info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Genetics?
145 views
Skip to first unread message
Christopher
Feb 8, 2012, 2:23:47 AM2/8/12
to
Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
there any well founded rebuttals against it?
http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
there any well founded rebuttals against it?
Jenny6833A
Feb 8, 2012, 3:24:20 AM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 12:23 am, Christopher <christopher.svanef...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Please give us a paragraph that states clearly what you want examined
for sound reasoning.
:-)
Jenny
wrote:
for sound reasoning.
:-)
Jenny
Garamond Lethe
Feb 8, 2012, 4:00:34 AM2/8/12
to
The first sentence from your link reads:
"It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant
evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few
thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population
crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of the Flood), and
that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that
(the Tower of Babel)."
This cites a 2003 article in the Journal of Creation[1], which in turn
cites Dorit et al. Science 1995[2], and after quoting Dorit Nelson states
"These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a
global flood.".
Dorit's abstract reads:
"DNA polymorphism in the Y chromosome, examined at a 729-base pair intron
located immediately upstream of the ZFY zinc-finger exon, revealed no
sequence variation in a worldwide sample of 38 human males. This finding
cannot be explained by global constraint on the intron sequence, because
interspecific comparisons with other nonhuman primates revealed
phylogenetically informative sequence changes. The invariance likely
results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern
Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically
small effective male population sizes. A coalescence model predicts an
expected time to a most recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000
years (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years)."
So you might be a little surprised that Dr. Robert W. Carter approvingly
cites C. W. Nelson who approvingly cites R. L. Dorit, who thinks our most
recent common ancestral male ancestor lived 270,000 years ago.
Nelson then goes on to quote Reich et al Nature 2001, allowing Nelson to
conclude "This study concluded with the possibility that 50 individuals
may have founded the entire population of Europe. This evidence is also
quite consistent with a historical global flood." Here is the abstract
of Reich:
"With the availability of a dense genome-wide map of single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs)1, a central issue in human genetics is whether it is
now possible to use linkage disequilibrium (LD) to map genes that cause
disease. LD refers to correlations among neighbouring alleles, reflecting
'haplotypes' descended from single, ancestral chromosomes. The size of LD
blocks has been the subject of considerable debate. Computer simulations2
and empirical data3 have suggested that LD extends only a few kilobases
(kb) around common SNPs, whereas other data have suggested that it can
extend much further, in some cases greater than 100 kb4, 5, 6. It has
been difficult to obtain a systematic picture of LD because past studies
have been based on only a few (1–3) loci and different populations. Here,
we report a large-scale experiment using a uniform protocol to examine 19
randomly selected genomic regions. LD in a United States population of
north-European descent typically extends 60 kb from common alleles,
implying that LD mapping is likely to be practical in this population. By
contrast, LD in a Nigerian population extends markedly less far. The
results illuminate human history, suggesting that LD in northern
Europeans is shaped by a marked demographic event about 27,000–53,000
years ago."
Before your eyes began to glaze over, did you notice the bit about the
Nigerian population data? If not, go back and read that abstract again.
Quoting from the Reich article (it's paywalled, ping me if you'd like a
copy):
"The short extent of LD in Nigerians is more consistent with the
predictions of a computer simulation study assuming asimple model of
population expansion."
In smaller words, the population bottleneck was not observed in the
Nigerian population. Why? Quoting again from Reich (citations omitted):
"What was the nature of the population event that created the
long-range LD? The event could be specific to northern Europe,
which was substantially depopulated during the Last Glacial Maximum
(30,000±15,000 years ago), and subsequently recolonized by a small number
of founders. Alternatively, the long-range LD could be due to a severe
bottleneck that occurred during the founding of Europe or during the
dispersal of anatomically modern humans from Africa (the proposed `Out of
Africa' event) as recently as 50,000 years ago. Under the first
hypothesis, the strong LD at distances >= 40 kb would be absent in
populations not descended from northern Europeans. Under the second
hypothesis, the same pattern of long-range LD could be observed in a
variety of non-African populations. Regardless of the timing and context
of the bottleneck, the severity of the event (in terms of inbreeding) can
be assessed from our data. To have a strong effect on LD, a substantial
proportion of the modern population would have to be derived from a
population that had experienced an event leading to an inbreeding
coefficient of at least F = 0.2 (Fig. 3). This corresponds to an
effective population size (typically less than the true population size)
of 50 individuals for 20 generations; 1,000 individuals for 400
generations; or any other combination with the same ratio."
Neat, huh? Not much support for a worldwide flood, though (assuming your
world is larger than Europe and includes Africa).
So, what are we to make of C. W. Nelson? There comes a point where
incompetence is so gross that I'm not able to distinguish it from lying,
and Mr. Nelson has long blown past that point.
An honest approach would have looked at how coalescent theory is applied
to multiple species, not just humans. Doing so would have found
population bottlenecks as far back as the technique can reach but no
common date to a worldwide flood. This is more than sufficient to lay to
rest the idea of such a flood. Nelson could have written that article;
he chose not to do so.
To answer your question: the very research Nelson and Carter cite in
support of their work only does so if you believe their summary of that
research. Read it yourself. If you find an article is paywalled, post a
request here and you may find a pdf if your inbox.
[1] C. W. Nelson, "Genetics and Biblical demographic events", TJ 17(1):21–
23, April 2003.
http://creation.com/genetics-and-biblical-demographic-events
[2] Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at
the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183
[3] Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C.,
Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and
Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
(6834):199–204, 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
Ron O
Feb 8, 2012, 8:06:45 AM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 1:23 am, Christopher <christopher.svanef...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Garamond has basically covered the basics of why this argument doesn't
make sense. There is a fundamental problem with the whole argument
that he did not address. Evolution is an ongoing process. It didn't
just start with the emergence of modern humans within the last 100,000
years or so. There were precursor populations of Homo. At 100,000
years ago there were at least 3 distinct populations of humans and
possibly 4 if Homo florensiensis is really closer to the H. erectus
type of Homo. All the Homo populations in existence 100,000 years ago
shared some common ancestral populations even further back in time.
Probably half a million years or more, and this common ancestral
population had a history. Evolution builds on what is already there.
These populations had a boat load of genetic variation. How do the
scientists make their estimates? Over time mutations accumulate in a
population, and humans inherited a bunch of this genetic variation
from the population of Homo that we evolved from around 100,000 years
ago. We didn't inherit it all because there was a bottleneck and our
population went down to only around 1000 or so individuals back before
we left Africa. So a lot of genetic variation was lost due to
inbreeding.
Because of this population bottleneck humans only have around 1/5 the
genetic variation found in most other species. There is still a bunch
of genetic variation present. A whole lot more than can be accounted
for by 2 ancestors less than 10,000 years ago. You can take any two
relatively unrelated humans and they will vary at about 1 position in
1000 in their genome or have around 3 million single nucleotide
mutations that differentiate them. If you took around 50 humans (the
number from the web site) that would be enough people to find a
mutation at about 1 in every 300 positions or around 10 million. If
you took an average species such as the barnyard chicken, 50 of them
would vary at about 1 in 60 to 70 positions. Species have this great
amount of genetic variation because it keep accumulating over time and
some of it gets transferred from the previous ancestral species.
Species do not start with zero variation. That is just how evolution
works.
This just means that the genetic variation that was used by the
scientists to make their population estimates is hundreds of thousands
of years old. It is mostly ancient genetic variation. It did not
just happen in the last 10,000 years or so. We even inherited some of
the genetic variation by crossbreeding with Neandertals (about 5% of
the genome of humans that made it out of Africa is Neandertal.
African humans do not share this legacy). The reasoning behind the
web site isn't just flawed but bogus. About a hundred new mutations
occurs in each human every generation, but a lot of that is lost
because people do not transfer 100% of their genome to the next
generation (well most of us don't, but the Duggars have probably made
that limit). It takes a long time to build up a species genetic make
up. Why do chimps with their currently depressed population size have
3 or 4 times the genetic variation than is found in humans? There
were 8 humans on the Ark and only 2 chimps, right?
Ron Okimoto
wrote:
make sense. There is a fundamental problem with the whole argument
that he did not address. Evolution is an ongoing process. It didn't
just start with the emergence of modern humans within the last 100,000
years or so. There were precursor populations of Homo. At 100,000
years ago there were at least 3 distinct populations of humans and
possibly 4 if Homo florensiensis is really closer to the H. erectus
type of Homo. All the Homo populations in existence 100,000 years ago
shared some common ancestral populations even further back in time.
