|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,839 Year: 4,096/9,624 Month: 967/974 Week: 294/286 Day: 15/40 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Seems totally pointless and just silly to me. Thanks for your insight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Razd wrote: "Is this his mis-interpretation of your position? I don't see why it would apply after 5M years and not before." The Bible says that the flood lasted 1 year, covered high hills, and landed an ark on the Mountains of Turkey. I looked for some place where this could happen. ... So, to answer the initial question, the only place which fits the flood's description is from 5.5 million years ago. Short answer, the position as described by mark
Message 1 by mark (mpb1): Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago THE REASON: He says the Flood would not have been sustainable and that the waters would have been dumped into a nearby sea within a few weeks... Is not really what you are arguing at all, but a chopped up mixture of parts of the argument for and against floods in different areas.
No other place in the world matches the Biblical description except the Infilling of the Mediterranean. ... That means that the wall separating the Atlantic Ocean from the Mediterranean basin collapsed at a depth of about 3000 feet! That would be catastrophic and explain why there is only 1/10 of an inch of separation between the desert deposits and the deep sea deposits on the bottom of the Med. ... The geologic data is incredibly good to say that this event happened as described. It is 5.5 million years ago, just about the time that the earliest hominids appeared on earth--something I find to be an interesting coincidence. The only problem I have is that those earliest hominids were not near the Mediterranean ... much closer to the Red Sea ... at least the ones that have been found. If we can find a hominid fossil in those sediment layers that would be a different story eh? Danakil Depression - Wikipedia
quote: Of course that is only 3.5 to 4.0 million years ago or so. Ardipithecus - Wikipedia
quote: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Amazing hominid haul in Ethiopia
quote: Still in Ethiopia (Not the Med. and not Turkey?), so I have a little problem with the link between them. Enjoy. ps -- type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box (had qs at beginning, /quote at end) - Oh, the irony, considering what is just above this "edited by" message. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mpb1 Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 66 From: Texas Joined: |
This isn't directed toward Glenn or anyone else in particular...
I just wanted to say that while I've played the devil's advocate in my posts on this thread (for reasons I've already explained), that I personally don't rule out the Flood happening because I believe God could have accomplished His intent with a local Flood, and I also believe God could have performed any kind of miracle necessary to accomplish his purposes. If Christians are willing to accept the other miracles of the Bible - some of which also involved water - it isn't a great stretch to believe He could have caused water to run uphill if He chose to do so. In this thread, my argument was against anyone claiming that origin theories MUST be pushed back in history prior to five million years ago because of the Flood. That's it. -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks. I'll just hit some points here.
I actually think the jury is almost in on it. There is some interbreeding but the gene flow is quite small. There were few neanderthals and if a large number of Africans came into Europe, their genetic heritage would be swamped. Are you aware that among some Native American tribes, their genes today are far more likely to resemble Europeans than Native Americans? This is after only 400 years of a massive immigration to the Americas followed by interbreeding with the few remaining North Americans. Indeed, here is an amazing statistic. The amerind story is complicated by (1) massive loss of populations due to diseases, (2) isolation of indians on reservations or at least "away" from colonies and settlements (3) classification of anyone with 1/4 indian heritage as indian, with associated racist discrimination against "half-breeds" so that all mixed blood descendants are also concentrated on reservations (or with tribes before reservations. On the other side of it many Americans do have some indian blood as well. I am 1/16th from both sides. Proportions of populations do count in this, but I think you are overstating the population differences at contact between neander and sapiens: it wasn't until near the end that sapiens had swamped the neander populations and not long before neander became extinct. As to the amount of gene flow, the mtDNA evidence shows there was no matrilineal gene flow from neander, that only leave patrilineal, and that can only be determined by comparison of y-chromosomes.
But, there is even more evidence of the interbreeding. I presume that we can agree that the anatomically modern humans brought their traits with them from Africa when they invaded Europe. And I presume that we can agree that they didn't acquire new traits (blue eyes, red hair etc), SIMPLY by being in Europe. If their descendants acquired the traits of the Neanderthals, they didn't do it by standing next to them, but through lying next to them and doing what comes naturally when in that position with one of the opposite sex, (e.g. having sex). Aren't you assuming these "European traits" exist in the neander stock? Is there any evidence for this? Or is it only assumed because suddenly we have different traits in the sapiens lineage and interbreeding explains it? My impression is that these traits originated in the Caucasian area of russia. National Geographic You'll have to explore the map and click on the gene lines to see the descriptions for the flow of human history based on the genetic information. Click on the time bar at the top to see the different areas of expansion based on genetic data. These show sapiens coming from the east-north-east to the areas where they interacted with neanders, areas that still have "European traits" in the people left behind? Click on the time bar for 45k to 50k and you will see a line marked "K U US" when you hover over it. Click and select "K" then the others. Click on the time bar for 40k to 45k and you will see lines approaching the neander areas. Click on the time bar for 35k ti 40k to see the lineages that interacted with the neanders, the Cro-Magnons. Follow their lineage back and you will see what I mean. See if you can find M207 which predates M173 where they first (possibly) interacted with neanders. Many of these lineages show european traits without interacting with neander areas and the population flow was from them towards the neander areas. Thus I find it problematic to ascribe these features to being caused by hybridization with neander.
