Jump to content

Tristen

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

569 Excellent

5 Followers

About Tristen

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,176 profile views
  1. The point is, you asked me to support my position with a specific type of evidence - a type of evidence that my position explicitly characterises as invalid. Because of the way you asked the question, and the way you've used my responses, I am confident that you fully understand the implications. If you find that "ICR and AiG" have found a way to date things without uniformitarian assumptions, let me know - I'd be interested to see how they did it.
  2. I can't employ uniformitarian assumptions without compromising my own logical integrity. So how can I 'date' a putative event in the unobserved past without employing uniformitarian assumptions?
  3. “I'm having trouble figuring out why presenting evidence would be logically inconsistent with your position” Your original question asked for two things; Firstly, you asked if I had evidence of land bridges. This is a fair question. But since the claim of land bridges is common to both models (and is therefore not exclusive to my position), I figured you could probably find that for yourself. That is, since this is also a claim of the secular model, I am not exclusively obligated to provide this evidence. You then asked if I had evidence that the land bridges occurred around 4000 years ago. Such an evidence would not be fact-based, but rather reliant upon some form of dating methodology. All dating methods about the unobserved past need uniformitarian assumptions. Given that I don't consider uniformitarian assumptions to be reliable, it would be logically inconsistent for me to provide such evidence in support of my own position. By conflating the two questions and mandating they be answered together, you have constructed a logic trap. And that's the gotcha that you perceive you have, and have continued to use; for example, to @Zemke you said, “I'm sure that ocean sea levels have been much different in the past history of the planet, I just haven't seen evidence that these geological differences have occurred in the last 3500-4000 years” There it is – Gotcha! If I wanted to play that game, I could ask you to provide evidence that land bridges occurred in the secular time frame (I think it's around 10 to 12kya) by methods that don't rely on any uniformitarian assumptions. “I found the following quote in the article you provided: … This is at least an explanation based on some reasoning” This quote only addresses the first part of your conflated question. It doesn't deal with the trap element.
  4. “I do not understand your thought process that interprets any questions I have that might be difficult to answer as some sort of "gotcha" trap. If you are sensing a trap, it originates from your imagination, and not my attempts to linguistically trap you.” I had no difficulty answering the question. It's not about “linguistics”, but about logic. Even if I found a paper that dated the land bridge to a time-frame I agree with, I couldn't use it and maintain logical consistency with my own position. Even though from the outset, this question was clearly formulated to provoke a 'so you don't have evidence' response, you gave the game away when, after I explained the logical inconsistency in the question, you said “Isn't this just a fancy way of saying "I don't have any evidence” “This inherent distrust in my ability to have an honest discussion erodes my desire to do so” If I thought you were disingenuous, I wouldn't be wasting my time. But every so often you drift away from rational debate, then get frustrated when I call you on it. “I am guessing that someone, at some time, has found evidence that they believe supports a relatively recent bridge and I'm asking (repeatedly) if you are aware of any evidence. To save us both the trouble, I'm now just going to take your obfuscation as a "no".” As a rule, I generally prefer to avoid acronyms like LOL. But I genuinely laughed out loud when I saw this. I don't know if anyone “has found evidence that they believe supports a relatively recent bridge”. I haven't looked because I can't use such evidence and maintain a logically consistent position. “It seems as though this model would directly contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 7:23 - "He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground"” Only if you surgically remove the statement from it's context. Genesis 7:23 (NASB) “Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark” “I'm not hoping for an answer here, but introducing a point to ponder. After a global flood, there would clearly need to be a long era of lowering sea levels. It seems that the sea level would have to drop a certain level for a land bridge to be present (a recent ice bridge seems only remotely as possible), and then rapidly reverse to cover up the bridge again before placental mammals could cross” Some of the models about the timing of the proposed ice age are reviewed in this document; https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_2/j30_2_54-59.pdf
