Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #612945 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-06-14 20:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-06-16 01:11 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 20:25 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-14 20:48 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-14 23:22 -0500
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 04:07 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-15 19:24 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 02:59 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 15:04 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 07:52 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 17:56 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 09:38 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 18:46 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 09:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-16 11:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 13:10 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-16 17:08 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 14:21 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-16 17:24 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-17 08:32 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 19:36 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 14:59 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-18 01:15 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Homero Arendonk <kroo@okorooar.ad> - 2023-06-18 11:28 +0000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:43 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 02:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-17 16:56 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Herbert Marqueringh <nhmm@rruarhei.te> - 2023-06-17 12:40 +0000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-16 12:01 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 15:06 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 19:43 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-15 22:30 +1000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-15 08:32 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-16 20:37 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-15 17:45 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 19:46 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-16 12:01 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 14:33 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-06-15 19:58 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-16 07:07 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-16 12:01 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 15:08 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-17 08:52 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:31 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-18 07:02 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-06-17 02:35 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-06-18 06:56 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 16:35 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-20 11:52 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-20 16:46 -0500
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:21 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 22:29 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-21 11:51 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-22 15:05 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-23 11:49 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-24 13:18 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-25 18:39 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-26 14:55 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-28 13:32 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-28 10:58 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-29 21:07 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-30 11:45 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 09:30 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-30 22:49 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-30 17:03 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 09:32 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 16:35 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:09 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-17 21:14 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 17:50 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-18 13:50 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 17:18 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-19 11:39 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-06-19 08:19 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:08 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-19 22:16 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:26 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-20 11:25 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-19 17:32 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-06-20 11:25 +0200
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 11:08 -0700
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-18 01:31 -0400
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Jon-Michael Roijacker <rjee@hhkajcnc.oo> - 2023-06-18 11:47 +0000
Re: If the Earth rotation has been slowing down Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-16 01:11 -0400
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 20:25 -0700 |
| Subject | If the Earth rotation has been slowing down |
| Message-ID | <82cc5fff-bd81-4df3-95ba-8998435b53een@googlegroups.com> |
since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago Why has it not stopped?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 20:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbe963c6-9f69-4dc1-b8dd-ff438336f974n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612945 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:25:42 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > since a beginning 4.5 billion years ago > Why has it not stopped? Mitch, the earth is not 4.5 billion. Newton said the oceans are not salty enough. Kelvin said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss said the earth is too magnetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-14 23:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YvydnXElWY2JDxf5nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #612947 |
On 6/14/23 10:48 PM, patdolan wrote:
> the earth is not 4.5 billion [years old]. Newton said the oceans are
> not salty enough. Kelvin said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss
> said the earth is too magnetic.
Wow! You are over a century out of date. None of those arguments hold up
today:
* Newton did not account for all the processes affecting the
salinity of the ocean, which has been approximately constant
for at least 1.5 billion years.
* Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has been
heating the earth from inside.
* I'm not sure Gauss ever said that, but back then not enough
was known about the earth's internal structure.
