only helps if you want to do research.If Creation was a state-sponsored religion like Evolution is, then you'd have a lot more research to draw on. Sorry about that.
Things would have to have been different in specific ways, ways that have no explanation within creationism, no proposed mechanism, and whose sole justification would be that they would make creationism look like evolution. And ways no one can actually describe.Yea we get it. Things would have to have been different. I could have told you that by simply reading Genesis and again, noting that humans were living over 600 years of age at the time of the flood. "That's impossible!"
Since observed genetic variation is indeed randomly dispersed across the genome, and it's that variation we're trying to explain, I don't think it's really an assumption. As for whether they could absorb more degradation, what does that mean? If a mutation destroys a protein, as many mutations do, how does the state of the rest of the genome matter? More to the point, they didn't absorb those mutations: we can see the functional parts of the genome by the lack of diversity there, where purifying selection has purged the deleterious mutations.Are you assuming they would have to be randomly dispersed across the genome? If genomes were significantly more intact at this time, then why couldn't they absorb significantly more degradation?
Sorry, but sneering is not an argument.This critique coming from someone who believes mutations were able to build a suite of beautifully functional cellular anatomy (Because, you know, we see things like that happening in nature all the time), before accumulating enough deleterious ones in the genome to cause total extinction. Talk about miracles.
Tu quoque is also not a valid argument.I could point to a myriad of evolutionary problems where you lack any observable phenomena to support your hypotheses, yet you accept them because they support an evolutionary narrative.
My God is the one revealed in Jesus Christ. I think it's a really bad idea to tell him how he had to have done it. I'd much rather look at what he did and see the traces left behind.My God is "The Bible says it happened"
Your God is "Natural Selection did it"
We don't have to agree that they're absolutely correct, just very correct -- which of course they are.Of course, as long as we agree that the dating methods are absolutely correct which produces another rabbit-hole of assumptions to travel down.
I'm talking about genetics, so models of genetics are what I'm interested in. Creationists do not publish flood- or creation-based models of genetics. If you disagree, find any creationist who offers as simple a statement as what part of genetic diversity dates back to Adam and Eve and how much comes from subsequent mutation.
And I have tried looking at creationist statements on genetics. In fact, I've even written to major creationist organizations, asking them basic questions about genetics. They didn't give me any answers. Surprise me: tell me something about creationist genetics.
Money for research only helps if you want to do research.
Things would have to have been different in specific ways, ways that have no explanation within creationism, no proposed mechanism, and whose sole justification would be that they would make creationism look like evolution. And ways no one can actually describe.
Since observed genetic variation is indeed randomly dispersed across the genome, and it's that variation we're trying to explain, I don't think it's really an assumption.
As for whether they could absorb more degradation, what does that mean? If a mutation destroys a protein, as many mutations do, how does the state of the rest of the genome matter? More to the point, they didn't absorb those mutations: we can see the functional parts of the genome by the lack of diversity there, where purifying selection has purged the deleterious mutations.
Sorry, but sneering is not an argument.
I rest my case!!!
So we still have no explanation for contemporary genetic diversity that is consistent with a recent global flood.
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?