The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[Sideline]

This is an incorrect argument. The arguments about the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau depend crucially on the particular geology of that region. I quoted a different scientist saying that different parts of the region were formed at different dates and that the older parts were 40 million years old. Just because other parts are younger does not invalidate the 40 ma age of the older parts.

…
rossum

I fear my joke fell flat. I entirely agree with you.

I was trying to express the silliness of trying to over extrapolate and cherry picking data. I guess it is impossible to parody the claims of young earth creationists because no matter how outrageous the claim, someone else will make an even more outrageous claim in earnest.

Perhaps an even more elegant rebuttal than the one you offered was written by Isaac Asimov:

“…when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

Edit: The entire essay can be found here for anyone who is interested. It makes for great reading.

 

[Izdaari]

I believe God created the earth. I believe it’s old, as old as science says it is. I don’t know for sure which theory is correct, but the Framework Interpretation variant of OEC sounds right to me. I am not Catholic, but I’m in general agreement with the Catholic theology of science and of creation.

 

[rossum]

How many varves can form per year?

To a first approximation, one. A few years have none while a few years have two. The Lake Suigetsu and Lake Baikal varves have been independently dated to confirm this.

There are other layers found, but these are not varves and are mainly found at the edges of large lakes and all through small lakes. Geologists are aware of this and only count layers from the middle of large lakes where non-varve layers do not interrupt the count.

Glenn Morton has has a good article on the Green River Formation which explains this.

Glenn also a nice photo of varve and non-varve layers at home.entouch.net/dmd/Walensee2.jpg. The non-varves are obviously different even to an untrained eye.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Is that how it is determined that species A (e.g. pre-humans) evolved into species B (e.g. humans)?

There is currently a temporary ban on the discussion of evolution.

What buffalo and myself are discussing is variation within the species Homo sapiens. He asserts that modern human DNA is degenerate compared to human DNA 10,000 years ago. I am asking him for evidence of his assertion.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I fear my joke fell flat. I entirely agree with you.

Whoops! Poe’s Law strikes again. My mistake.

Perhaps an even more elegant rebuttal than the one you offered was written by Isaac Asimov:

“…when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

Edit: The entire essay can be found here for anyone who is interested. It makes for great reading.

An excellent essay and well worth reading.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

To a first approximation, one. A few years have none while a few years have two. The Lake Suigetsu and Lake Baikal varves have been independently dated to confirm this.

There are other layers found, but these are not varves and are mainly found at the edges of large lakes and all through small lakes. Geologists are aware of this and only count layers from the middle of large lakes where non-varve layers do not interrupt the count.

Glenn Morton has has a good article on the Green River Formation which explains this.

Glenn also a nice photo of varve and non-varve layers at home.entouch.net/dmd/Walensee2.jpg. The non-varves are obviously different even to an untrained eye.

rossum

I did a search on varve images and this one showed up.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I count 12 (6 annuals) on this one.

 

[Sideline]

Sideline - where have you been? Haven’t run into you in a while.

Hi,

I was getting overly zealous in arguing, so I decided to take a sabbatical to cool off. Which, to quote Lee Hayes, turned into a mondaycal and a tuesdaycal.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is currently a temporary ban on the discussion of evolution.
rossum

But does this apply to the theory of descent with modification from a common ancestor?

 

[grannymh]

There is currently a temporary ban on the discussion of evolution.

What buffalo and myself are discussing is variation within the species Homo sapiens. He asserts that modern human DNA is degenerate compared to human DNA 10,000 years ago. I am asking him for evidence of his assertion.

rossum

With due respect to the conversation between Buffalo and Rossum, I would naturally think that human DNA 10,000 years ago would be in a more basic or pristine state. As populations increased, diverged and converged due to various migrations and settlements, mutations, even adaptations, would increase. To me, time along with various influences affecting the rate of change would be the normal reason that modern human DNA would be different than that of 10,000 years ago.

Another reason, I would think that human DNA 10,000 years ago could result in stronger, longer lived, humans is because all the other hominids are extinct. There has to be a cause of that. Was the cause human biological strength and endurance or human mental smarts which kept humans alive. Or was it a combination of both since human nature is an unique unification of the rational/corporeal?

Speaking of changes, I’m off to the paint store…

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a delightful change of nature’s colors.