Probably half a million years or more, and this common ancestral
population had a history. Evolution builds on what is already there.
These populations had a boat load of genetic variation. How do the
scientists make their estimates? Over time mutations accumulate in a
population, and humans inherited a bunch of this genetic variation
from the population of Homo that we evolved from around 100,000 years
ago. We didn't inherit it all because there was a bottleneck and our
population went down to only around 1000 or so individuals back before
we left Africa. So a lot of genetic variation was lost due to
inbreeding.
Because of this population bottleneck humans only have around 1/5 the
genetic variation found in most other species. There is still a bunch
of genetic variation present. A whole lot more than can be accounted
for by 2 ancestors less than 10,000 years ago. You can take any two
relatively unrelated humans and they will vary at about 1 position in
1000 in their genome or have around 3 million single nucleotide
mutations that differentiate them. If you took around 50 humans (the
number from the web site) that would be enough people to find a
mutation at about 1 in every 300 positions or around 10 million. If
you took an average species such as the barnyard chicken, 50 of them
would vary at about 1 in 60 to 70 positions. Species have this great
amount of genetic variation because it keep accumulating over time and
some of it gets transferred from the previous ancestral species.
Species do not start with zero variation. That is just how evolution
works.
This just means that the genetic variation that was used by the
scientists to make their population estimates is hundreds of thousands
of years old. It is mostly ancient genetic variation. It did not
just happen in the last 10,000 years or so. We even inherited some of
the genetic variation by crossbreeding with Neandertals (about 5% of
the genome of humans that made it out of Africa is Neandertal.
African humans do not share this legacy). The reasoning behind the
web site isn't just flawed but bogus. About a hundred new mutations
occurs in each human every generation, but a lot of that is lost
because people do not transfer 100% of their genome to the next
generation (well most of us don't, but the Duggars have probably made
that limit). It takes a long time to build up a species genetic make
up. Why do chimps with their currently depressed population size have
3 or 4 times the genetic variation than is found in humans? There
were 8 humans on the Ark and only 2 chimps, right?
Ron Okimoto
James Beck
Feb 8, 2012, 9:16:08 AM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 4:00 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
> > Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>
> >http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> > I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
> > anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
> > there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>
> Well, let's see what we have here.
This was a very good response.
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
> > Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>
> >http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> > I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
> > anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
> > there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>
> Well, let's see what we have here.
[snip]
jillery
Feb 8, 2012, 9:55:07 AM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 05:06:45 -0800 (PST), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:
Pedantic point: Would the Bible regard chimpanzee as a clean animal or
an unclean animal? If the former, there would have been 7 pair.
wrote:
an unclean animal? If the former, there would have been 7 pair.
Walter Bushell
Feb 8, 2012, 9:53:18 AM2/8/12
to
In article
<193a10f6-7cb0-4f2e...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
But there were two bonobos, no that still doesn't do it.
--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken
<193a10f6-7cb0-4f2e...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
But there were two bonobos, no that still doesn't do it.
--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken
Richard Norman
Feb 8, 2012, 12:06:02 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:55:07 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Pedantic point about pedantic point: the clean animals were to be
taken "seven by seven" which is more properly (in jewish tradition)
translated as "by sevens" and not as "seven pairs". This difference
is illustrated by the change from the King James to the New
International versions.
Whatever the number, chimps are most definitely unclean.
wrote:
taken "seven by seven" which is more properly (in jewish tradition)
translated as "by sevens" and not as "seven pairs". This difference
is illustrated by the change from the King James to the New
International versions.
Whatever the number, chimps are most definitely unclean.
Mark Buchanan
Feb 8, 2012, 12:50:29 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 4:00 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [3] Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C.,
> Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and
> Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
> (6834):199–204, 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
Thank you for such a detailed response. As is often the case the
> [3] Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C.,
> Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and
> Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
> (6834):199–204, 2001.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
closer one looks at creationist arguments the more they fall apart.
Most of us don't have the expertise to deconstruct the more
sophisticated sounding creationist gibberish. Another approach is to
go read some real science - works for me.
Mark
Bob Casanova
Feb 8, 2012, 1:04:58 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com>:
Excellent response IMHO. Now let's see if the OP replies, or
if he's yet one more cloaked creationist...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com>:
Excellent response IMHO. Now let's see if the OP replies, or
if he's yet one more cloaked creationist...
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Christopher
Feb 8, 2012, 1:18:43 PM2/8/12
to
That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
could have been asked for.
On Feb 8, 7:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
> <cartographi...@gmail.com>:
Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
could have been asked for.
On Feb 8, 7:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
Mark Isaak
Feb 8, 2012, 2:51:47 PM2/8/12
to
interesting comment on genetics and the Flood. It is from _All Aboard
for Ararat_ by H.G. Wells (New York: Alliance, 1941). The speaker is
God Almighty, who takes human form in the book.
"I gave certain facts about this lady [Mrs Noah]. They seem to speak
for themselves. Have you never noted their implications? Consider what
those facts were. She had three sons. One was an extremely dark, if
not absolutely black, boy, Ham. The other was sallow with dark curly
hair and what one calls nowadays an Armenoid profile, Shem. The third,
Japhet, was what the Germans would consider a Nordic type, all milk and
roses. Samples in fact of the chief varieties of mankind. Now Noah,
like yourself, was a quiet, righteous man. He had great gifts, yes--but
I put it to you; *was he capable of that much versatility?*"
[p. 29; emphasis in original]
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Friar Broccoli
Feb 8, 2012, 3:09:56 PM2/8/12
to
On 2012-02-08 04:00, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> So, what are we to make of C. W. Nelson? There comes a point where
> incompetence is so gross that I'm not able to distinguish it from lying,
> and Mr. Nelson has long blown past that point.
I have no opinion about Nelson, but Dr Robert Carter is clearly
> So, what are we to make of C. W. Nelson? There comes a point where
> incompetence is so gross that I'm not able to distinguish it from lying,
> and Mr. Nelson has long blown past that point.
incompetent. Someone quoted Lenny Flank's POTM to him, originally here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2009_02.html
and he replied here:
http://creation.com/bible-time-human-genetic-diversity
pretty much entirely missing the points.
Since he quoted Lenny's entire post, he clearly believes his
"rebuttals". If Carter can be that deluded, why not Nelson?
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Friar Broccoli
Feb 8, 2012, 3:17:39 PM2/8/12
to
On 2012-02-08 13:18, Christopher wrote:
> That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
>
> Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
> could have been asked for.
Your account is new. It is very common for creationists, to create new
> That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
>
> Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
> could have been asked for.
accounts and then come here with what they hope are "gotcha" questions,
which they then fail to followup.
Since you are new to this field, it is almost impossible that you could
have understood all of Garamond's reply. If you have further questions,
or would like more clarification, many people here will be happy to help.
> On Feb 8, 7:04 pm, Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
>> <cartographi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Excellent response IMHO. Now let's see if the OP replies, or
>> if he's yet one more cloaked creationist...
Burkhard
Feb 8, 2012, 4:11:47 PM2/8/12
to
nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
should wherever possible go back to the original.
> the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183
should wherever possible go back to the original.
Richard Norman
Feb 8, 2012, 4:35:06 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>should wherever possible go back to the original.
Seconded
wrote:
>nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>should wherever possible go back to the original.
jillery
Feb 8, 2012, 4:56:13 PM2/8/12
to
from KJV:
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and
his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his
female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep
seed alive upon the face of all the earth."
from NIV:
"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and
its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its
mate,
and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep
their various kinds alive throughout the earth."
and just for fun, from RSV:
"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his
mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his
mate;
and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep
their kind alive upon the face of all the earth."
ISTM from context and comparison with verse 3, the consensus is Noah
was to take 7 pairs of clean animals. A problem with interpreting 7
of a kind is the odd number. What gender was seventh animal? How was
Noah supposed to decide?
The rationalization for the difference between clean and unclean is
that God was allowing for future sacrificial offerings. Which of
course had to be clean animals. Yet the Bible specifically says Noah
was to take 7 pair of *every* bird, even though the Bible explicitly
identifies many birds as unclean. So clearly the sacrifice
explanation isn't sufficient. Personally, I think God was just
messin' with Noah's head. Perhaps Herman can come up with an ancient
Hebrew translation for "Psych!"
Mark Isaak
Feb 8, 2012, 5:14:02 PM2/8/12
to
> Neat, huh? Not much support for a worldwide flood, though (assuming your
> world is larger than Europe and includes Africa).
