Genesis Genetics, revisited

[DogmaHunter]

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry

Hmmm.... Who marries them? And who's the best man?
So many questions, so little answers....

and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on

And then they all die from genetically related problems due to all that extreme inbreeding...

And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years.

Why would we assume that?

Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.

myeah.... currently, we also have these things like vaccines, peniciline, advanced agriculture, advanced hygenics, central heat, pottable water, hospitals with 21st century medical technology, ....

The stuff that makes us stay alive today and has raised life expectancy 3x times to that what it was just a couple centuries ago, is conveniently missing from your...eum..."analysis".

This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

You mean, this juvenile metric you invented out of thin air, specifically to match the numbers that you need to make your nonsense argument, and which completely ignores the actual reasons for the recent population explosion of human populations.......

Yeah, color me unimpressed....

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.

Which demonstrably never happened.

But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

Convenient, isn't it.... inventing metrics out of thin air designed specifically to defend your nonsense?

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years

And they demonstrably were. Also, fyi, genetics suggest that human population has never been under a couple thousand individuals. And that was a genetic bottleneck estimated to have occured some 70.000 years ago.

If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Absurd isn't it.
Perhaps that says something about your silly assumptions and total ignoring of recent medical, societal, cultural, engineering, ... advancements and stuff....

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Or.... the calculation itself is nonsense.

Which is not really surprising, considering how juvenile, shortsighted and ignorant it is....

 

[DogmaHunter]

You cant even be honest in your calculations....

WHaaaaaa!!!!!

Ow boy!!!

 

[Jimmy D]

https://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html

"At the present world population growth rate of 1.1% per year (Population Growth), how long will it take to double the world's population?

The appropriate equation for this case is (4) above, with the following arguments:

t=log(NN0)r=log(21)0.011=63.243 (years)"

In my original example I gave 150 years, because even that was more than enough time.

Justa says...

"At the present world population growth rate of 1.1% per year (Population Growth), how long will it take to double the world's population?"

You see that word bolded? Do you understand what it means?

Sure they were, you responded to it in your original post. You wish to avoid them since they are missing, understood.

Did I? Hold on a minute.

Nope, just checked, I made no mention of such a thing.

"World Population according to Justatruthseeker : 8192"

No, you claimed I made a claim, when I stated no such number anywhere.... So justify your fake number putting it to faking my claim of population size?????

You did post this didn't you?

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

Edit: apologies, I typed AD instead of BC, now corrected.

Is that not what you meant when you typed "around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion".


LOL, I actually bothered to do your calculations for you and you accuse me of dishonesty. That's not very nice is it?

I await your apology.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is that not what you meant when you typed "around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion".

And so why stop at 1000 BC, you still got a couple more thousand years to reach 6.5 billion, exactly as I claimed. Go ahead, keep calculating.

So you find it hard to believe that David might have founded a civilization with a thousand out of 8,000?

 

[Jimmy D]

And so why stop at 1000 BC, you still got a couple more thousand years to reach 6.5 billion, exactly as I claimed. Go ahead, keep calculating.

So I was correct in my calculations? But you typed....

You cant even be honest in your calculations....

So justify your fake number putting it to faking my claim of population size?????

Why did you accuse me of dishonesty? Were you surprised to see just how stupid the figures actually looked?

I am still awaiting an apology.

As to why I stopped there, it's because highlighting that there was a population of 8000 in 1000BC illustrates just how inaccurate your claims are.

What's the point in carrying on?

BTW Did you see the graph I posted? You didn't comment.

Your assumptions about the growth rates of the human population is flawed (to put it kindly) and ignores the data we have....

So you find it hard to believe that David might have founded a civilization with a thousand out of 8,000?

Yes.

The global population in 1000BC was not 8000.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006. This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Which of these is the principle reason you ignore the works of Thomas Malthus?

• Since he was a highly regarded minister of the church I would not wish be exposed to a rational discussion of the controls on population that would show how ludicrous my own ideas are.
• Malthus was the member of a suspect denomination.
• I know it was his work that partially inspired Darwin to develop his theory of evolution, so I wouldn't touch his book with a bargepole.
  
• I generally try to avoid anything that would demonstrate the errors in my thinking.
• Other - please specify.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The global population in 1000BC was not 8000.

How would you know? were you there???

 

[Jimmy D]

No, you claimed I made a claim, when I stated no such number anywhere.... So justify your fake number putting it to faking my claim of population size?????

I see Justa's abandoned this thread without retracting his accusations of dishonesty.

 

[tas8831]

Can't say that about my view. Is that why you hide? Of course it is.

Hide?
No. Ignore due to irrelevance? Mostly.