YOu an see that even today, some Europeans have this form of foramen. Frayer's article gives trait after trait like this in which the earliest anatomically modern Europeans were in between the Neanderthals and the real African invaders. Interesting but not conclusive. Where are the comparisons with populations where the invaders came from - between africa and europe? Places that have the European traits noted above. I am waiting for y-chromosome comparisons on DNA to see if they show any hints of interbreeding. If they don't then it makes it very unlikely: you need a scenario where only female children of matings of male neander and female sapiens survive. Of course full genetic comparison can rule it out entirely too. Enjoy. ps - if you use {table data}it makes the tables come out as they are typed:
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6225 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
Icant wrote:
I disagree. If God is all knowing why would he have to plan anything? I read the link and it is well put but I think wrong. I posted my understanding of Genesis 1-5 in:Re: on Genesis and Floods (Message 71) Re: on Genesis and Floods (Message 73) Please evaluate my analysis and tell me if I am incorrect.
The only way by which one can know if one is correct or incorrect is by comparing the observational implications of an interpretation with actual observations. So, lets look at this claim
2. At a much later date possibly millions, billions or trillions of years later we find earth in the condition it is in, in Genesis 1:2. Thus the 7 days of Moses in a re-creation. Beginning at Genesis 1:2 going through Genesis 2:3 then jumping to Genesis 5:1 and continuing. The re-creation theory would seem to imply that at some point in Earth history, all the previous species died off and new ones were created. There is no evidence of such an event in paleontological history. Here is a list of fish genera through geologic time. Note that the living genera gradually arise, and there is no time that all the old genera die off and new ones arise. youngest period # Fish genera # living genera # extinct generaRecent---------------3245----------3245-------------0 Pleistocene----------422-----------408-------------14 Pliocene--------------416-----------372-------------44 Miocene---------------496-----------320-----------176 Oligocene-------------321-----------207-----------114 Eocene----------------398-----------157-----------241 Paleocene-------------124------------53-------------71 Cretaceous------------340------------38-----------302 Jurassic----------------146--------------5-----------141 Triassic----------------175--------------0-----------175 Permian----------------86---------------0-------------86 Pennsylvanian--------106-------------0-----------106 Mississippian---------163--------------0-----------163 Devonian--------------524--------------0-----------524 Silurian-----------------57---------------0-------------57 Ordovician--------------5---------------0---------------5 Cambrian---------------1---------------0---------------1 So, if you want your Scriptural interpretation to match the observations of geology, then you have failed, and by that criteria, the re-creation view is false. You also wrote:
The reason I say trillions is we don't know how old the universe is. Well, this is false, time was created at the big bang and since that time, there are only 13.7 billion years, approximately. Trillions of years for the age of the universe is ruled out by observational data. It is ruled out by the the observed distance to the most distant objects in the universe. Those objects are only 13.7 billion years away and that is as far as light has had time to travel since the beginning. I don't see why planning is incompatible with omniscience. Jer 29:7 Edited by grmorton, : formatting add one comment The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6225 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
RAZD wrote:
Is not really what you are arguing at all, but a chopped up mixture of parts of the argument for and against floods in different areas. No, I do believe that there was a flood, not a global flood, but that is no different than million of Christians who also believe the flood, they just place it in a different time and different place.
