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.
And now you'll feel like a true researcher! You've created a hypothesis (a well thought out one I may add) and now you're searching for data and studies to back up your hypothesis.
I'm hoping this might ignite your passion for inquiry
quote mining google is not doing science.
And now you'll feel like a true researcher! You've created a hypothesis (a well thought out one I may add) and now you're searching for data and studies to back up your hypothesis.
I'm hoping this might ignite your passion for inquiry
Furthermore, we know that the mitochondrial DNA is almost exclusively passed on only from mother to child, and the Y chromosome almost exclusively from father to son
...can be determined with the right statistics. There is no need for some kind of subjective guess.The odds that billions of specific predictions just happen to be true
Yes they have, but you should find this for yourself rather than having it parroted here.OK, now is my question: Has anyone actually gathered the data to verify these predictions?
But genetic inheritance is simple enough that anyone who went to high school should understand it, or it could be learned in a few minutes.
Thanks! I was beginning to think this place was full of people who substitute derisiveness for substance, but now I know where to find my answers. I'd only recently added the word bottleneck as the description for the restricted genes, which is why I hadn't yet searched via that term. I'd been trying to count alleles that had been found but kept finding way too much random stuff, and then more troubles accounting for the new ones 4,300 years of mutation would add.
But if I'm not mistaken the bottleneck studies should account for all the data I was looking for (alleles, mutation, and time since), and done by someone who knows what they're doing and has access to the raw data. I'll go look around and come back when I find evidence one way or the other. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
Just out of curiosity, what is the paradigm on angiosperms?I'm studying for my master's in biology...
I'm hoping this will allow him to discover himself how the evidence does not in any way support his conclusion and leads him to a life in inquiry.
I agree that the early respondents were a bit short with you and a bit rude, ...
This is a very good hypothesis on your part. Are you prepared if it fails, however? I can come up with some evidence that falsifies it right now. The HLA gene complex in humans is involved in tissue compatability and rejection. HLA-B - major histocompatibility complex, class I, B - Genetics Home Reference There are literally hundreds or thousands of alleles of some of these gene loci. Human leukocyte antigen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is not compatatble with a scenario where two humans gave rise (or Noah's family) to the entire human race after a few thousand years.Hi, this is my first post here, and I joined because I believe I have some impeccable proof for the Biblical Flood as described in Genesis 7.
By summing geneaologies we know almost exactly when the flood happened:
We also know that at this point all the various species were wiped out except the aquatic ones and those that were on the ark. But can we prove it? Of course! The flood story makes a very specific, and very unlikely prediction: 4,300 years ago, there was a global genetic bottleneck in all species with the following specific criteria:
for aquatic species, no bottleneck.
for clean animals and birds, a bottleneck of population down to 7 males and 7 females
for the rest of the animals, a bottleneck down to 1 male and 1 female.
Furthermore, we know that the mitochondrial DNA is almost exclusively passed on only from mother to child, and the Y chromosome almost exclusively from father to son -- so there is one per pair. (the almost because I'm not completely sure of that). Finally, for diploid species we know the number of alleles is 2 alleles per individual, for each of the thousands of genes there are.
Per the biblical account, this limits the number of different alleles to at most the numbers in the above paragraph. Next, why this should be considered impeccable proof. Consider now the amount of species there are: estimates range from about 2-100 million species (less if we limit this to Kinds, but I don't know the numbers for that). Earlier I said the predictions described would be extremely unlikely. Now to put a number to this: consider the number of species, and the number of genes each species has on average. Multiply those two numbers together and you get the number of individual predictions made by the account of the biblical flood. That number would be at least 2 million species * 1,000 genes per species = 2 billion predictions. Each of those genes has to follow the pattern as described above.
Furthermore, by using a genetic clock (we count the corruption rate of DNA, and the total number of corruptions in the DNA), we can calculate a timeline for the genetic bottleneck. Each of the timelines should give the same number: the bottleneck occurred 4,300 years ago. That, then, is about 2 billion additional predictions. And these few billion predictions are even more specific than the previous ones.
Now about what I said about the predictions being extremely unlikely. Per the above, we can make billions of very specific predictions. The odds that billions of specific predictions just happen to be true (ie, were they random predictions) is pretty much impossible. Therefore, when such predictions are verified we can say with absolute certainty that it was not just a "lucky guess", no more than anyone could credibly say that guessing a billion digit number was just a "lucky guess". (This of course is how certainty in a scientific theory is calculated; the odds that your prediction was a "lucky guess" is the odds that the data does not support your theory). Given the impossibility of the predictions being explained by a "lucky guess", this translates to impeccable proof -- if the predictions can be verified.
