Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[SkyWriting]

That is arrant nonsense. We know the speed of light. We know the distance of those stars. It is ridiculously simple to then calculate the TIME it took for that light to reach us. And the time it takes to continue to reach us.

Gravity affects the speed of light.
As a result mass affects time.
Space is bent by mass so we don't
really know the distances.
Likely time was tied to the
creation of mass.

This affects both natural and
creation models.

Both models show the creation of
mass out of nothing. This would
cause the creation of time before
which it did not exist.

In the Creation Model, mass is still
under the direct influence of God
making it eternal or timeless.

Decay of mass (or death) does not
begin till later. Effectively, time
before the Fall does not exist.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

What they SAY about the past is made up.

But you've made my case that all the fiction writing
is about the money. Thanks.

 

[sfs]

It sounds like you're arguing against the amount of genetic diversity since the creation of humans from the beginning, instead of post-flood re-population. Otherwise I'm hearing contradictory statements, i.e. It's acceptable that humans share a common human ancestor only a few thousand years ago.. but this is unacceptable at the same time. That's what I'm confused about.

No, you've misunderstood. It's acceptable that humans shared a common ancestor a few thousand years ago. It's not acceptable (meaning it's not consistent with observed diversity) that humans shared only a tiny group of common ancestors a few thousand years ago. That kind of tight population bottleneck leaves glaring signatures in the distribution of genetic diversity. It's easy to see that Finland, say, was founded by a small population. The same goes for Native Americans. It's also easy to see the less intense and older bottleneck that the ancestors of all non-Africans went through in leaving Africa ~60,000 years ago. A bottleneck of only 5 people less than 10,000 years ago would be trivial to detect.

 

[sfs]

What they SAY about the past is made up.

Just to be clear -- you think you understand science better than all the world's scientists. Has it occurred to you that this point of view is, well, nuts?

 

[Loudmouth]

It sounds like you're arguing against the amount of genetic diversity since the creation of humans from the beginning, instead of post-flood re-population. Otherwise I'm hearing contradictory statements, i.e. It's acceptable that humans share a common human ancestor only a few thousand years ago.. but this is unacceptable at the same time. That's what I'm confused about.

I share a common ancestor with my siblings that is still alive. I share a common ancestor with my cousins that is more distant in the past. I share an even less recent common ancestor with my 2nd cousins. You also need to take genetic recombination into account. For each allele, there may be a different common ancestor. In order to explain the number of alleles, you need a population of humans. There are almost 2,000 HLA DRB alleles, and that is just one allele.

HLA Nomenclature @ hla.alleles.org

Each person only carries two alleles. There would be 4 alleles between Adam and Eve. With such a recent bottleneck, we should not see this type of genetic diversity in one gene, but we do.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, you've misunderstood. It's acceptable that humans shared a common ancestor a few thousand years ago. It's not acceptable (meaning it's not consistent with observed diversity) that humans shared only a tiny group of common ancestors a few thousand years ago. That kind of tight population bottleneck leaves glaring signatures in the distribution of genetic diversity. It's easy to see that Finland, say, was founded by a small population. The same goes for Native Americans. It's also easy to see the less intense and older bottleneck that the ancestors of all non-Africans went through in leaving Africa ~60,000 years ago. A bottleneck of only 5 people less than 10,000 years ago would be trivial to detect.

I've heard the same certainty with numerous claims of evolutionists that always turn out to be not what they appear.

I have a feeling these glaring signatures are based on the assumptions of a particular population genetics model.

You bring up how this same technique definitely shows the "Out of Africa" scenario, yet evolutionists themselves have proposed the fundamentally different "Multiregional hypothesis" population model in opposition. Same genetic data, two very different models using different assumptions.

 

[sfs]

I've heard the same certainty with numerous claims of evolutionists that always turn out to be not what they appear.

I have a feeling these glaring signatures are based on the assumptions of a particular population genetics model.

Your feelings are not really relevant here, are they?

You bring up how this same technique definitely shows the "Out of Africa" scenario, yet evolutionists themselves have proposed the fundamentally different "Multiregional hypothesis" population model in opposition. Same genetic data, two very different models using different assumptions.

I don't know of any geneticists who hold to a primarily multiregional model these days; the data have made it unworkable. There may be some somewhere, but I haven't seen anything from them in years if they still exist. Despite all of the scientists who thought a multiregional model was more likely, the data convinced the field.

In any case, if you'll recall the challenge was for someone to explain how Noah's Flood was compatible with genetic diversity. "Well, maybe you're wrong" doesn't really meet the challenge.