>
> So, what are we to make of C. W. Nelson? There comes a point where
> incompetence is so gross that I'm not able to distinguish it from lying,
> and Mr. Nelson has long blown past that point.
>
> An honest approach would have looked at how coalescent theory is applied
> to multiple species, not just humans. Doing so would have found
> population bottlenecks as far back as the technique can reach but no
> common date to a worldwide flood. This is more than sufficient to lay to
> rest the idea of such a flood. Nelson could have written that article;
> he chose not to do so.
>
> To answer your question: the very research Nelson and Carter cite in
> support of their work only does so if you believe their summary of that
> research. Read it yourself. If you find an article is paywalled, post a
> request here and you may find a pdf if your inbox.
Richard Norman
Feb 8, 2012, 5:14:36 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:56:13 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
I agree with you that there is considerable dispute about seven vs.
seven pair. See, for example, RationalWiki at
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Number_of_each_%22kind%22_on_Noah%27s_Ark
Why birds were treated differently is a question but the text
specifically says two vs. seven (pair?) only for _beasts_.
As to speculating about what an odd seventh would be and why God
changed his instructions between Genesis 6 and Genesis 7 is some of
those mysteries that either provoke thousands of years of Talmudic
argument or else is more simply and concisely explained as the
commingling of two separate versions of myth when the Torah was
written down. No doubt Noah understood clearly what "seven by seven"
meant even though nobody else can figure it out definitively. Once
the True Ark is found on the slopes of Ararat it can easily be
determined just how many berths were configured for the birds and the
clean beasts.
seven pair. See, for example, RationalWiki at
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Number_of_each_%22kind%22_on_Noah%27s_Ark
Why birds were treated differently is a question but the text
specifically says two vs. seven (pair?) only for _beasts_.
As to speculating about what an odd seventh would be and why God
changed his instructions between Genesis 6 and Genesis 7 is some of
those mysteries that either provoke thousands of years of Talmudic
argument or else is more simply and concisely explained as the
commingling of two separate versions of myth when the Torah was
written down. No doubt Noah understood clearly what "seven by seven"
meant even though nobody else can figure it out definitively. Once
the True Ark is found on the slopes of Ararat it can easily be
determined just how many berths were configured for the birds and the
clean beasts.
Mark Buchanan
Feb 8, 2012, 9:05:56 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
Mark
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
> >should wherever possible go back to the original.
>
> Seconded
I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>
> >nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
> >should wherever possible go back to the original.
>
> Seconded
Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
Mark
John Harshman
Feb 8, 2012, 9:21:01 PM2/8/12
to
On purpose, perhaps?
Friar Broccoli
Feb 8, 2012, 9:29:27 PM2/8/12
to
with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
Mark Buchanan
Feb 8, 2012, 9:38:23 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 9:21 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Mark Buchanan wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
> >>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
> >> Seconded
>
> > I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>
> > Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>
> >https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLY...
> Mark Buchanan wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
> >>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
> >> Seconded
>
> > I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>
> > Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>
>
> That was an amazing exercise in mistaking the points being criticized.
> On purpose, perhaps?
I also wonder if he thinks I'm a creationist - might have to get
> That was an amazing exercise in mistaking the points being criticized.
> On purpose, perhaps?
better at sarcasm.
Mark Buchanan
Feb 8, 2012, 9:43:19 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 9:29 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
> >>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>
> >> Seconded
>
> > I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>
> > Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>
> >https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLY...
> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
> >>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>
> >> Seconded
>
> > I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>
> > Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>
>
> I wonder if Dr. Carter would be interested in a one-on-one discussion
> with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
> particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
>
> --
> Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Would be good to see - there has to be a quick way to set something
> I wonder if Dr. Carter would be interested in a one-on-one discussion
> with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
> particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
>
> --
> Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
like this up.
John Harshman
Feb 8, 2012, 9:51:27 PM2/8/12
to
Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>>>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>>>
>>> Seconded
>>
>> I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>>
>> Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
>
> I wonder if Dr. Carter would be interested in a one-on-one discussion
> with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
> particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
His response makes it fairly clear (to me at least) that he would not.
> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>>>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>>>
>>> Seconded
>>
>> I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>>
>> Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
>
> I wonder if Dr. Carter would be interested in a one-on-one discussion
> with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
> particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
Friar Broccoli
Feb 8, 2012, 10:15:55 PM2/8/12
to
On 2012-02-08 21:43, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> On Feb 8, 9:29 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>>>>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>>
>>>> Seconded
>>
>>> I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>>
>>> Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLY...
>>
>> I wonder if Dr. Carter would be interested in a one-on-one discussion
>> with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
>> particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
.
> On Feb 8, 9:29 pm, Friar Broccoli<elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>>>>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>>
>>>> Seconded
>>
>>> I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>>
>>> Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLY...
>>
>> I wonder if Dr. Carter would be interested in a one-on-one discussion
>> with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
>> particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
> Would be good to see - there has to be a quick way to set something
> like this up.
Dr. Carter and Garamond (assuming he wants to do it) the only members of
that group.
Friar Broccoli
Feb 8, 2012, 10:43:17 PM2/8/12
to
On 2012-02-08 21:51, John Harshman wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>>>>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>>>>
>>>> Seconded
>>>
>>> I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>>>
>>> Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
.
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On 2012-02-08 21:05, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 4:35 pm, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> nominated. An excellent demolition job that reminds us all that one
>>>>> should wherever possible go back to the original.
>>>>
>>>> Seconded
>>>
>>> I don't normally vote but it was excellent so count me in.
>>>
>>> Dr. Carter has given (me) a response, so in the interest of fairness:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
>> I wonder if Dr. Carter would be interested in a one-on-one discussion
>> with someone from our side (presumably Garamond since he got this
>> particular ball rolling) in a public forum somewhere?
>
> His response makes it fairly clear (to me at least) that he would not.
eternal salvation.
jillery
Feb 9, 2012, 1:04:09 AM2/9/12
to
right.
Garamond Lethe
Feb 9, 2012, 1:37:47 AM2/9/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:17:39 -0500, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-02-08 13:18, Christopher wrote:
>> That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
>>
>> Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
>> could have been asked for.
>
>
> Your account is new. It is very common for creationists, to create new
> accounts and then come here with what they hope are "gotcha" questions,
> which they then fail to followup.
>
> Since you are new to this field, it is almost impossible that you could
> have understood all of Garamond's reply.
Ooops. Well, ok, I'll cop to that.... It wasn't terribly well written
> On 2012-02-08 13:18, Christopher wrote:
>> That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
>>
>> Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
>> could have been asked for.
>
>
> Your account is new. It is very common for creationists, to create new
> accounts and then come here with what they hope are "gotcha" questions,
> which they then fail to followup.
>
> Since you are new to this field, it is almost impossible that you could
> have understood all of Garamond's reply.
even taking into account the 1am posting time. I might be worth
revisiting.
Garamond Lethe
Feb 9, 2012, 3:10:27 AM2/9/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
>
>> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>>
>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
>> anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
>> there any well founded rebuttals against it?
Friar Broccoli gently pointed out that perhaps not everyone is familiar
with linkage disequilibrium and coalescent theory. Here's a higher-level
response.
Carter's article "Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics" is not a
research article --- Carter summarizes an argument based on earlier
creationist writing. He begins by citing C. W. Nelson's "Genetics and
Biblical demographic events" which does have the trappings of research.
Nelson implies two articles in the peer-reviewed literature support the
idea of the global flood. I find his summary to be grossly misleading in
the first case and factually wrong in the second. Having established
this in an earlier, somewhat scatter post, I stopped for the evening.
What follows is a higher level discussion of these two citations where I
fill in a few blanks, hopefully in a bit more coherent fashion.
Nelson cites R. L. Dorit in support of Nelson's claim that Dorit's
Dorit's paper, taken here from the abstract:
"A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most
recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years
(95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years)."
Reading this as a scientist, I take this to mean that their best answer
is 270,000 for the most recent common ancestral male lineage, but that
either due to a paucity of data or a weakness in their model the 95%
confidence interval is unusually large. This is still an interesting
result: if nothing else it helps to put a upper bound on (if not an
lower bound) on the date of this particular ancestor.
Is this result "quite consistent with recent human origin"? Strictly
speaking, yes, but only to the extent that "The Owl and the
Pussycat" (Potter, 1871) is also quite consistent with recent human
origin. Neither Potter's beloved poem or Dorit's model --- at its most
literal reading --- allows us to prefer one model over the other --- both
works are "consistent" (in this very narrow, technical sense) with both
evolution and creation.