Radiometric dating shows the earth is indeed about 4.5 billion years old.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8ab65ddb-430d-42e8-8569-3b876fb8560dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612954 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/14/23 10:48 PM, patdolan wrote: > > the earth is not 4.5 billion [years old]. Newton said the oceans are > > not salty enough. Kelvin said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss > > said the earth is too magnetic. > Wow! You are over a century out of date. None of those arguments hold up > today: > * Newton did not account for all the processes affecting the > salinity of the ocean, which has been approximately constant > for at least 1.5 billion years. > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has been > heating the earth from inside. > * I'm not sure Gauss ever said that, but back then not enough > was known about the earth's internal structure. > > Radiometric dating shows the earth is indeed about 4.5 billion years old. > > Tom Roberts Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all diamonds and crude oil are at most 50,000 years old.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-15 19:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <208aaf05-822f-419c-a7b6-d708172c5fd5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612964 |
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 6/14/23 10:48 PM, patdolan wrote: > > > the earth is not 4.5 billion [years old]. Newton said the oceans are > > > not salty enough. Kelvin said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss > > > said the earth is too magnetic. > > Wow! You are over a century out of date. None of those arguments hold up > > today: > > * Newton did not account for all the processes affecting the > > salinity of the ocean, which has been approximately constant > > for at least 1.5 billion years. > > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has been > > heating the earth from inside. > > * I'm not sure Gauss ever said that, but back then not enough > > was known about the earth's internal structure. > > > > Radiometric dating shows the earth is indeed about 4.5 billion years old. > > > > Tom Roberts > Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all diamonds and crude oil are at most 50,000 years old. Mitch my man, find below a curated list of over 100 papers so far, documenting soft dinosaur tissue and other deep time soft-paleo-tissue: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0 Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new theory has been proposed that states the same chemical reactions responsible for destroying soft tissues are now also responsible for preserving soft tissue. This line of argumentation has a very Einsteinian, very relativistic ring to it. Don't you think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 02:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a952192a-0e84-4700-b6a9-7c6c9f7f974dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612996 |
On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:24:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > On 6/14/23 10:48 PM, patdolan wrote: > > > > the earth is not 4.5 billion [years old]. Newton said the oceans are > > > > not salty enough. Kelvin said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss > > > > said the earth is too magnetic. > > > Wow! You are over a century out of date. None of those arguments hold up > > > today: > > > * Newton did not account for all the processes affecting the > > > salinity of the ocean, which has been approximately constant > > > for at least 1.5 billion years. > > > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has been > > > heating the earth from inside. > > > * I'm not sure Gauss ever said that, but back then not enough > > > was known about the earth's internal structure. > > > > > > Radiometric dating shows the earth is indeed about 4.5 billion years old. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all diamonds and crude oil are at most 50,000 years old. > Mitch my man, find below a curated list of over 100 papers so far, documenting soft dinosaur tissue and other deep time soft-paleo-tissue: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0 > > Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new theory has been proposed that states the same chemical reactions responsible for destroying soft tissues are now also responsible for preserving soft tissue. This line of argumentation has a very Einsteinian, very relativistic ring to it. Don't you think? Mitch, we know from the study of biological molecule half-lives that the hundreds of instances of dinosaur soft tissue can be nowhere near as old as the Lyellists, the Huttonists and the Darwinists claim. We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and presumably atheist mathematicians ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around the time of Noah.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 15:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf34viF85nnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613021 |