 

[dad]

Here. If you don't understand, ask questions.

OK. Why pretend you know what you are talking about and then post a spam link?

You made a claim and failed to support it. Your claims are worthless.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Just to be clear -- you think you understand science better than all the world's scientists. Has it occurred to you that this point of view is, well, nuts?

The process is actually closer to: I say whatever I like, cause I say whatever I like.

 

[lifepsyop]

Your feelings are not really relevant here, are they?

Since my feelings are based on years of experience in arguing with evolutionists.. yes I feel they are somewhat relevant.

The level of certainty you are espousing here is typical of most evolutionists' arguments... Take the molecular clock for example.. For years evolutionists presented it (most still do) as if it is some knock-down evidence proving universal common ancestry relationships, only to find out on further investigation that it is fraught with inconsistency as admitted to by evolutionists themselves.

I don't know of any geneticists who hold to a primarily multiregional model these days; the data have made it unworkable. There may be some somewhere, but I haven't seen anything from them in years if they still exist. Despite all of the scientists who thought a multiregional model was more likely, the data convinced the field.

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.

That there has been a serious debate at all shows that this model is not beyond question. 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.

Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective - 2001

We estimate the divergence time of H. sapiensfrom 16 genetic distances to be around 1.7 Ma which is consistent with evidence for the earliest migration out of Africa. These findings call into question the mitochondrial «African Eve» hypothesis based on a far more recent origin for H. sapiens and show that humans did not go through a bottleneck in their recent evolutionary history.

Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective


Haplotype Trees and Modern Human Origins - 2005

An analysis of 25 DNA regions reveals an out-of-Africa expansion event at 1.9 million years ago. Gene flow with isolation by distance was established between African and Eurasian populations by about 1.5 million years ago, with no detectable interruptions since. A second out-of-Africa expansion occurred about 700,000 years ago, and involved interbreeding with at least some Eurasian populations.

http://esa.ipb.pt/pdf/28.pdf

In any case, if you'll recall the challenge was for someone to explain how Noah's Flood was compatible with genetic diversity. "Well, maybe you're wrong" doesn't really meet the challenge.

I don't claim to have all the answers. According to Genesis, people were living up to 600 years in Noah's time so I would not necessarily look at modern day counterparts to prove anything.

 

[SLP]

What do you think post 550 is?

A sad joke?

Bible verses are not evidence or explanations of anything.

Sorry.

 

[SLP]

It sounds like you're arguing against the amount of genetic diversity since the creation of humans from the beginning, instead of post-flood re-population. Otherwise I'm hearing contradictory statements, i.e. It's acceptable that humans share a common human ancestor only a few thousand years ago.. but this is unacceptable at the same time. That's what I'm confused about.

Explain extant human diversity from a bottleneck of 4 inbreeding pairs ~4500 years ago (we will pretend for now that the obviously false biblical timeline has merit) without relying on ancient middle eastern lore.

Thanks.

 

[SLP]

Don't'cha just hate it, sfs, when someone throws a Bible verse right into the middle of a scientific conundrum?

Kinda takes the momentum out of it, doesn't it?

Not sure about sfs, but I love it, for is shows that the creationist has realized that they have totally and utterly lost the debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bible verses are not evidence or explanations of anything.

Suit yourself.

You're the one who believes this:

Meanwhile, no creationist has explained how the Flood is consistent with observed genetic diversity.

... not I.

Employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy to eliminate valid responses is your bane, not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure about sfs, but I love it, for is shows that the creationist has realized that they have totally and utterly lost the debate.

Are you kidding?

Faith in these verses is not only what starts these debates, but keeps them going.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you kidding?

Faith in these verses is not only what starts these debates, but keeps them going.

The map is not the territory.

 

[lifepsyop]

Explain extant human diversity from a bottleneck of 4 inbreeding pairs ~4500 years ago (we will pretend for now that the obviously false biblical timeline has merit) without relying on ancient middle eastern lore.

Do we have to assume that, per evolutionary assumptions, the genotype/phenotype of humans 4500 years ago was more or less exactly like a modern human?

*edit - also do we have to assume mutation rates were the same then as they are now?

 

[AV1611VET]

The map is not the territory.

The way the Map is treated, I can see why one would think that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do we have to assume that, per evolutionary assumptions, the genotype/phenotype of humans 4500 years ago was more or less exactly like a modern human?

*edit - also do we have to assume mutation rates were the same then as they are now?

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

The way the Map is treated, I can see why one would think that.

It is the way you ignore the territory. If a map shows a mountain range where there is no mountain range, which is wrong? The map or the territory?