If Nelson had been writing for a critical audience this would have been
pointed out privately in far more caustic terms than I've used above and
the manuscript summarily rejected. One simply does not go about wasting
reviewers' valuable time by citing literature that does nothing more than
fail to rule out your proposed model.
However, Nelson is well aware that he is not writing for a critical
audience, and that "consistent" (with the gaudy "quite" leading the way)
will be read as a statement of support. [Note that I am assume Nelson is
at least as competent as I am. The evidence I have before me is also
quite consistent with incompetence; I am not making that argument, but
neither am I able to rule it out.]
Leaving all of this aside for the moment: can we at least say that the
evolution of the Y chromosome does not rule out the global flood?
No, we cannot.
Nelson published his work in 2003. Dorit published his in 1995. In
1999, Pritchard et al. published a much more in-depth study in Mol Biol
Evol that established 95% confidence bounds not only for the worldwide
most-recent-common-ancestor, but for several subpopulations as well.
Quoting briefly from his discussion section:
"The early Y chromosome data sets contained few haplotypes
(e.g., Dorit, Akashi, and Gilbert 1995; Hammer 1995; Whitfield,
Sulston, and Goodfellow 1995), restricting most analyses to a
simple demographic model: constant population size."
"The major finding of this study is that a model of constant
population size produces a very poor fit to the data for most
of the populations considered."
Pritchard established a 95% confidence range for the worldwide most-
recent-common-ancestor from 16,000 to 126,000 years ago. If Nelson knew
of this work and did not cite it, he is dishonest. If Nelson did not
cite this work because he did not know about it, he is incompetent.
Either way, Pritchard's model --- perhaps the best available at the time
of Nelson's writing --- invalidates Nelson's conclusion.
I will mention the second error of Nelson only in passing. Nelson cites
Reich in support of Nelson's statement:
"This study concluded with the possibility that 50
individuals may have founded the entire population
of Europe. This evidence is also quite consistent
with a historical global flood."
Reich explicitly points out that the population bottleneck observed is a
European phenomenon not observed in a comparable Nigerian population.
One might even say this data is "quite consistent" with a Europe-only
flood, but it quite rules out a global flood.
Taken together (and given a day to reflect), I think the balance tilts
towards Nelson's incompetence rather than competent dishonesty, if for no
other reason than a competent biologist (or biology graduate student)
could construct a far more artful forgery of an argument than what we see
here.
C. W. Nelson, "Genetics and Biblical demographic events", TJ 17(1):21–
23, April 2003.
http://creation.com/genetics-and-biblical-demographic-events
A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites" Mol. Biol. Evol. 16(12):1791–
1798. 1999
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
>
>> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>>
>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
>> anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
>> there any well founded rebuttals against it?
with linkage disequilibrium and coalescent theory. Here's a higher-level
response.
Carter's article "Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics" is not a
research article --- Carter summarizes an argument based on earlier
creationist writing. He begins by citing C. W. Nelson's "Genetics and
Biblical demographic events" which does have the trappings of research.
Nelson implies two articles in the peer-reviewed literature support the
idea of the global flood. I find his summary to be grossly misleading in
the first case and factually wrong in the second. Having established
this in an earlier, somewhat scatter post, I stopped for the evening.
What follows is a higher level discussion of these two citations where I
fill in a few blanks, hopefully in a bit more coherent fashion.
Nelson cites R. L. Dorit in support of Nelson's claim that Dorit's
results "are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global
flood." To the best I can determine, he refers to the primary result of
Dorit's paper, taken here from the abstract:
"A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most
recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years
(95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years)."
is 270,000 for the most recent common ancestral male lineage, but that
either due to a paucity of data or a weakness in their model the 95%
confidence interval is unusually large. This is still an interesting
result: if nothing else it helps to put a upper bound on (if not an
lower bound) on the date of this particular ancestor.
Is this result "quite consistent with recent human origin"? Strictly
speaking, yes, but only to the extent that "The Owl and the
Pussycat" (Potter, 1871) is also quite consistent with recent human
origin. Neither Potter's beloved poem or Dorit's model --- at its most
literal reading --- allows us to prefer one model over the other --- both
works are "consistent" (in this very narrow, technical sense) with both
evolution and creation.
If Nelson had been writing for a critical audience this would have been
pointed out privately in far more caustic terms than I've used above and
the manuscript summarily rejected. One simply does not go about wasting
reviewers' valuable time by citing literature that does nothing more than
fail to rule out your proposed model.
However, Nelson is well aware that he is not writing for a critical
audience, and that "consistent" (with the gaudy "quite" leading the way)
will be read as a statement of support. [Note that I am assume Nelson is
at least as competent as I am. The evidence I have before me is also
quite consistent with incompetence; I am not making that argument, but
neither am I able to rule it out.]
Leaving all of this aside for the moment: can we at least say that the
evolution of the Y chromosome does not rule out the global flood?
No, we cannot.
Nelson published his work in 2003. Dorit published his in 1995. In
1999, Pritchard et al. published a much more in-depth study in Mol Biol
Evol that established 95% confidence bounds not only for the worldwide
most-recent-common-ancestor, but for several subpopulations as well.
Quoting briefly from his discussion section:
"The early Y chromosome data sets contained few haplotypes
(e.g., Dorit, Akashi, and Gilbert 1995; Hammer 1995; Whitfield,
Sulston, and Goodfellow 1995), restricting most analyses to a
simple demographic model: constant population size."
"The major finding of this study is that a model of constant
population size produces a very poor fit to the data for most
of the populations considered."
Pritchard established a 95% confidence range for the worldwide most-
recent-common-ancestor from 16,000 to 126,000 years ago. If Nelson knew
of this work and did not cite it, he is dishonest. If Nelson did not
cite this work because he did not know about it, he is incompetent.
Either way, Pritchard's model --- perhaps the best available at the time
of Nelson's writing --- invalidates Nelson's conclusion.
I will mention the second error of Nelson only in passing. Nelson cites
Reich in support of Nelson's statement:
"This study concluded with the possibility that 50
individuals may have founded the entire population
of Europe. This evidence is also quite consistent
with a historical global flood."
European phenomenon not observed in a comparable Nigerian population.
One might even say this data is "quite consistent" with a Europe-only
flood, but it quite rules out a global flood.
Taken together (and given a day to reflect), I think the balance tilts
towards Nelson's incompetence rather than competent dishonesty, if for no
other reason than a competent biologist (or biology graduate student)
could construct a far more artful forgery of an argument than what we see
here.
C. W. Nelson, "Genetics and Biblical demographic events", TJ 17(1):21–
23, April 2003.
http://creation.com/genetics-and-biblical-demographic-events
Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at
the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183
the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183
Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C.,
Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and
Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
(6834):199–204, 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
Jonathan K. Pritchard et al. "Population Growth of Human Y Chromosomes:
Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and
Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
(6834):199–204, 2001.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites" Mol. Biol. Evol. 16(12):1791–
1798. 1999
Garamond Lethe
Feb 9, 2012, 3:17:28 AM2/9/12
to
I'll take a look at the work he mentioned, but not tonight.
Garamond Lethe
Feb 9, 2012, 3:31:51 AM2/9/12
to
useful. I suppose a response to his reply would be in order, but that's
going to have to wait until tomorrow.
Mark Buchanan
Feb 9, 2012, 7:23:06 AM2/9/12
to
(have to actually work today - the 18 months off on disability had to
end sometime). I sent the link to the document to Dr. Carter last
night.
Mark
Christopher
Feb 10, 2012, 1:28:11 AM2/10/12
to
Friar Broccoli
Feb 10, 2012, 3:45:30 AM2/10/12
to
On 2012-02-09 03:10, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>>>
>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like
>>> to know if anyone would be willing to address this? Is the
>>> reasoning sound? Are there any well founded rebuttals
>>> against it?
.
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>>>
>>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>>
>>> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like
>>> to know if anyone would be willing to address this? Is the
>>> reasoning sound? Are there any well founded rebuttals
>>> against it?
> Friar Broccoli gently pointed out that perhaps not everyone is
> familiar with linkage disequilibrium and coalescent theory.
> Here's a higher-level response.
Christopher the OP, on the hypothesis that he was someone new to the
field who was seriously trying to understand the issues and points made.
Given the lack of followup, that hypothesis seems increasingly unlikely,
but if true I was imagining someone who was as dumb or even dumber than
I was when I joined this group seven years ago. Even dumber would
include most people who have the kind of bizarre mangled fundamentalist
view of what biological evolution is. (ie. The theory they see as false
is something no one here recognize as evolution.)