On 2023-06-16 09:59:11 +0000, patdolan said: > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:24:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: >> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > On >> Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:> > > >> On 6/14/23 10:48 PM, patdolan wrote:> > > > the earth is not 4.5 >> billion [years old]. Newton said the oceans are> > > > not salty >> enough. Kelvin said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss> > > > said the >> earth is too magnetic.> > > Wow! You are over a century out of date. >> None of those arguments hold up> > > today:> > > * Newton did not >> account for all the processes affecting the> > > salinity of the ocean, >> which has been approximately constant> > > for at least 1.5 billion >> years.> > > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has >> been> > > heating the earth from inside.> > > * I'm not sure Gauss ever >> said that, but back then not enough> > > was known about the earth's >> internal structure.> > >> > > Radiometric dating shows the earth is >> indeed about 4.5 billion years old.> > >> > > Tom Roberts> > >> Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all diamonds and crude >> oil are at most 50,000 years old. >> Mitch my man, find below a curated list of over 100 papers so far, >> documenting soft dinosaur tissue and other deep time >> soft-paleo-tissue:>> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0>> >> Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new theory >> has been proposed that states the same chemical reactions responsible >> for destroying soft tissues are now also responsible for preserving >> soft tissue. This line of argumentation has a very Einsteinian, very >> relativistic ring to it. Don't you think? > > Mitch, we know from the study of biological molecule half-lives that > the hundreds of instances of dinosaur soft tissue can be nowhere near > as old as the Lyellists, the Huttonists and the Darwinists claim. We > also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, > and presumably atheist mathematicians ( here: > https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today are > descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around the time > of Noah. Are you just making stuff up, or can you give references to serious studies of biological molecule half-lives? I suspect that you know as little about biological molecule half-lives as you do about physics. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60d573fc-4c00-45a4-80ac-029a87c0bcf8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613027 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:04:55 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-06-16 09:59:11 +0000, patdolan said: > > > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 7:24:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > >> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > On > >> Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:> > > > >> On 6/14/23 10:48 PM, patdolan wrote:> > > > the earth is not 4.5 > >> billion [years old]. Newton said the oceans are> > > > not salty > >> enough. Kelvin said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss> > > > said the > >> earth is too magnetic.> > > Wow! You are over a century out of date. > >> None of those arguments hold up> > > today:> > > * Newton did not > >> account for all the processes affecting the> > > salinity of the ocean, > >> which has been approximately constant> > > for at least 1.5 billion > >> years.> > > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has > >> been> > > heating the earth from inside.> > > * I'm not sure Gauss ever > >> said that, but back then not enough> > > was known about the earth's > >> internal structure.> > >> > > Radiometric dating shows the earth is > >> indeed about 4.5 billion years old.> > >> > > Tom Roberts> > > >> Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all diamonds and crude > >> oil are at most 50,000 years old. > >> Mitch my man, find below a curated list of over 100 papers so far, > >> documenting soft dinosaur tissue and other deep time > >> soft-paleo-tissue:>> > >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0>> > >> Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new theory > >> has been proposed that states the same chemical reactions responsible > >> for destroying soft tissues are now also responsible for preserving > >> soft tissue. This line of argumentation has a very Einsteinian, very > >> relativistic ring to it. Don't you think? > > > > Mitch, we know from the study of biological molecule half-lives that > > the hundreds of instances of dinosaur soft tissue can be nowhere near > > as old as the Lyellists, the Huttonists and the Darwinists claim. We > > also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, > > and presumably atheist mathematicians ( here: > > https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today are > > descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around the time > > of Noah. > Are you just making stuff up, or can you give references to serious > studies of biological molecule half-lives? I suspect that you know as > little about biological molecule half-lives as you do about physics. > > > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots Check my links, Athel. Check my links. Reputable scientists all. Athel, do you honestly ask this forum to believe that RBCs can last 75 million years in situ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 17:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf3f11F9m38U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613034 |