The only problem I have is that those earliest hominids were not near the Mediterranean ... much closer to the Red Sea ... at least the ones that have been found. If we can find a hominid fossil in those sediment layers that would be a different story eh? Sigh, the hominids are not found near the Red Sea. And the possible precursors of hominids are found in both Europe and Africa--in other words, all around the Mediterranean "Another possibility is that euhominoids evolved inEurasia, with the African ape and human clade returning recently to Africa. This would explain the poor fossil record of African Miocene euhominoids, and the apparent persistence of Proconsul or Kenyapithecus-like forms at a few later localities (Hill and Ward, 1988). Griphopithecus from Slovakia and Turkey may represent the ancestral stock from which hominoids diverged, again in three major divisions: hylobatids, Asian great apes, and African apes and humans. The last group may have further subdivided into European and African branches, with the more terrestrial African branch returning to Africa sometime during or after MN 10, about 9 Ma, when the area was becoming drier (Steininger and Rogi, 1979; Steininger et al., 1985). There is no compelling paleogeographic evidence to suggest one of these views over the other. Connections between Africa and Eurasia were intermittent throughout the middle and late Miocene, and appropriate ecological conditions were apparently available for either of these two scenarios to have occurred (Steininger etal., 1985)." David R. Begun, Carol V. Ward, and Michael D. Rose, "Events in Hominoid Evolution," Function, Phylogeny, and Fossils: Miocene Hominoid Evolution and Adaptations, ed. By M. D. Rose et al, (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), p. 389-415, p. 413 Of course that is only 3.5 to 4.0 million years ago or so. Ardipithecus - Wikipedia
quote: Have you looked at my page on the nature of the fossil record? I cited it earlier I believe. The earliest fossil example of any given species is not the first of its kind. Fossilization is vher unilikely when a species is rare or in a limited area. And when a species arises, they are in a limited area and only if that area has something happen which causes fossilization will a fossil form. But then the researcher must look in the right place to find it. Only when a species is widespread does fossilization become more likely. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gaps.htm So, the species you speak of, lived earlier than their earliest found fossil. Indeed, statistically speaking, they lived about 30% longer ago than the earliest example. And the fossils you speak of would be in my view post flood. The problem you have is that you are not taking into account the nature of fossilization and you are making the illogical assumption that the place where the descendants of the flood survivors lived is the same place as the ark's crew started at. My ancestors are from Scotland which is a long way from Houston. So, do you expect to find the descendants of the Titanic survivors still living in the Atlantic Ocean? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed one quote box. The problem was mostly an error carried over from RAZD's message. The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6225 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
Well Mark, you have claimed that my views are against anthropology. Please explain why Richard Leakey thinks that H. erectus and H. sapiens should be classified as the very same species. I am always disturbed by people whose claims are refuted who then make no acknowledgement of that.
The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6225 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
RAZD wrote:
The amerind story is complicated by (1) massive loss of populations due to diseases, (2) isolation of indians on reservations or at least "away" from colonies and settlements (3) classification of anyone with 1/4 indian heritage as indian, with associated racist discrimination against "half-breeds" so that all mixed blood descendants are also concentrated on reservations (or with tribes before reservations. Exactly, and many anthropologists believe that the same thing happened to the Neanderthals. The very last place which anatomically modern man (AMH) inhabited was Europe--they were in Australia earlier. Many think that the strength of the Neanderthals (they were stronger than us) kept the AMH's out of Europe. But, there were never many Neanderthals and their populations collapse. It could easily have been disease that did them in and then the space was open for AMH to move in.
On the other side of it many Americans do have some indian blood as well. I am 1/16th from both sides. Proportions of populations do count in this, but I think you are overstating the population differences at contact between neander and sapiens: it wasn't until near the end that sapiens had swamped the neander populations and not long before neander became extinct. And Frayers data shows that many Europeans may have Neanderthal blood, as does the Microcephalin gene. I have to go to work now, but before I fly out tonight I hope to look up the Neanderhtal population estimate.
Aren't you assuming these "European traits" exist in the neander stock? Is there any evidence for this? Or is it only assumed because suddenly we have different traits in the sapiens lineage and interbreeding explains it? My impression is that these traits originated in the Caucasian area of russia.
I am not assuming it, Frayers data for pete's sake shows it! Go look again at Frayers data. Show me the data for these traits appearing in the Caucasion region. Give me the skull data. If you can't, then I see no reason to take your impression as a serious objection. Show me that the Nasion index originated with the African invaders.
As to the amount of gene flow, the mtDNA evidence shows there was no matrilineal gene flow from neander, that only leave patrilineal, and that can only be determined by comparison of y-chromosomes. Agreed. My children don't have my mtDNA, but I am still related to them. As I pointed out the Neanderthals were stronger and kept AMH out of Europe for a long time. If they were regularly beating the AMH men, they would do what all conquorers do--take the women for wives and sex slaves. The children thus produced would have AMH mtDNA, but the N's would still be related to any children. Such a view fits the observed facts. But for some reason, people don't want us to be related to the N's so they dont think along these lines.
Many of these lineages show european traits without interacting with neander areas and the population flow was from them towards the neander areas. Thus I find it problematic to ascribe these features to being caused by hybridization with neander. Woah, here now, you are jumping to a massive conclusion. If the scenario of take the wives after beating the wimpy men is correct, you would have the very same mtDNA gene flow.
Interesting but not conclusive. Where are the comparisons with populations where the invaders came from - between africa and europe? Places that have the European traits noted above. Well, Frayer's article has much more than that, and those who don't want N's to contribute genetics say the same thing as you do. I KNOW that skeletal traits come from our parents and unless you want to postulate massive mutations causing identical heritable changes in DNA merely from moving into Europe, the only rational explanation is interbreeding. I don't have time to post more of Frayer's tables.