  5. “Incorrect, I am just asking if you have any evidence available for the existence of a land bridge within the last 3500-4000 years. I truly do not need help rephrasing a straightforward question. … Isn't this just a fancy way of saying "I don't have any evidence suggesting a land or ice bridge within the last 3500-4000 years"?” You think by conflating two questions you have found yourself a gotcha. Do I have evidence of land and ice bridges? Absolutely. The extant facts can be interpreted by both secular and YEC models to indicate that these bridges existed in the past. I'm not bothering to chase them down because you are fully aware that these evidences exist – which is why you loaded the question with a second requirement. Do I have evidence that these existed in the past 4300 or-so years? Absolutely. According to God's eyewitness testimony, we can calculate that a world-changing global flood occurred around 4300 years ago. Therefore the world's current geology is a post-flood construct (including the facts indicating an ice age and land bridge). The reason you thought you had a gotcha is because you know I don't trust dating methods based on unverifiable secular premises. The premise of my model is scripture. Why should I be obligated to provide you with evidence based on mathematical formulas which I consider to be untrustworthy? That is not a rational expectation. When it comes to science, I trust observations. When human observations about history are unavailable, I trust the eyewitness account of God. Everything else is speculation - which both models employ liberally. “Does your model involve a small population of marsupial-kind that has evolved into around 200 species of extant marsupials and multiple other extinct varieties?” No. My model does not consider marsupial to represent a kind. “How would you explain the lengthy primary succession involved in the development of the current Australian biomes?” There was already plant life established by the time Noah disembarked from the ark. Primary succession doesn't need that “lengthy” a period of time. “Is there evidence of glacial retreat from the Australian land mass?” I am aware of evidence of glaciers in Western Australia. I'm not going to look up the specifics because the ice age in Australia is as much a part of the secular model, as it is part of the YEC model. It's only factors relating to time frames that conflict. “How would you respond to anthropologists that believe aborigines have been in Australia for about 60,000 years?” I would ask them how they came to that number, then explore the assumptions underpinning the legitimacy of the 'dating' method. “Is this the hypothesis for a Pangea to modern geography model? I haven't read much about this from a YEC perspective” It's a similar idea, but obviously over a much shorter time scale. It's a rapid (or catastrophic) Plate Tectonics model, rather than a uniformitarian model. “According to this explanation, wouldn't we have small animal fossils all on top - insects and rodents and such, with humans down close to the bottom with the other large mammals? Is that a pattern seen somewhere? ” No. The general succession pattern is based on mobility and habitat. The fact that mass and size influences how a body moves through a current means that, even if different types of organisms did die together, we can't assume they would settle together and be fossilised together. “I simply agree frequently with experts in their respective fields. And before you mention the "popular appeal" fallacy, let me remind you that in technical matters, if your explanation contradicts a high majority of the experts, your arguments would work best with solid evidence behind it - not mere conjecture, regardless of how logical you feel it is” What “technical matters”? I only disagree with secular premises and interpretations. I am happy for you to "simply agree" with whomever you choose. But when you are debating someone holding a contrary position, you don't get the right to simply assume a position of superiority. You have to make your case. We both self-evidently find our respective positions to be more plausible, but we can't simply assert that our position is more plausible without rational justification of that claim. Such an assertion doesn't mean anything without that support. “I really would like to see some evidence supporting your supposition, and at least a good hypothesis why the placental mammals are so sparse” The facts are that outside of Australia, there are marsupial fossils but no extant marsupials. One popular interpretation of this fact is that marsupials were out-competed by mammals and went extinct in these regions. It is a well-understood principle that competition can drive dispersal. Therefore, given the premise of the Biblical flood, it is reasonable to put these ideas and facts together to hypothesise that intense competition forced marsupials to disperse more quickly than mammals into new locations. There are many facts interpreted by both models to indicate an ice age and land bridge between Asia and Australia – which has subsequently disappeared under rising sea levels. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that rapid marsupial dispersal gave some of them access to this pathway, but mammal dispersal was slower, and so mammals weren't were they needed to be at the right time to take advantage of the bridge. All models of history are, at their core, simply stories we make up to account for the facts in light of our faith presuppositions. I don't have a time machine – so it's not reasonable to hold my model to a higher standard than anyone else's. I don't have any more facts than the secularists. My only advantage is that my premise is the witness account of the Creator. “Would you agree that we can accurately measure radioactive decay rates (even for isotopes with VERY long half-lives) and the speed of light today?” I haven't looked into how the “decay rates” are measured – but for the sake of argument, I'm happy to assume these observations are accurate. “I am also certain you are aware that rock dating with multiple isotopes leads to very precise date estimates. How do you explain that?” I'd say this is largely myth. Sometimes the error overlaps, but I'd wager I could find far more examples of different methods disagreeing than you could find them agreeing. To be fair, the process is expensive, so most of the time, only one method is used- and accepted if it gives a 'right' date (i.e. within the expected range according to secular time scales), or else explained away (or not reported at all) if it gives a 'wrong' date. But I concede that most of the 'right' dates tend to agree. What are the odds?