OK, now is my question: Has anyone actually gathered the data to verify these predictions? If so, could you give a link to it? I'd dearly love to have something that directly supports a biblical creation to show my evolutionist friends, instead of arguing incessantly about holes in the evolutionary theory. Or, if no one has gathered this data, why not?
I don't approve of the tone of some of the responses to your O.P. I think one issue is that the title is misleading. You are looking for the evidence, not presenting it. Other than that, the O.P. is well thought out.Thanks! I was beginning to think this place was full of people who substitute derisiveness for substance, but now I know where to find my answers. I'd only recently added the word bottleneck as the description for the restricted genes, which is why I hadn't yet searched via that term. I'd been trying to count alleles that had been found but kept finding way too much random stuff, and then more troubles accounting for the new ones 4,300 years of mutation would add.
But if I'm not mistaken the bottleneck studies should account for all the data I was looking for (alleles, mutation, and time since), and done by someone who knows what they're doing and has access to the raw data. I'll go look around and come back when I find evidence one way or the other. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
quote mining google is not doing science.
do you honestly think that the OP knows what falsifiability is?
You don't need the "almost", the inheritance you describe always happens that way.Furthermore, we know that the mitochondrial DNA is almost exclusively passed on only from mother to child, and the Y chromosome almost exclusively from father to son
I meant that anyone should be able to understand how a child's genes came from its parents (plus recombination and any mutations). Of course if you add in differential survival and reproduction and interactions between a gene and other genes in the self or in different organisms things get more complicated very quickly (probably NP complete or worse).I have a PhD and 20 years research experience that has involved studying genetic inheritance, and I am far from an expert in it. It is far from simple, far from something high school education is enough for, and far from something that can be learned in a few minutes. Here's some wiki links that will get you started
And slander is neither a clever nor substantiative response. Doing science is making testable hypotheses and verifying their predictions, which is exactly what I have done. Quote mining is taking quotes out of context. Now, you big liar, what quotes am I taking out of context?
Had you the ability to form and recognize falsifiable hypotheses, you'd know the answer to that question upon reading the OP.
.
Of course the data exist. You should know very well that DNA exists. Or are you saying no one has gone and counted the alleles? That the data is out there and no one bothered to check? This would be a great surprise to me because it would be a topic of interest to all biologists, regardless of their beliefs about creation/evolution.
The data has to exist. What I want to know is whether anyone gathered it, and whether anyone analyzed it to check the prediction I made. If not, someone should.
Hi Chris!
This is a very good hypothesis on your part. Are you prepared if it fails, however? I can come up with some evidence that falsifies it right now. The HLA gene complex in humans is involved in tissue compatability and rejection. HLA-B - major histocompatibility complex, class I, B - Genetics Home Reference There are literally hundreds or thousands of alleles of some of these gene loci. Human leukocyte antigen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is not compatatble with a scenario where two humans gave rise (or Noah's family) to the entire human race after a few thousand years.
This was one of the examples, and also it seems I'm not the only one who has a little trouble with the counting of alleles to find a bottleneck. The estimates range from hundreds of years to tens of thousands and some mention of millions. However, the possibility of the more recent bottleneck requires the survival of more than one mtDNA which would be extremely unlikely per the flood story (since cheetah is not clean).Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah
The timing of a bottleneck is difficult to assess, but certain aspects of the cheetah's natural history suggest it may have occurred near the end of the last ice age (late Pleistocene, approximately 10,000 years ago), when a remarkable extinction of large vertebrates occurred on several continents.
This post makes me call Poe..... Or Troll.
Thanks. blindpoe was very helpful, but he already posted. Or is there some different poe?
So far, 100% of the genetic bottlenecks I've found do not match the predictions in the OP in either timeline or population size (usually both).
Furthermore, I've found that, as I suspected, I was not the first to consider that the biblical flood would result in testable predictions concerning genetic bottlenecks. However, all such examples I found were on anti-creationist websites.
I suppose the next step (for numerical estimate) is to see how far into the uncertainty range the OP predictions are in each of the bottleneck studies. Or, just whether the prediction lies outside the 95% confidence interval and "waste" some of the uncertainty estimate. However, I'm not sure how to add them up.
Anyways, so far I can say that the OP hypothesis has ~5% chance of being consistent with the data. Ideally I'd like to find a way to get a more exact estimate, say to less than the odds of winning a lottery ticket. Alternately, the OP hypothesis could be greatly improved by replacing it with a coin.
.....Now I'm sure of it.....
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?