I am waiting for y-chromosome comparisons on DNA to see if they show any hints of interbreeding. If they don't then it makes it very unlikely: you need a scenario where only female children of matings of male neander and female sapiens survive. I am waiting for nuclear NEanderthal genetics. I bet it shows lots of their genes are in us, just like the microcephalin gene!
Of course full genetic comparison can rule it out entirely too.
It could just as easily rule it in. Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes. The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hey Glenn, do you have a higher quality image you can use for your avatar? Avatars can be any size, they're automatically scaled to fit, but when someone clicks on an avatar then the full size image is displayed in a new browser window. Avatar images can be up to around 140KB.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Equinox Member (Idle past 5169 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
I think that we all need to acknowledge something here, though I’m sure many of us already recognize it - and that is the fact that Glen Morton’s idea of a local flood 5 million years ago has at least a tenuous grasp on reality, and actually uses evidence for support. Sure, we can discuss the comparison between this 5 million, Local flood (I’ll call it 5L), as compared to the idea that the Genesis story is simply a fabrication with no basis in reality - in which case 5L may not clearly win.
But that’s very different from comparing 5L to the idea that a flood occurred literally as described in Genesis, after the rise of, say, language or such. In that case, 5L is clearly and irrefutably superior, and posts like this: mpb1 wrote:
..... I also believe God could have performed any kind of miracle necessary to accomplish his purposes. If Christians are willing to accept the other miracles of the Bible - some of which also involved water - it isn't a great stretch to believe He could have caused water to run uphill if He chose to do so.In this thread, my argument was against anyone claiming that origin theories MUST be pushed back in history prior to five million years ago because of the Flood. That's it. Show that this very question is often considered. Maybe we should be clear about which question we are discussing, since they have very different outcomes wrt 5L. Or start a thread that states which is being discussed? Have a fun day- -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grmorton Member (Idle past 6225 days) Posts: 44 From: Houston, TX USA Joined: |
Hey Glenn, do you have a higher quality image you can use for your avatar? Avatars can be any size, they're automatically scaled to fit, but when someone clicks on an avatar then the full size image is displayed in a new browser window. Avatar images can be up to around 140KB. --Percy Just before I read your note, I tried to upload a higher res picture but it wouldn't take it. The one I have is from Bangkok, the one I am trying to upload was take at 17,000 feet high in Tibet. Oh, I see it did take it. Edited by grmorton, : No reason given. The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mpb1 Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 66 From: Texas Joined: |
Glenn,
Someone sent me an interesting article from Newsweek (March 19, 2007 issue), which I uploaded to my site here:OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains If it shows one thing, it's that there's a lot of mixed information that's being derived from the available evidence - and the conclusions keep changing! If you look at the PREDICTION COMPARISON CHART compiled by Hugh Ross / Reasons to Believe here:OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains it becomes even more clear that ALL FIELDS OF SCIENCE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE PROVING ANYTHING CONCLUSIVELY ABOUT ORIGINS. Someone else implied in a post above that this thread is now mixing issues of faith with science, and I agree that they are two totally separate issues. But if science can only take us so far, then as Christians, we can either reject the literalness of the biblical stories, OR we can assume that if science says that something like the Flood would have been IMPOSSIBLE any other way, then it seems safe to assume THAT IF THE STORIES ARE LITERAL, either science will eventually "prove" the stories to be possible, or we'll have to assume God intervened miraculously. -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But if science can only take us so far, then as Christians, we can either reject the literalness of the biblical stories, OR we can assume that if science says that something like the Flood would have been IMPOSSIBLE any other way, then it seems safe to assume THAT IF THE STORIES ARE LITERAL, either science will eventually "prove" the stories to be possible, or we'll have to assume God intervened miraculously. Well, the Biblical flood tale has been disproven. It is simply false. If God intervened miraculously then the God is Loki, the trickster. If God miraculously performed the flud, then wiped out all traces of it and even went to the trouble of creating additional fake evidence to show that there was never a flud, then it is not possible to trust anything done by that God. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The material you have linked to is not particularly on topic here.
However, I would suggest that you open new proposed topics where you give your own interpretation of what the linked sites are about. Remember that you may use the sites as refererence but forum guidelines require you to give your own arguments (even if liberally borrowed from those sources). Many here would enjoy discussing them with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mpb1 Member (Idle past 6166 days) Posts: 66 From: Texas Joined: |
Hi jar,
What if God flooded that "small world" with a Flood like the one that wiped out New Orleans? Just what if??? I doubt there'll be whole lot of evidence around to prove that happened five thousand to five million years from now. Right? So couldn't it have been possible? -
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024