  6. “Genesis 7:23 - He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground Genesis 8:21 - Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. It could be argued that Genesis 7:23 gives some wiggle room for living things not technically "on the face of the ground", but Genesis 8:21 does say "every living creature". I don't see any way to argue around it” I don’t think I need a “way around it”. Things which are not “technically "on the face of the ground"” are likely the many creatures that live in water (i.e. non-terrestrial creatures). When Gen 8:21 says “as I have done”, it means in the same manner that was described in the previous chapter (with all the caveats about the complete destruction only referring to land-dwelling creatures). That is – God won’t destroy everything again in the way He just did – with a flood. “No, what is exclusive to YEC is the idea that massive land bridges were present as recently as 4,000 year ago” Right – and that’s how you loaded the question. You were likely somewhat aware that the facts indicated a prior land bridge between Australia and Asia. And you are also fully aware that YEC don’t trust the secular uniformitarian assumptions that are used to generate secular time-frames. So you weren’t just asking for the facts – but you wanted facts plus a secular interpretation that is consistent with YEC. That is a technically irrational expectation. In a debate, I am only rationally obligated to provide an interpretation reconciling the facts to the premise of my own position. Unless observed, time-frames are all interpretations – and interpretations are subjective; i.e. fundamentally reliant upon the presuppositions of the interpreter. “The ice bridge model would require a temporary connection to an even colder land mass, mass invasion of this Antarctica-like land mass by marsupials, but virtually no other mammals, rapid warming and successional development of new ecosystems to support the marsupials (like eucalyptus forests) -- all within the last 4,000 years. This is assuming that the migration of the marsupials took place instantaneously. Realistically, the time frame for this all to have occurred would be several hundred years shorter. I'm not a geologist or an ecologist, but I'm close to certain there is no evidence supporting this highly improbable scenario” As far as I am aware, the most prominent YEC model is that there was an ice-age shortly after the flood which lowered the water levels leaving a land bridge between Asia and Australia. From a YEC perspective, the abundance of the fossil record is mostly due to the flood – so post-flood migratory evidence in the fossil record would be very sparse at-best. And given the YEC premise that diverse populations can start from low numbers (as discussed with you in another thread), such a scenario doesn’t require mass migration. If only a few specimens crossed the ice bridge, there wouldn’t be much, if any, evidence of their movement other than the fact that they are found where they are. So we could be talking about a combination of land bridges and ice bridges. “I would expect the same for sessile marine organisms, but although the massive amounts of sediment moved by such a cataclysm would certainly trap some swimming organisms, it would be logical to assume that many of these would fare better, even in a massive flood, than terrestrial organisms” The issue is less about who fares better in a flood, and more about were those who succumb would be buried in the strata. Terrestrial creatures would more likely be buried either on land, or in shallow waters. Marine creatures would more likely be buried further below sea level – and subsequently covered with more layers of run-off sediment. “Massive sediment flow in a terrestrial environment meets little resistance from air, but would meet substantial resistance in an aquatic environment. Sure, the sediment flow into an ocean would be extreme enough to bury organisms in a coastal habitat, but there would likely be massive areas of open ocean where a large portion of organisms would be undisturbed” I think you are assuming the geology of the world wouldn’t be significantly affected by a global flood. Given the weight of water on a floating crustal plates, there was likely massive geological upheaval across the globe. For all that water to run off the land masses, deep trenches had to be carved out of the ocean floors by high velocity water movement. In the YEC model, the world we see today is largely the result of the flood. The flood effectively remodeled the face of the planet. “I'm not an expert in botanical paleontology, either, but I'm going to assume that the experts in the field would rely on more than one single gymnosperm forest, since there are still plenty of conifer forests presently on the planet. This article may have some of the information you are curious about. https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/7416/paleo_2005_DiMichele_et_al_PCAS_56(Suppl_I)_HR.pdf” I’ll look at the paper when I get a chance. I previously stated that we can’t expect any two different creatures be found together in a flood scenario. But one thing we can predict, is that the same or similar species of creatures are likely to be found together. Two organisms of the same species live in the same habitats, have the same mobility, and succumb to sedimentary flood inundation in the same way. “I would expect the sediment flow caused by the flood and the major event needed for fossilization would not be able to physically separate human and dinosaur corpses as neatly as the fossil record indicates” Unless humans had dinosaur pets, I don’t see why they’d need to be separated. Nevertheless, bodies of different masses and buoyancies would move through flowing waters at different rates and encounter different currents. Bigger, heavier bodies would more likely settle before lighter bodies. Larger bodies would take longer to cover with sediment. “I understand that YEC scientists have many hypotheses in order to attempt to explain observed facts in a light that aligns more closely with the presupposition of a 6,000-ish year old earth. But in order to maintain this scientific viewpoint, it requires numerous, repeated interpretations that are less plausible than the "secular" model” All anyone has is “many hypotheses in order to attempt to explain observed facts in a light that aligns more closely with [their] presupposition”. That is