 

[StAnastasia]

With due respect to the conversation between Buffalo and Rossum, I would naturally think that human DNA 10,000 years ago would be in a more basic or pristine state. As populations increased, diverged and converged due to various migrations and settlements, mutations, even adaptations, would increase. To me, time along with various influences affecting the rate of change would be the normal reason that modern human DNA would be different than that of 10,000 years ago.

Granny, I’m not sure “pristine DNA” is even a coherent concept. What does the term signify to you?

 

[ricmat]

Granny, I’m not sure “pristine DNA” is even a coherent concept. What does the term signify to you?

I can’t speak for Granny, but it’s an interesting to think about. Here are some musings.

If you assume that Adam and Eve did actually exist (not hard for most Catholics), and were made “very good” by God, that would imply “best possible DNA” or “very good DNA”, etc.

As we all know that universally speaking, entropy moves in one direction (toward more disorder), and we also know that consistent with this, the vast majority of DNA mutations are harmful (rather than resulting in say - Spiderman).

So today (however many years that is beyond Adam and Eve), in terms of DNA - what we got is what we got. Adam and Eve got the perfect DNA = “pristine.”

BTW - “What we got…” is a spin off of what was said in those pioneering years of computer technology about XROFF. Xroff was a non-WSYWYG word processing system. Instead of What You See is What You Get, when using Xroff, “what you get is what you get.” Oh, those magical years!

 

[StAnastasia]

If you assume that Adam and Eve did actually exist …and were made “very good” by God, that would imply “best possible DNA” or “very good DNA”, etc.!

But what about the DNA of Adam’s parents and Eve’s parents? Was that pristine as well?

 

[Philipp]

With due respect to the conversation between Buffalo and Rossum, I would naturally think that human DNA 10,000 years ago would be in a more basic or pristine state. As populations increased, diverged and converged due to various migrations and settlements, mutations, even adaptations, would increase. To me, time along with various influences affecting the rate of change would be the normal reason that modern human DNA would be different than that of 10,000 years ago.

Another reason, I would think that human DNA 10,000 years ago could result in stronger, longer lived, humans is because all the other hominids are extinct. There has to be a cause of that. Was the cause human biological strength and endurance or human mental smarts which kept humans alive. Or was it a combination of both since human nature is an unique unification of the rational/corporeal?

Speaking of changes, I’m off to the paint store…

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a delightful change of nature’s colors.

Even without a major catastrophe Grannymahs comments are valid and supported by the research of geneticist Dr. John Sanford iln his book “Genetic Entropy.” But with a cataclysm a major change in the environment could have greatly accelerated such a change. So back to Rossum and Buffalo.

BUFFALO TO ROSSUM: I figured you would end up here. We do not see man living to old ages now so we do not believe it happened in the past, so therefore we pull out our scientism card again.

ROSSUM REPLIES: Unless some evidence can be produced to support the buffalo hypothesis prediction then that hypothesis is looking doubtful. You need evidence of significant differences in 10,000 year old human DNA. Without such evidence your hypothesis is lacking scientific support. I have evidential support for my hypothesis. Where is your evidential support?

Both raise a good points but since neither Rossum, Buffalo nor I and even biologists who study the DNA and so-called “junk DNA” have the knowledge to completely understand what determines the aging process in the human body and other of God’s creatures we can get some direction from the historical document from which I shall list. The tabulation below was taken from YEC Walter Brown’s In the Beginning with his depiction of the Genealogy from Adam to Joseph and showing their life spans. You can see without drawing a curve that those born after the claimed deluge lived a much shorter time in a descending curve; this suggests an increase in genetic aging for whatever cause(s).

Adam---------------------------------900
Seth-----------------------------------912
Enosh---------------------------------905
Kenan---------------------------------910
Mahalleel-----------------------------895
Jared-----------------------------------962
Enoch---------------------------------365 [Cut short by a miraculous intervention]
Methuselah---------------------------969
Lamech--------------------------------777
Noah-----------------------------------950
Shem-----------------------------------600 [Born 100 years before deluge]
The deluge_________________________________________________
Arpachshad---------------------------438
Shelah---------------------------------433
Eber-----------------------------------464
Peleg----------------------------------238
Reu------------------------------------230
Serug----------------------------------230
Nahor---------------------------------148
Terah----------------------------------205
Abraham------------------------------175
Issac-----------------------------------180
Jacob----------------------------------147
Joseph---------------------------------110

Assuming that the above are not false ages supplied by a “Trickster” then something happened to increase the aging process. Maybe modern man will discover a genetic method of keeping man alive much longer by accident thus perhaps confirming the above as scientifically valid. However, I don’t think World Planned Parenthood or the current Federal governments in Washington etc. would approve of such an approach so there will be no grants available for such research.