Those of us further down on the intellectual food chain (that's most of
us - certainly including me) will have assorted and various other
intellectual deficits which will muck up our ability to understand what
we are being told.
Unfortunately, for the type model of the OP that I have presented above,
this revised post is in no way an improvement on your original. I will
attempt to reinterpret your article as a typical dumb person might read
it, to make this more evident.
> Carter's article "Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics" is
> not a research article --- Carter summarizes an argument based
> on earlier creationist writing. He begins by citing C. W.
> Nelson's "Genetics and Biblical demographic events" which does
> have the trappings of research. Nelson implies two articles in
> the peer-reviewed literature support the idea of the global
> flood. I find his summary to be grossly misleading in the
> first case and factually wrong in the second.
> Having established this in an earlier, somewhat scatter post,
> I stopped for the evening. What follows is a higher level
> discussion of these two citations where I fill in a few
> blanks, hopefully in a bit more coherent fashion.
> Nelson cites R. L. Dorit in support of Nelson's claim that
> Dorit's results "are quite consistent with a recent human
> origin and a global flood."
Who cares anyway. Why can't these guys just get to the point?
(Explicitly arguing that Carter is using third hand info. might have
been useful)
> To the best I can determine, he refers to the primary result
> of Dorit's paper, taken here from the abstract:
>
> "A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most
> recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years
> (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years)."
mean that Adam lived 270,000 years ago? (Your reader has no idea that
what is being discussed is the origin of a fragment of DNA.)
> Reading this as a scientist, I take this to mean that their
> best answer is 270,000 for the most recent common ancestral
> male lineage, but that either due to a paucity of data or a
> weakness in their model the 95% confidence interval is
> unusually large.
> This is still an interesting result: if nothing else it helps
> to put a upper bound on (if not an lower bound) on the date of
> this particular ancestor.
> Is this result "quite consistent with recent human origin"?
> Strictly speaking, yes, but only to the extent that "The Owl
> and the Pussycat" (Potter, 1871) is also quite consistent with
> recent human origin. Neither Potter's beloved poem or Dorit's
> model --- at its most literal reading --- allows us to prefer
> one model over the other --- both works are "consistent" (in
> this very narrow, technical sense) with both evolution and
> creation.
do with evolution. And what's this "very narrow, technical sense"
nonsense, I want an explanation that I can understand.
> If Nelson had been writing for a critical audience this would
> have been pointed out privately in far more caustic terms than
> I've used above and the manuscript summarily rejected. One
> simply does not go about wasting reviewers' valuable time by
> citing literature that does nothing more than fail to rule out
> your proposed model.
lost all credibility.
> However, Nelson is well aware that he is not writing for a
> critical audience, and that "consistent" (with the gaudy
> "quite" leading the way) will be read as a statement of
> support. [Note that I am assume Nelson is at least as
> competent as I am. The evidence I have before me is also
> quite consistent with incompetence; I am not making that
> argument, but neither am I able to rule it out.]
down to me too, all while arguing philosophical niceties.
> Leaving all of this aside for the moment: can we at least say
> that the evolution of the Y chromosome does not rule out the
> global flood?
>
> No, we cannot.
even figure it out. (Note that sorting out the meaning of multiple
negatives in sentences is something I [FB] invariably fail at.)
> Nelson published his work in 2003. Dorit published his in
> 1995. In 1999, Pritchard et al. published a much more
> in-depth study in Mol Biol Evol that established 95%
> confidence bounds not only for the worldwide
> most-recent-common-ancestor, but for several subpopulations as
> well. Quoting briefly from his discussion section:
>
> "The early Y chromosome data sets contained few
> haplotypes (e.g., Dorit, Akashi, and Gilbert 1995;
> restricting most analyses to a simple demographic
> model: constant population size."
>
> "The major finding of this study is that a model of
> model: constant population size."
>
> constant population size produces a very poor fit to
> the data for most of the populations considered."
So now he's citing somebody else saying something completely incoherent.
> Pritchard established a 95% confidence range for the worldwide
> most- recent-common-ancestor from 16,000 to 126,000 years ago.
> If Nelson knew of this work and did not cite it, he is
> dishonest. If Nelson did not cite this work because he did
> not know about it, he is incompetent. Either way, Pritchard's
> model --- perhaps the best available at the time of Nelson's
> writing --- invalidates Nelson's conclusion.
270,000 years, when it actually occurred more recently than 126,000
years ago?
> I will mention the second error of Nelson only in passing.
> Nelson cites Reich in support of Nelson's statement:
>
> "This study concluded with the possibility that 50
> individuals may have founded the entire population
> of Europe. This evidence is also quite consistent
> with a historical global flood."
>
> Reich explicitly points out that the population bottleneck
> observed is a European phenomenon not observed in a comparable
> Nigerian population. One might even say this data is "quite
> consistent" with a Europe-only flood, but it quite rules out a
> global flood.
something that could be understood and used by us dumb people. You
would need to clearly explain what a bottleneck is and why the fact it
is not seen in a Nigerian population falsifies the global flood hypothesis.
> Taken together (and given a day to reflect), I think the
> balance tilts towards Nelson's incompetence rather than
> competent dishonesty, if for no other reason than a competent
> biologist (or biology graduate student) could construct a far
> more artful forgery of an argument than what we see here.
is probably cheaper than locking him up in a mental asylum.
> C. W. Nelson, "Genetics and Biblical demographic events", TJ 17(1):21–
> 23, April 2003.
> http://creation.com/genetics-and-biblical-demographic-events
>
> Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at
> the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183
>
> Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C.,
> Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and
> Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
> (6834):199–204, 2001.
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
>
> Jonathan K. Pritchard et al. "Population Growth of Human Y Chromosomes:
> A Study of Y Chromosome Microsatellites" Mol. Biol. Evol. 16(12):1791–
> 1798. 1999
Mark Buchanan
Feb 10, 2012, 7:12:28 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 1:28 am, Christopher <christopher.svanef...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sometimes it gets cut off by mistake:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
NOTE: Dr. Carter has requested that his reply not be posted anywhere.
I'll try to get around to taking it out of the document sometime -
soon, maybe. Apparently, he doesn't want to play - or defend his
position.
Mark
wrote:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
NOTE: Dr. Carter has requested that his reply not be posted anywhere.
I'll try to get around to taking it out of the document sometime -
soon, maybe. Apparently, he doesn't want to play - or defend his
position.
Mark
jillery
Feb 10, 2012, 7:55:09 AM2/10/12
to
functions like tinyurl are useful:
>https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM
http://tinyurl.com/7l8wa5p
although an aware individual can still piece the url back together
manually.
>NOTE: Dr. Carter has requested that his reply not be posted anywhere.
>I'll try to get around to taking it out of the document sometime -
>soon, maybe. Apparently, he doesn't want to play - or defend his
>position.
>
>Mark
afraid of?
Friar Broccoli
Feb 10, 2012, 9:02:17 AM2/10/12
to
> I can't imagine why Dr. Carter is being so shy. What's he got to be
> afraid of?
Mark Buchanan
Feb 10, 2012, 11:28:13 AM2/10/12
to
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7l8wa5p
>
> although an aware individual can still piece the url back together
> manually.
>
> >NOTE: Dr. Carter has requested that his reply not be posted anywhere.
> >I'll try to get around to taking it out of the document sometime -
> >soon, maybe. Apparently, he doesn't want to play - or defend his
> >position.
>
> >Mark
>
> I can't imagine why Dr. Carter is being so shy. What's he got to be
> afraid of?
The truth
> http://tinyurl.com/7l8wa5p
>
> although an aware individual can still piece the url back together
> manually.
>
> >NOTE: Dr. Carter has requested that his reply not be posted anywhere.
> >I'll try to get around to taking it out of the document sometime -
> >soon, maybe. Apparently, he doesn't want to play - or defend his
> >position.
>
> >Mark
>
> I can't imagine why Dr. Carter is being so shy. What's he got to be
> afraid of?
Bob Casanova
Feb 10, 2012, 12:12:00 PM2/10/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:18:43 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher
<christophe...@gmail.com>:
>That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
Is it? I'd say it exhibited suspicion, which was the intent.
And if you had as much experience as most here with the sort
of drive-by creationist posters who typically post this sort
of "What's wrong with this?" question you'd be wary too.
In any case, you seem to be the exception, one who had an
honest question. My apologies.
>Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
>could have been asked for.
>
>
>On Feb 8, 7:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
>> <cartographi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Excellent response IMHO. Now let's see if the OP replies, or
>> if he's yet one more cloaked creationist...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >[2] Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher
<christophe...@gmail.com>:
>That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
And if you had as much experience as most here with the sort
of drive-by creationist posters who typically post this sort
of "What's wrong with this?" question you'd be wary too.
In any case, you seem to be the exception, one who had an
honest question. My apologies.
>Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
>could have been asked for.
>
>
>On Feb 8, 7:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
>> <cartographi...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Excellent response IMHO. Now let's see if the OP replies, or
>> if he's yet one more cloaked creationist...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
>>
>> >> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
>> >> anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
>> >> there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>>
>>
>> >> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>>
>> >>http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>>
>> >> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
>> >> anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
>> >> there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>>
>> >Well, let's see what we have here.
>>
>> >The first sentence from your link reads:
>>
>> >"It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant
>> >evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few
>> >thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population
>> >crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of the Flood), and
>> >that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that
>> >(the Tower of Babel)."
>>
>> >This cites a 2003 article in the Journal of Creation[1], which in turn
>> >cites Dorit et al. Science 1995[2], and after quoting Dorit Nelson states
>> >"These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a
>> >global flood.".
>>
>> >Dorit's abstract reads:
>>
>> >"DNA polymorphism in the Y chromosome, examined at a 729-base pair intron
>> >located immediately upstream of the ZFY zinc-finger exon, revealed no
>> >sequence variation in a worldwide sample of 38 human males. This finding
>> >cannot be explained by global constraint on the intron sequence, because
>> >interspecific comparisons with other nonhuman primates revealed
>> >phylogenetically informative sequence changes. The invariance likely
>> >results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern
>> >Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically
>> >small effective male population sizes. A coalescence model predicts an
>>
>> >The first sentence from your link reads:
>>
>> >"It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant
>> >evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few
>> >thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population
>> >crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of the Flood), and
>> >that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that
>> >(the Tower of Babel)."
>>
>> >This cites a 2003 article in the Journal of Creation[1], which in turn
>> >cites Dorit et al. Science 1995[2], and after quoting Dorit Nelson states
>> >"These results are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a
>> >global flood.".
>>
>> >Dorit's abstract reads:
>>
>> >"DNA polymorphism in the Y chromosome, examined at a 729-base pair intron
>> >located immediately upstream of the ZFY zinc-finger exon, revealed no
>> >sequence variation in a worldwide sample of 38 human males. This finding
>> >cannot be explained by global constraint on the intron sequence, because
>> >interspecific comparisons with other nonhuman primates revealed
>> >phylogenetically informative sequence changes. The invariance likely
>> >results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern
>> >Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically
>> >expected time to a most recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000
>> >years (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years)."
>>
>> >years (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years)."
>>
>> >So you might be a little surprised that Dr. Robert W. Carter approvingly
>> >cites C. W. Nelson who approvingly cites R. L. Dorit, who thinks our most
>> >recent common ancestral male ancestor lived 270,000 years ago.
>>
>> >Nelson then goes on to quote Reich et al Nature 2001, allowing Nelson to
>> >conclude "This study concluded with the possibility that 50 individuals
>> >cites C. W. Nelson who approvingly cites R. L. Dorit, who thinks our most
>> >recent common ancestral male ancestor lived 270,000 years ago.
>>
>> >Nelson then goes on to quote Reich et al Nature 2001, allowing Nelson to
>> >may have founded the entire population of Europe. This evidence is also
>> >Neat, huh? Not much support for a worldwide flood, though (assuming your
>> >world is larger than Europe and includes Africa).
>>
>> >So, what are we to make of C. W. Nelson? There comes a point where
>> >incompetence is so gross that I'm not able to distinguish it from lying,
>> >and Mr. Nelson has long blown past that point.
>>
>> >An honest approach would have looked at how coalescent theory is applied
>> >to multiple species, not just humans. Doing so would have found
>> >population bottlenecks as far back as the technique can reach but no
>> >common date to a worldwide flood. This is more than sufficient to lay to
>> >rest the idea of such a flood. Nelson could have written that article;
>> >he chose not to do so.
>>
>> >To answer your question: the very research Nelson and Carter cite in
>> >support of their work only does so if you believe their summary of that
>> >research. Read it yourself. If you find an article is paywalled, post a
>> >request here and you may find a pdf if your inbox.
>>
>> >[1] C. W. Nelson, "Genetics and Biblical demographic events", TJ 17(1):21–
>> >world is larger than Europe and includes Africa).
>>
>> >So, what are we to make of C. W. Nelson? There comes a point where
>> >incompetence is so gross that I'm not able to distinguish it from lying,
>> >and Mr. Nelson has long blown past that point.
>>
>> >An honest approach would have looked at how coalescent theory is applied
>> >to multiple species, not just humans. Doing so would have found
>> >population bottlenecks as far back as the technique can reach but no
>> >common date to a worldwide flood. This is more than sufficient to lay to
>> >rest the idea of such a flood. Nelson could have written that article;
>> >he chose not to do so.
>>
>> >To answer your question: the very research Nelson and Carter cite in
>> >support of their work only does so if you believe their summary of that
>> >research. Read it yourself. If you find an article is paywalled, post a
>> >request here and you may find a pdf if your inbox.
>>
>> >[2] Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at
>> >the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995
>> >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183
>>
>> >[3] Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C.,
>> >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1183
>>
>> >Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and
>> >Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
>> >(6834):199–204, 2001.
>> >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
>>
>> --
>> >Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411
>> >(6834):199–204, 2001.
>> >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6834/abs/411199a0.html
>>
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mark Buchanan
Feb 10, 2012, 1:06:39 PM2/10/12
to
>
> NOTE: Dr. Carter has requested that his reply not be posted anywhere.
> I'll try to get around to taking it out of the document sometime -
> soon, maybe. Apparently, he doesn't want to play - or defend his
> position.
>
> Mark
His response has been removed - will try to get him to reconsider.
> NOTE: Dr. Carter has requested that his reply not be posted anywhere.
> I'll try to get around to taking it out of the document sometime -
> soon, maybe. Apparently, he doesn't want to play - or defend his
> position.
>
> Mark
Mark
Friar Broccoli
Feb 10, 2012, 1:16:43 PM2/10/12
to
> His response has been removed - will try to get him to reconsider.
Garamond Lethe
Feb 11, 2012, 3:50:52 AM2/11/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:45:30 -0500, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On 2012-02-09 03:10, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
> >>>
> >>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
> >>>
> >>> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know
> >>> if anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound?
> >>> Are there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>
> .
>
> > Friar Broccoli gently pointed out that perhaps not everyone is
> > familiar with linkage disequilibrium and coalescent theory. Here's a
> > higher-level response.
>
> My initial comment was not directed toward you, it was directed toward
> Christopher the OP, on the hypothesis that he was someone new to the
> field who was seriously trying to understand the issues and points made.
>
I understood, but rereading my post I hadn't realized how much background
> On 2012-02-09 03:10, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:47 -0800, Christopher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
> >>>
> >>> http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
> >>>
> >>> I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know
> >>> if anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound?
> >>> Are there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>
> .
>
> > Friar Broccoli gently pointed out that perhaps not everyone is
> > familiar with linkage disequilibrium and coalescent theory. Here's a
> > higher-level response.
>
> My initial comment was not directed toward you, it was directed toward
> Christopher the OP, on the hypothesis that he was someone new to the
> field who was seriously trying to understand the issues and points made.
>
knowledge I had assumed in the reader.
You're spot-on of course.
Sigh....
> > To the best I can determine, he refers to the primary result of
> > Dorit's paper, taken here from the abstract:
> >
> > "A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most recent
> > common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years (95 percent
> > confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years)."
>
> "recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years" hmm, does he
> mean that Adam lived 270,000 years ago? (Your reader has no idea that
> what is being discussed is the origin of a fragment of DNA.)
>
> > Reading this as a scientist, I take this to mean that their best
> > answer is 270,000 for the most recent common ancestral male lineage,
> > but that either due to a paucity of data or a weakness in their model
> > the 95% confidence interval is unusually large.
>
> "male lineage" = Adam
>
> > This is still an interesting result: if nothing else it helps to put
> > a upper bound on (if not an lower bound) on the date of this
> > particular ancestor.
>
> Wonder what this means, he says.