the nature of historical investigation. All any of us has is stories made up to account for extant facts. The one we find “less plausible” is dependent on personal presupposition. If you want to make an argument about more or less plausibility, you can’t just assume rational superiority because you think it so, you have to justify through math or logic why your argument is more plausible. “For example, ice and/or land bridges that only marsupials may cross” This is a Strawman misrepresentation of my argument. “dinosaur and hominid fossils in completely separate rock layers because they didn't cohabitate, cataclysmic sediment flow that carefully separates dinosaur and hominid due to differential density” You have to justify why it’s so implausible to suggest that creatures not living together, probably didn’t die together – and therefore probably weren’t buried together. You can ridicule about species being carefully separated, but the ridicule is meaningless in the absence of supporting evidence and arguments. How can you, given the rarity of fossilisation conditions (even in a flood), and with such a sparse fossil record, claim to know what two kinds of specific creatures should be found fossilised together? It’s an Appeal to Ignorance. We don’t know what was buried together until we find them buried together. “massively fluctuating radioisotope decay rates or massively fluctuating speed of light” Neither of these is a requirements for YEC models. What we point out is that the uniformitarian assumptions of consistent rates over massive magnitudes of time and space are fundamental logical requirements of the secular models. These are the necessary logical foundations of the secular models. If even one of the secular assumptions is found to be unreliable, then the entire process can’t be trusted. And in every instance, exceptions to these assumptions have been observed. Since there is no way to objectively determine the veracity of the assumptions in any individual case, there is no obligation on anyone to accept any claim based on these assumptions. In fact, critical reasoning would demand that the processes (and resulting claims) be rejected until objective tests can be demonstrated. You can’t even assume they are ‘mostly trustworthy’ without an objective test.
  7. “What evidence is there of a land or ice bridge that has disappeared in the last 4,000 years?” Nice loaded question. I'm obviously not obligated to find secular papers that, for some reason, ignore secular presuppositions in favour of creationist presuppositions about time frames. Nevertheless, the idea that the ocean levels were once low enough to create land bridges between Australia and Asia is not exclusive to YEC. Furthermore, the idea of ice ages creating ice bridges between continents is not exclusive to YEC. The facts are the same. The differences between the two models is, as usual, how the presuppositions influence the interpretations (in this case, specifically about time frames). We all have the same facts. “Were the marsupials running for their lives from the placentals and managed to win the trans-continental race by thousands of miles? Or was it just a closer race and the bridge was somehow destroyed after they crossed?” The idea that environmental pressures (such as competition and predation) drive dispersal is not exclusive to YEC. “I would expect expert swimmers to fare best under global flood conditions, and terrestrial organisms to be particularly vulnerable” I would not generally expect land dwellers to be found as low on the strata as marine creatures – because even if they were washed into the water, they'd be more likely to settle nearer to land – i.e. in relatively shallow waters. Those that didn't settle quickly would probably decay – and not be fossilised. Creatures dwelling either in, or nearer to, the bottom of the sea would be inundated with sediment from land run-off – and be buried, and subsequently discovered, generally lower in the strata. “Since fossils are typically found in sedimentary rock, that indicates that sediments are involved in most fossilization events” Fossilisation indicates rapid burial in fast moving sediments – such as the conditions you'd find in a flood. “The mudslides and other types of events that would result in burial of organisms in sediments would occur much faster in terrestrial environments” You mean mudslides occurring on terrestrial landscapes – i.e. above sea level? I don't think terrestrial landscapes are inherently more vulnerable to hydraulic forces, but either way, something living at the bottom of the sea would still be buried lower in the strata. “I would also expect dinosaurs to have roughly equal to better mobility than humans, yet they were all buried in lower levels of sediment, without any sign of mixing as would be expected in a catastrophic event” I don't think you could predict that any two creatures should be found fossilised together – just a general pattern of succession. I expect humans would generally avoid dinosaurs. Would dinosaurs be smart enough to seek higher ground? Even if we did die together, would our bodies be carried by the current at the same rates? Would our bodies sink to the bottom at the same rates? Apparently it is fairly common to find mammals fossilised alongside dinosaurs – but even that surprises me – given the sparsity of the record and the rare conditions required for fossilisation. “Another major problem with this view is the plants. Obviously, angiosperms are no more mobile than other plants, yet there are layers of fossils that contain only gymnosperms (particularly cycads)” I'd be happy to take a look at your information. But it doesn't surprise me that a gymnosperm forest would be buried largely intact. “No, differential mobility is not a model with competitive plausibility” Which is an entirely subjective statement. It is abundantly both reasonable and plausible to suggest that mobility and habitat can contribute to fossil succession in a flood scenario. “God didn't destroy all living creatures in the flood, despite the language of Genesis 8:21 and 7:23. It certainly seems as though God is using hyperbole to make His point” It doesn't say that God destroyed “all living creatures in the flood”. It says “Every living thing that moved on land perished … Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out” (Gen 7:21-22) – with the explicit exception of those that were with Noah (Gen 7:23).