 

[tas8831]

Wow -- let's see how hard this is to explain.

We'll start here, and I'll try my best to get you to explain it for us.

Put your thinking cap on and give me the best answer, will you?

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

What was that blessing in the form of?

1. Money to bribe Egyptians & Chinese to claim they existed before the Flood.
2. A year's subscription to Scientific American.
3. Lab coats to walk around looking efficacious.
4. Fecundity and vitality to replenish the earth as instructed.

Let's see your best answer.

And remember -- you're representing academia here -- so let's see you shine.

Why did you think a bland bible verse of unknown veracity was even relevant?

As you are representing Christianity here, how about you address the OP without this burden shifting fallacy bible-verse dodge, or just not write anything to spare yourself the humiliation?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The global population in 1000BC was not 8000.

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....

 

[tas8831]

False, since there are only two kinds. Temporal and Immortal. His and Their kinds.

This sort of reply is why I generally ignore you.

Toodles!

 

[tas8831]

I did, you just didnt like the answer.

OP's Point.

"So, creationists, HOW did today's diversity arise from a pair or a few pairs since the Flood (which, for YECs, means that all of this diversity has to be explained as having occurred in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing)?"

Answer. Again:

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So new additive genetic variance is two to three times greater than that introduced by mutations from mating. This is because recombining genomes at inception affects several loci at once, while your mutation affects one single loci. If it doesn't happen to be neutral, and if it doesn't happen to be harmful.

So the simple breeding of those pairs increases new additive genetic variance two to three times more than mutation.

Quit ignoring the answer because you don't like to hear the reality that mutation just isn't that important in producing variation....

Utterly laughable response due to its repeated ignorance.

Mutations are not caused by mating; where did the hybrids come from; where did the new alleles come from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Utterly laughable response due to its repeated ignorance.

Mutations are not caused by mating; where did the hybrids come from; where did the new alleles come from?

Sigh. Of course mutations are not caused by mating, but is English so hard to understand?

Mating was found to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than mutation at producing new genetic variance.

Do you even understand what new genetic variance is? In your tiny world that's what mutation does. Now broaden your world and accept real life studies in the wild which found that mating did the same thing as mutation, but on an order of two to three magnitudes greater at producing that same variation.

You seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that your mutations are virtually useless and not needed...

 

[tas8831]

Sigh. Of course mutations are not caused by mating, but is English so hard to understand?

"So new additive genetic variance is two to three times greater than that introduced by mutations from mating."

Your projection and lack of self-awareness is legendary. I suggest you re-take freshman English.

And then Freshman Genetics.

 

[Brightmoon]

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....

. And you forgot that in a lot of ancestral cultures twins and multiple births are considered to be bad luck because of the chance of mother and babies dying during childbirth and of one or both infants dying of malnutrition . Breastfeeding more than one baby is difficult. Wet nurses sometimes lost their own infant and became wet nurses afterward. Modern parents can have multiple births of up to 8 children because they have medical interventions. A Bronze Age woman would have miscarried or died

 

[tas8831]

I did, you just didnt like the answer.

OP's Point.

"So, creationists, HOW did today's diversity arise from a pair or a few pairs since the Flood (which, for YECs, means that all of this diversity has to be explained as having occurred in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing)?"

Answer. Again:

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So new additive genetic variance is two to three times greater than that introduced by mutations from mating. This is because recombining genomes at inception affects several loci at once, while your mutation affects one single loci. If it doesn't happen to be neutral, and if it doesn't happen to be harmful.

So the simple breeding of those pairs increases new additive genetic variance two to three times more than mutation.

Quit ignoring the answer because you don't like to hear the reality that mutation just isn't that important in producing variation....

No need to keep re-flogging this foolishness.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ns-is-impossible.8056072/page-3#post-72516377

 

[tas8831]

Well, OK, just a bit more piling on re: the Grant paper:

The very paper you quoted from indicated that it is continuous traits for which interbreeding is more 'important':


“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”




Do you know what a continuous trait is?

A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.

I strongly urge you to learn some basic genetics, re-think your fantasy claims, and re-formulate them as needed.

 

[tas8831]

I just can't help myself...

Sigh. Of course mutations are not caused by mating, but is English so hard to understand?

"And yet a C inserted where a T was is exactly single-nucleotide polymorphism, which we have already found in another thread is caused by random changes during development, or as the Grants discovered, was caused by interactions during interbreeding, that affected several loci at the same time."

 

[AV1611VET]

As you are representing Christianity here, how about you address the OP without this burden shifting fallacy bible-verse dodge, or just not write anything to spare yourself the humiliation?

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.