<snip>
Friar Broccoli
Feb 11, 2012, 8:06:22 AM2/11/12
to
On 2012-02-11 03:50, Garamond Lethe wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:45:30 -0500, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On 2012-02-09 03:10, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> > Nelson cites R. L. Dorit in support of Nelson's claim that Dorit's
>> > results "are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global
>> > flood."
>>
>> What the f*#k?! Carter cites Nelson, who cites Dorit. I'm confused.
>> Who cares anyway. Why can't these guys just get to the point?
>> (Explicitly arguing that Carter is using third hand info. might have
>> been useful)
>>
>>
>
> I wish you could have seen how depressed I looked when I read that.
> You're spot-on of course.
>
> Sigh....
*After* I had sent that reply I knew how you would react. Yesterday I
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:45:30 -0500, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On 2012-02-09 03:10, Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> > Nelson cites R. L. Dorit in support of Nelson's claim that Dorit's
>> > results "are quite consistent with a recent human origin and a global
>> > flood."
>>
>> What the f*#k?! Carter cites Nelson, who cites Dorit. I'm confused.
>> Who cares anyway. Why can't these guys just get to the point?
>> (Explicitly arguing that Carter is using third hand info. might have
>> been useful)
>>
>>
>
> I wish you could have seen how depressed I looked when I read that.
> You're spot-on of course.
>
> Sigh....
began sinking into a deep depressive funk reflecting on what I had done.
I got out of it only by exercising up to my physical limit or possibly
far beyond - today I can hardly walk from the pain.
I'm really not sure of the extent to which the intelligent can write for
the stupid. Asimov is the only person I am sure succeeded. Dawkins is
a complete disaster.
Mark Buchanan
Feb 11, 2012, 9:33:47 AM2/11/12
to
document:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1dgpcI5oZqE70hg9u29C0Ro0fwJLYAdqMGj5ynJND-YM#h.28qf94s40kx6
Mark
Bob Casanova
Feb 11, 2012, 12:36:14 PM2/11/12
to
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:06:22 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com>:
I'd change those categories to "knowledgeable" and
"ignorant". Anyone can write for the stupid with equal
effect: "Duh...huh?"; the subject and treatment are
irrelevant.
Jared Diamond does pretty well, as do David Deutsch (one
example - "The Fabric of Reality") and Hawking. IMHO Dawkins
does OK, at least most of the time ("The Ancestor's Tale"
was especially good). But I agree, Asimov was the most
consistent popularizer in terms of making the obscure
comprehensible.
Roger Penrose *is* a disaster, at least for me.
in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com>:
"ignorant". Anyone can write for the stupid with equal
effect: "Duh...huh?"; the subject and treatment are
irrelevant.
Jared Diamond does pretty well, as do David Deutsch (one
example - "The Fabric of Reality") and Hawking. IMHO Dawkins
does OK, at least most of the time ("The Ancestor's Tale"
was especially good). But I agree, Asimov was the most
consistent popularizer in terms of making the obscure
comprehensible.
Roger Penrose *is* a disaster, at least for me.
Christopher
Mar 3, 2012, 3:15:55 PM3/3/12
to
Yea, works fine now, thanks for the link :)
Christopher
Mar 3, 2012, 3:32:05 PM3/3/12
to
Yes I understand your concern, and I apologize if I gave the impression of trying to misrepresent my motives in any way, I will try and be more clear in future OPs. No offence taken, sorry if I had a harsh tone.
Ron O
Mar 3, 2012, 6:17:00 PM3/3/12
to
On Feb 8, 1:51 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
> interesting comment on genetics and the Flood. It is from _All Aboard
> for Ararat_ by H.G. Wells (New York: Alliance, 1941). The speaker is
> God Almighty, who takes human form in the book.
>
> "I gave certain facts about this lady [Mrs Noah]. They seem to speak
> for themselves. Have you never noted their implications? Consider what
> those facts were. She had three sons. One was an extremely dark, if
> not absolutely black, boy, Ham. The other was sallow with dark curly
> hair and what one calls nowadays an Armenoid profile, Shem. The third,
> Japhet, was what the Germans would consider a Nordic type, all milk and
> roses. Samples in fact of the chief varieties of mankind. Now Noah,
> like yourself, was a quiet, righteous man. He had great gifts, yes--but
> I put it to you; *was he capable of that much versatility?*"
>
> [p. 29; emphasis in original]
It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
another hundred years after the flood.
Ron Okimoto
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
wrote:
> On 2/7/12 11:23 PM, Christopher wrote:
>
> > Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>
> >http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> > I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
> > anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
> > there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>
> Not directly relevant to that webpage, but I recently came across an
>
> > Recently, I have been looking at the following article:
>
> >http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
>
> > I am not even a layman in the field myself, and would like to know if
> > anyone would be willing to address this? Is the reasoning sound? Are
> > there any well founded rebuttals against it?
>
> interesting comment on genetics and the Flood. It is from _All Aboard
> for Ararat_ by H.G. Wells (New York: Alliance, 1941). The speaker is
> God Almighty, who takes human form in the book.
>
> "I gave certain facts about this lady [Mrs Noah]. They seem to speak
> for themselves. Have you never noted their implications? Consider what
> those facts were. She had three sons. One was an extremely dark, if
> not absolutely black, boy, Ham. The other was sallow with dark curly
> hair and what one calls nowadays an Armenoid profile, Shem. The third,
> Japhet, was what the Germans would consider a Nordic type, all milk and
> roses. Samples in fact of the chief varieties of mankind. Now Noah,
> like yourself, was a quiet, righteous man. He had great gifts, yes--but
> I put it to you; *was he capable of that much versatility?*"
>
> [p. 29; emphasis in original]
It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
another hundred years after the flood.
Ron Okimoto
>
> --
> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Bob Casanova
Mar 4, 2012, 2:42:02 PM3/4/12
to
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:32:05 -0800 (PST), the following
Ummm...a bit behind in our posts, are we? ;-)
>On Friday, February 10, 2012 6:12:00 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:18:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher
>> <christophe...@gmail.com>:
>> >That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
>>
>> Is it? I'd say it exhibited suspicion, which was the intent.
>> And if you had as much experience as most here with the sort
>> of drive-by creationist posters who typically post this sort
>> of "What's wrong with this?" question you'd be wary too.
>>
>> In any case, you seem to be the exception, one who had an
>> honest question. My apologies.
>>
>> >Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
>> >could have been asked for.
>> >
>> >
>> >On Feb 8, 7:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
>> >> <cartographi...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> Excellent response IMHO. Now let's see if the OP replies, or
>> >> if he's yet one more cloaked creationist...
>Yes I understand your concern, and I apologize if I gave the impression of trying to misrepresent my motives in any way, I will try and be more clear in future OPs. No offence taken, sorry if I had a harsh tone.
No problem.
Ummm...a bit behind in our posts, are we? ;-)
>On Friday, February 10, 2012 6:12:00 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:18:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher
>> <christophe...@gmail.com>:
>> >That is a pretty leading post now isn't it.
>>
>> Is it? I'd say it exhibited suspicion, which was the intent.
>> And if you had as much experience as most here with the sort
>> of drive-by creationist posters who typically post this sort
>> of "What's wrong with this?" question you'd be wary too.
>>
>> In any case, you seem to be the exception, one who had an
>> honest question. My apologies.
>>
>> >Thanks for the replies everyone, very informative, and much more than
>> >could have been asked for.
>> >
>> >
>> >On Feb 8, 7:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:00:34 -0600, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Garamond Lethe
>> >> <cartographi...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> Excellent response IMHO. Now let's see if the OP replies, or
>> >> if he's yet one more cloaked creationist...
Christopher
Mar 5, 2012, 7:27:14 AM3/5/12
to
On Sunday, March 4, 2012 8:42:02 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:32:05 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:32:05 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher
>
> >Yes I understand your concern, and I apologize if I gave the impression of trying to misrepresent my motives in any way, I will try and be more clear in future OPs. No offence taken, sorry if I had a harsh tone.
>
> No problem.
>
> Ummm...a bit behind in our posts, are we? ;-)
Aye ;)
>
> No problem.
>
> Ummm...a bit behind in our posts, are we? ;-)
>
> >On Friday, February 10, 2012 6:12:00 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:18:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Christopher
>
Walter Bushell
Mar 5, 2012, 10:42:33 AM3/5/12
to
In article
<97183f94-d66c-4527...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
were not sterile?
From the "facts" above that would be the likeliest possibility. Perhaps
the children were adopted?