  8. “Regarding biogeography, consider the landmass of Australia and the fact that virtually all native mammal species are marsupials or monotremes. There is not a reasonable explanation in existence that answers why these animals somehow raced to this particular part of the world and filled the available environmental niches and prevented placental mammals from finding a foothold” The secular claim is that the reason we find marsupial fossils in Europe when they are no longer found alive there is because they were out-competed by placental mammals. Now I can't account for your subjective standard of what is “reasonable”, but if that secular premise is true, I find it very reasonable to postulate that marsupials were driven by competition to rapid dispersal. That means they may have encountered the land or ice bridge to the Australian continent – whilst the other mammals didn't get their until after that bridge had disappeared. “The clear explanation for the layering of different extinct forms of life in the fossil record is that they were on the planet at different times. No other possible explanation has the same level of plausibility” Well again, I can't account for your subjective “level of plausibility”, but I would postulate another “possible explanation”. Do you think its possible that different species with different capacities for motility, and occupying different habitats, would succumb to flooding and burial at different times during the flood – such that we would observe a general trend of fossil succession from deep ocean species, to shallow marine species, to sessile terrestrial species, to mobile terrestrial species – with humans and birds only found in the upper layers? “The flood of Noah as recorded in the Bible refers to a great flood, to be certain, but more likely one of regional impact rather than global. The language used in the Bible does not conclusively indicated that the flood covered the entire globe” God's said He would “wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground” (Gen 6:7), “to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth” (Gen 6:13), “to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish” (Gen 6:17). Then, “all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” (Gen 7:19-23). That seems pretty conclusive to me. Then God promised “never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done” (Gen 8:21). Yet we have periodically seen many large “regional” floods.
  9. “I accept that A model that discards mutation is possible. I just don’t see value in a model that differs from reality” In our conversation, no one has presented a model that “discards mutation”. That idea stems from your odd understanding of the words necessary, required and could. These words deal with logical limitations of the model, not what the model actually claims. The reason it is important to note that my model doesn't require mutations for diversity is because secular estimates of mutation rates are based on the idea that all diversity is ultimately a result of mutation - but since my model claims most diversity existed at the creation (i.e. apart from mutations), those secular estimations are meaningless from the perspective of my model. Earlier in the conversion, you were trying to apply the secular mutation estimates to my model – an approach which lacks logical consistency. “Why would that not be a logical conclusion? Since you accept Jeanson’s model of heterozygosity + recombination + mutation = level of diversity we now observe, then subtraction of any one of these factors would result in reduction of diversity. I realize that it isn’t simple arithmetic, but it seems like a rather simple conclusion to me” I didn't claim it's not “logical”. You made a truth claim which is, in my opinion, over-simplistic. If you take out mutations, you take out a lot of diseases that could influence the survival of species. For example, if a predator survives, the prey species might be driven further abroad; thereby providing increased opportunities for diversity to arise. The predators might follow, providing the same opportunities for diversity to them. It's just not something that can be predicted. “Do you think heterozygosity and recombination were essential, but for some reason, mutation was not?” Do you mean logically “essential” for broad diversity? Because again, this is a question about what is logically possible, not about what actually happened. “I don’t see how this is related to your conclusion that mutations aren’t necessary. To me, the rapid diversification only supports the necessity of mutations” Except we understand, as a matter of fairly common knowledge, how the breeds were derived. Pups with desired characteristics were interbred over generations until most of the genetic diversity was bred out. The diversity did not come from mutations adding differences to each lineage. The desired characteristics were there at the start of the process.