 

[ricmat]

But what about the DNA of Adam’s parents and Eve’s parents? Was that pristine as well?

There are many different answers to this question, Grasshopper.
.
One perspective is that your question is nonsensical. Human DNA started with Adam and Eve, and they had no “parents.”

Another is that Adam’s and Eve’s “parents” had sub-optimal DNA, and it happened to reach perfection with Adam and Eve. Then it started going downhill.

Another is that Adam and Eve’s parents had better DNA than Adam and Eve, but then they would have had the pristine DNA, not Adam and Eve. But since by definition it is assumed that Adam/Eve’s DNA that is pristine, this answer doesn’t make sense.

Another is that Adam and Eve’s parents had sub-optimal DNA, which got better with Adam and Eve, and is still getting better over time even today. But then, again, Adam and Eve would not have had the pristine DNA, since “we’re not there yet.” So this answer doesn’t make sense either, given the assumption.

 

[edwest2]

The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve had bodily immortality. After the Fall, sin and death came into the world. All of Creation became degraded.

Genetic entropy is a worthy idea. A look at Humani Generis tells Catholics that Adam and Eve are the parents of all. The idea of “pre-humans” or “proto-humans” is being spread in nontheist circles but it is unclear, at this time, if it is relevant to Adam. It is certainly not relevant to Eve who was a special Creation made by God from Adam’s side.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[Philipp]

But what about the DNA of Adam’s parents and Eve’s parents? Was that pristine as well?

You mean all those “missing links” that are still missing?

 

[rossum]

As we all know that universally speaking, entropy moves in one direction (toward more disorder),

Universally yes, but it is dangerous to apply this to the particular. A small part of the universe can decrease entropy if there is a corresponding increase elsewhere. Your house plants give you a daily demonstration of this with photosynthesis.

and we also know that consistent with this, the vast majority of DNA mutations are harmful (rather than resulting in say - Spiderman).

We know no such thing. The vast majority of mutations, over 95% in humans, are neutral and neither harmful not beneficial. The great majority of non-neutral mutations are indeed harmful to some degree.

So today (however many years that is beyond Adam and Eve), in terms of DNA - what we got is what we got. Adam and Eve got the perfect DNA = “pristine.”

Evidence please. Where are those near-pristine DNA sequences from old human bones?

BTW - “What we got…” is a spin off of what was said in those pioneering years of computer technology about XROFF. Xroff was a non-WSYWYG word processing system. Instead of What You See is What You Get, when using Xroff, “what you get is what you get.” Oh, those magical years!

Yes, WYGIWYG instead of WYSIWYG – just like vi. Happy days, “It ain’t real computing unless it’s green on black.” “Real programmers can write FORTRAN in any language.”

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

You mean all those “missing links” that are still missing?

They’re not missing.

 

[rossum]

You mean all those “missing links” that are still missing?

Of course they are missing. If we had found them then they wouldn’t be “missing links” any more they would be “found links” wouldn’t they.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

Universally yes, but it is dangerous to apply this to the particular. A small part of the universe can decrease entropy if there is a corresponding increase elsewhere. Your house plants give you a daily demonstration of this with photosynthesis.

That’s why I said universally.

We know no such thing. The vast majority of mutations, over 95% in humans, are neutral and neither harmful not beneficial. The great majority of non-neutral mutations are indeed harmful to some degree.

I prefer to think that all the data is not in yet. All that junk DNA that could, I suppose, be mutated randomly with no ill effect since after all it is “junk” – since it’s not really junk, who really knows?

Evidence please. Where are those near-pristine DNA sequences from old human bones?

As I said in my post. These are musings. You avoided answering my question related to old old older bones (saved by the bell?)

Yes, WYGIWYG instead of WYSIWYG – just like vi. Happy days, “It ain’t real computing unless it’s green on black.” “Real programmers can write FORTRAN in any language.”

rossum

If you randomly mutate a working Troff or Xroff file (which I admit to doing accidentally), it never improved the document. Usually what I got was a huge pile (feet deep) of paper at the foot of the high speed line printer with total garbage on every page. All due to just one missing “.”

If you’ve been there, you know what I mean.