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
<97183f94-d66c-4527...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
> genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
> Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
> sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
> related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
> to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
> the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
> another hundred years after the flood.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Could not the "sons" of Noah carry the genetics of 3 men? Even if he
> It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
> genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
> Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
> sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
> related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
> to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
> the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
> another hundred years after the flood.
>
> Ron Okimoto
were not sterile?
From the "facts" above that would be the likeliest possibility. Perhaps
the children were adopted?
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
chris thompson
Mar 5, 2012, 11:30:18 AM3/5/12
to
On Mar 5, 10:42 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <97183f94-d66c-4527-80e4-d6f00ea93...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
material to each child. Three kids means half the genetic material of
three fathers, so 1.5 men. It works out the same way if Noah was
cuckolded 3 times by the same man, or by 3 different men (or 2 men,
for that matter).
Chris
> In article
> <97183f94-d66c-4527-80e4-d6f00ea93...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
> > genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
> > Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
> > sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
> > related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
> > to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
> > the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
> > another hundred years after the flood.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Could not the "sons" of Noah carry the genetics of 3 men? Even if he
> were not sterile?
Nope. Remember, each father only contributes half of his genetic
>
> > It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
> > genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
> > Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
> > sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
> > related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
> > to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
> > the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
> > another hundred years after the flood.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Could not the "sons" of Noah carry the genetics of 3 men? Even if he
> were not sterile?
material to each child. Three kids means half the genetic material of
three fathers, so 1.5 men. It works out the same way if Noah was
cuckolded 3 times by the same man, or by 3 different men (or 2 men,
for that matter).
Chris
Walter Bushell
Mar 5, 2012, 2:47:08 PM3/5/12
to
In article
<ae25a642-1d11-4601...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Oh, if you are going to count it that way. It's unlikely that a man will
pass on his entire gene set with any reasonable number of kids.
Perchance someone like Genghis Khan might.
Clearly having 3 different fathers gives the chance for greater
diversity of offspring, as each father may carry and pass on genes that
the other two fathers don't have.
But how can one man pass on the genes of more than one man? The first
child gets 50% and the next gets an additional 25% and the next gets an
additional 12.5% on average.
Which gives us an expected pass on of 87.5%.
<ae25a642-1d11-4601...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
pass on his entire gene set with any reasonable number of kids.
Perchance someone like Genghis Khan might.
Clearly having 3 different fathers gives the chance for greater
diversity of offspring, as each father may carry and pass on genes that
the other two fathers don't have.
But how can one man pass on the genes of more than one man? The first
child gets 50% and the next gets an additional 25% and the next gets an
additional 12.5% on average.
Which gives us an expected pass on of 87.5%.
Richard Norman
Mar 5, 2012, 3:02:07 PM3/5/12
to
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:47:08 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
<snip to select just the following>
> But how can one man pass on the genes of more than one man? The first
>child gets 50% and the next gets an additional 25% and the next gets an
>additional 12.5% on average.
I got (to make up some arbitrary data) one allele for LDH from my
father's father's father's father. I got one allele for cytochrome C
from my father's mother's mother's father. I got one allele for
cholinesterase from my father's father's mother's father. I got one
allele for insulin from my father's mother's father's father. So my
father, one man, passed on to me genes from four separate men, my
great great grandfathers.
wrote:
<snip to select just the following>
> But how can one man pass on the genes of more than one man? The first
>child gets 50% and the next gets an additional 25% and the next gets an
>additional 12.5% on average.
father's father's father's father. I got one allele for cytochrome C
from my father's mother's mother's father. I got one allele for
cholinesterase from my father's father's mother's father. I got one
allele for insulin from my father's mother's father's father. So my
father, one man, passed on to me genes from four separate men, my
great great grandfathers.
Ron O
Mar 5, 2012, 6:54:34 PM3/5/12
to
> <ae25a642-1d11-4601-81aa-8be005dcf...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > From the "facts" above that would be the likeliest possibility. Perhaps
> > > the children were adopted?
If the sons were adopted from unrelated families then with Noah and
his wife steirle there would still be the equivalent of one extra
breeder on the ark.
If only one of them Noah or his wife was sterile then there would be
the equivalent of two extra breeders on the ark. Noah and his wife
would have likely lived long enough to breed with the children of
their adopted sons if that matters.
>
> > > --
> > > This space unintentionally left blank.
>
> Oh, if you are going to count it that way. It's unlikely that a man will
> pass on his entire gene set with any reasonable number of kids.
> Perchance someone like Genghis Khan might.
The Duggars have likely passed on their entire genomes to the next
generation. It isn't an infinite halving of what can be transmitted
because there are only a few recombination events between each
chromosomes and there is 50:50 segregation. After 19 kids you have
pretty much passed on all your genetics unless you are unlucky.
>
> Clearly having 3 different fathers gives the chance for greater
> diversity of offspring, as each father may carry and pass on genes that
> the other two fathers don't have.
1.5 for three different fathers. They each give one half. If they
are related the genetic diversity decreases.
>
> But how can one man pass on the genes of more than one man? The first
> child gets 50% and the next gets an additional 25% and the next gets an
> additional 12.5% on average.
After 500 years there are a lot of somatic mutations. We can measure
the increased rate of mutation transmission in older males. Each cell
division there are new mutations. Probably less than 10, but after
500 years the spermatocytes have divided quite a lot. It isn't a
significant fraction for a normal reproductive lifespan, but Noah
lived to be over 600 years old so who knows?
Ron Okimoto
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 10:42 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <97183f94-d66c-4527-80e4-d6f00ea93...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
> > > > genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
> > > > Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
> > > > sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
> > > > related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
> > > > to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
> > > > the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
> > > > another hundred years after the flood.
>
> > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > Could not the "sons" of Noah carry the genetics of 3 men? Even if he
> > > were not sterile?
>
> > Nope. Remember, each father only contributes half of his genetic
> > material to each child. Three kids means half the genetic material of
> > three fathers, so 1.5 men. It works out the same way if Noah was
> > cuckolded 3 times by the same man, or by 3 different men (or 2 men,
> > for that matter).
>
> > Chris
Correct
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 10:42 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <97183f94-d66c-4527-80e4-d6f00ea93...@p7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > It has been noted by others years ago that there would have been more
> > > > genetic diversity among the humans on the Ark if Noah was sterile.
> > > > Noah would have only had the genetics of one man, but if he was
> > > > sterile his sons could carry the genetics of 1.5 men depending on how
> > > > related the other male fathers were. Noah likely wasn't the best one
> > > > to pick to regenerate the entire human race. He was around 500 when
> > > > the flood occurred and he only had three kids, and he only lived for
> > > > another hundred years after the flood.
>
> > > > Ron Okimoto
>
> > > Could not the "sons" of Noah carry the genetics of 3 men? Even if he
> > > were not sterile?
>
> > Nope. Remember, each father only contributes half of his genetic
> > material to each child. Three kids means half the genetic material of
> > three fathers, so 1.5 men. It works out the same way if Noah was
> > cuckolded 3 times by the same man, or by 3 different men (or 2 men,
> > for that matter).
>
> > Chris
>
> > > From the "facts" above that would be the likeliest possibility. Perhaps
> > > the children were adopted?
his wife steirle there would still be the equivalent of one extra
breeder on the ark.
If only one of them Noah or his wife was sterile then there would be
the equivalent of two extra breeders on the ark. Noah and his wife
would have likely lived long enough to breed with the children of
their adopted sons if that matters.
>
> > > --
> > > This space unintentionally left blank.
>
> Oh, if you are going to count it that way. It's unlikely that a man will
> pass on his entire gene set with any reasonable number of kids.
> Perchance someone like Genghis Khan might.
generation. It isn't an infinite halving of what can be transmitted
because there are only a few recombination events between each
chromosomes and there is 50:50 segregation. After 19 kids you have
pretty much passed on all your genetics unless you are unlucky.
>
> Clearly having 3 different fathers gives the chance for greater
> diversity of offspring, as each father may carry and pass on genes that
> the other two fathers don't have.
are related the genetic diversity decreases.
>
> But how can one man pass on the genes of more than one man? The first
> child gets 50% and the next gets an additional 25% and the next gets an
> additional 12.5% on average.
the increased rate of mutation transmission in older males. Each cell
division there are new mutations. Probably less than 10, but after
500 years the spermatocytes have divided quite a lot. It isn't a
significant fraction for a normal reproductive lifespan, but Noah
lived to be over 600 years old so who knows?
Ron Okimoto
0 new messages