  10. “I think that since we know both recombination and mutation did occur, the logical conclusion would be that both are necessary for extant diversity” I think your wording still awkwardly confuses actual with potential. Just because something occurred one way doesn't mean it was logically obligated to happen that way – i.e it doesn't mean it was necessary for it to have occurred that way. “Loss of either one would have resulted in less diversity than we now observe” I don't think we can conclude that either. If things were different, things would be different. Who knows what effect the loss of mutations would have on diversity? “How would you use data to support your model?” I'd use the patterns in the genetic data to support the concept of created kinds. I'd use the rapid differentiation of dog breeds to demonstrate that diversity within closely related groups can descend from more highly diverse ancestors. I wouldn't use mutation rate data because I don't think the premise is justified. It's a very broad question.
  11. The problem I see with how you read my comments is you continuing to confuse potential with actual. For example, when you say "extant dog diversity", you are speaking to actual, but when you say "could exist" you are speaking to potential. And so I interpret that to mean "Could that level of diversity be explained by mechanisms other than mutation?" - to which my answer is yes. That is a theoretical possibility given the known mechanisms of diversity. But when I simply say "yes", then you ignore the potential aspect of the question and appeal to the actual - e.g. "Well we know mutations did occur, therefore you are demonstrably wrong". I'm assuming it's unintentional, but you have been using the question as a kind of logic trap. Perhaps I should rephrase my position - My model acknowledges that mutations both occur, and contribute to diversity. However, in my model, diversity is not logically dependent on mutations. Therefore, mutation rates based on secular assumptions cannot be applied to my model with any logical legitimacy.
  12. My model does incorporate mutations - but logic does not necessitate mutations to produce diversity. I haven't proposed a model that excludes mutations. But the path of our conversation has been to debate the theoretical limitations of diversity from a starting population of two - to asses your claim about the required increase in mutation rates of the YEC model. Initially, you made use of proposed mutation rates - which were based on the secular assumption that we started from a simple common ancestor. Therefore, that model assumes all differences are essentially derived from mutations. You then proposed that, in order to make the YEC time frame plausible, those secular mutation rates would have to be increased by the same difference in magnitude as exists between the secular and YEC time frames. Since the YEC perspective proposes that most of the diversity in life existed in the created ancestors, secular calculations about mutation rates can have no logical bearing on YEC models. The premises upon which the secular mutation rates are calculated are logically, mutually exclusive to the premise of YEC. So you can't just say since the YEC model takes so much less time, that means mutations happened so much quicker.
  13. No. Not "exactly the same". You continue to confuse potential with actual. My claim is that diversity doesn't require mutations. I am NOT claiming that mutations haven't contributed to actual diversity.
  14. “But if you admit that mutation took place, I do not understand why you believe the observed diversity could have occurred without it” You have been asking about what “could have occurred”, not what did occur. It's a question about potential. Since there are mechanisms other than mutation influencing diversity, no specific mutation rate is required to explain diversity in the creationist model. So your earlier claims about what the mutation rates must have been for the Young earth creationist model to be plausible are not logically a requirement of that model.
  15. “I guess I just prefer a model based on what actually happened. Why not use a model that includes the mutations that you admit have happened?” That is my model. But “what actually happened” was not the point we were discussing. We were discussing the theoretical limits of genetic diversity from a starting population of two, and thereby, whether or not diversity was logically reliant on mutations - and specific estimations of mutation rates. I stated several times that I acknowledge the reality of mutations occurring and contributing to diversity – but the question we were dealing with was 'can significant diversity arise by mechanisms other than mutations?'. The answer is 'yes it can', which is a logically different claim to 'yes is did'. Since diversity can arise by mechanisms other than mutations, you can't ascribe to my model mutation rate estimates from models that assume practically all diversity arose ultimately by mutations. “If you do respond to this question, I solemnly swear to THEN drop my participation that I seem to be unable to make myself drop. 😛” I'm happy to keep going if you have more questions or comments.
×
×
  • Create New...