On 2023-06-16 14:52:01 +0000, patdolan said: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:04:55 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-06-16 09:59:11 +0000, patdolan said:>> > On Thursday, June 15, >> 2023 at 7:24:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> >> On Thursday, June 15, >> 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > On> >> Wednesday, June 14, >> 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:> > >> >> On 6/14/23 10:48 >> PM, patdolan wrote:> > > > the earth is not 4.5> >> billion [years >> old]. Newton said the oceans are> > > > not salty> >> enough. Kelvin >> said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss> > > > said the> >> earth is >> too magnetic.> > > Wow! You are over a century out of date.> >> None of >> those arguments hold up> > > today:> > > * Newton did not> >> account >> for all the processes affecting the> > > salinity of the ocean,> >> >> which has been approximately constant> > > for at least 1.5 billion> >> >> years.> > > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has> >> >> been> > > heating the earth from inside.> > > * I'm not sure Gauss >> ever> >> said that, but back then not enough> > > was known about the >> earth's> >> internal structure.> > >> > > Radiometric dating shows the >> earth is> >> indeed about 4.5 billion years old.> > >> > > Tom Roberts> >> >> >> Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all diamonds and >> crude> >> oil are at most 50,000 years old.> >> Mitch my man, find >> below a curated list of over 100 papers so far,> >> documenting soft >> dinosaur tissue and other deep time> >> soft-paleo-tissue:>>> >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0>>> >> >> Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new >> theory> >> has been proposed that states the same chemical reactions >> responsible> >> for destroying soft tissues are now also responsible >> for preserving> >> soft tissue. This line of argumentation has a very >> Einsteinian, very> >> relativistic ring to it. Don't you think?> >> > >> Mitch, we know from the study of biological molecule half-lives that> > >> the hundreds of instances of dinosaur soft tissue can be nowhere near> >> > as old as the Lyellists, the Huttonists and the Darwinists claim. We> >> > also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed,> >> > and presumably atheist mathematicians ( here:> > >> https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today >> are> > descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around >> the time> > of Noah. >> Are you just making stuff up, or can you give references to serious> >> studies of biological molecule half-lives? I suspect that you know as> >> little about biological molecule half-lives as you do about physics.>>> >> --> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > Check my links, Athel. Check my links. Reputable scientists all. > Athel, do you honestly ask this forum to believe that RBCs can last 75 > million years in situ? A youtube video is not a reference that any serios person would cite. As for the other, there are 122 publications, and I'm not going to plough through all them to find which ones are the most important for your claim. Please list ONE, maybe TWO, that you think convincing. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 09:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4467e484-bf0e-4a22-bf96-976443f22f0dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613037 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:56:21 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-06-16 14:52:01 +0000, patdolan said: > > > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:04:55 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-06-16 09:59:11 +0000, patdolan said:>> > On Thursday, June 15, > >> 2023 at 7:24:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> >> On Thursday, June 15, > >> 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > On> >> Wednesday, June 14, > >> 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:> > >> >> On 6/14/23 10:48 > >> PM, patdolan wrote:> > > > the earth is not 4.5> >> billion [years > >> old]. Newton said the oceans are> > > > not salty> >> enough. Kelvin > >> said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss> > > > said the> >> earth is > >> too magnetic.> > > Wow! You are over a century out of date.> >> None of > >> those arguments hold up> > > today:> > > * Newton did not> >> account > >> for all the processes affecting the> > > salinity of the ocean,> >> > >> which has been approximately constant> > > for at least 1.5 billion> >> > >> years.> > > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has> > >> >> been> > > heating the earth from inside.> > > * I'm not sure Gauss > >> ever> >> said that, but back then not enough> > > was known about the > >> earth's> >> internal structure.> > >> > > Radiometric dating shows the > >> earth is> >> indeed about 4.5 billion years old.> > >> > > Tom Roberts> > >> >> >> Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all diamonds and > >> crude> >> oil are at most 50,000 years old.> >> Mitch my man, find > >> below a curated list of over 100 papers so far,> >> documenting soft > >> dinosaur tissue and other deep time> >> soft-paleo-tissue:>>> >> > >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0>>> > >> >> Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new > >> theory> >> has been proposed that states the same chemical reactions > >> responsible> >> for destroying soft tissues are now also responsible > >> for preserving> >> soft tissue. This line of argumentation has a very > >> Einsteinian, very> >> relativistic ring to it. Don't you think?> >> > > >> Mitch, we know from the study of biological molecule half-lives that> > > >> the hundreds of instances of dinosaur soft tissue can be nowhere near> > >> > as old as the Lyellists, the Huttonists and the Darwinists claim. We> > >> > also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed,> > >> > and presumably atheist mathematicians ( here:> > > >> https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today > >> are> > descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around > >> the time> > of Noah. > >> Are you just making stuff up, or can you give references to serious> > >> studies of biological molecule half-lives? I suspect that you know as> > >> little about biological molecule half-lives as you do about physics.>>> > >> --> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > > Check my links, Athel. Check my links. Reputable scientists all. > > Athel, do you honestly ask this forum to believe that RBCs can last 75 > > million years in situ? > A youtube video is not a reference that any serios person would cite. > As for the other, there are 122 publications, and I'm not going to > plough through all them to find which ones are the most important for > your claim. Please list ONE, maybe TWO, that you think convincing. > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots Athel, the soft tissue storm began in 2005. Here is a link to a popularized account for the benefit of others on this cite: https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html Mary Switzer's discovery has lead to over 100 others. She faced more attacks on her work than J Harlen Bretz. I would suggest you consult her seminal 2005 paper first. It is a testament to the insular nature of your profession and it's systemic immune response to narrative-destroying discoveries, that is has taken you nearly 20 years to finally update yourself on state of dinosaur soft tissue. this article is 10 years old. The iron-toast theory mentioned in the article is now dead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 18:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf3hvcFa48rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613040 |
On 2023-06-16 16:38:50 +0000, patdolan said: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:56:21 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-06-16 14:52:01 +0000, patdolan said:>> > On Friday, June 16, >> 2023 at 6:04:55 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On >> 2023-06-16 09:59:11 +0000, patdolan said:>> > On Thursday, June 15,> >> >> 2023 at 7:24:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> >> On Thursday, June 15,> >> >> 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > On> >> Wednesday, >> June 14,> >> 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:> > >> >> On >> 6/14/23 10:48> >> PM, patdolan wrote:> > > > the earth is not 4.5> >> >> billion [years> >> old]. Newton said the oceans are> > > > not salty> >> >> enough. Kelvin> >> said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss> > > > >> said the> >> earth is> >> too magnetic.> > > Wow! You are over a >> century out of date.> >> None of> >> those arguments hold up> > > >> today:> > > * Newton did not> >> account> >> for all the processes >> affecting the> > > salinity of the ocean,> >>> >> which has been >> approximately constant> > > for at least 1.5 billion> >>> >> years.> > >> > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has>> >> >> >> been> > > heating the earth from inside.> > > * I'm not sure Gauss> >> >> ever> >> said that, but back then not enough> > > was known about the> >> >> earth's> >> internal structure.> > >> > > Radiometric dating shows >> the> >> earth is> >> indeed about 4.5 billion years old.> > >> > > Tom >> Roberts>> >> >> >> Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all >> diamonds and> >> crude> >> oil are at most 50,000 years old.> >> Mitch >> my man, find> >> below a curated list of over 100 papers so far,> >> >> documenting soft> >> dinosaur tissue and other deep time> >> >> soft-paleo-tissue:>>> >>> >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0>>>> >> >> >> Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new> >> >> theory> >> has been proposed that states the same chemical >> reactions> >> responsible> >> for destroying soft tissues are now also >> responsible> >> for preserving> >> soft tissue. This line of >> argumentation has a very> >> Einsteinian, very> >> relativistic ring to >> it. Don't you think?> >> >> >> Mitch, we know from the study of >> biological molecule half-lives that> >> >> the hundreds of instances of >> dinosaur soft tissue can be nowhere near>> >> > as old as the >> Lyellists, the Huttonists and the Darwinists claim. We>> >> > also have >> the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed,>> >> > and >> presumably atheist mathematicians ( here:> >> >> >> https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today> >> >> are> > descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around> >> >> the time> > of Noah.> >> Are you just making stuff up, or can you >> give references to serious>> >> studies of biological molecule >> half-lives? I suspect that you know as>> >> little about biological >> molecule half-lives as you do about physics.>>>> >> --> athel -- >> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots> > Check my >> links, Athel. Check my links. Reputable scientists all.> > Athel, do >> you honestly ask this forum to believe that RBCs can last 75> > million >> years in situ? >> A youtube video is not a reference that any serios person would cite.> >> As for the other, there are 122 publications, and I'm not going to> >> plough through all them to find which ones are the most important for> >> your claim. Please list ONE, maybe TWO, that you think convincing. >> -- >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > > Athel, the soft tissue storm began in 2005. Here is a link to a > popularized account for the benefit of others on this cite: > https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html I don't want a popularized account; I want a serious one. Is it really so difficult for you to give a proper reference? > > Mary Switzer's discovery has lead to over 100 others. You scholarly expertise is so impressive that you haven't managed to learn how to spell Schweitzer! > She faced more attacks on her work than J Harlen Bretz. I would > suggest you consult her seminal 2005 paper first. > > It is a testament to the insular nature of your profession and it's > systemic immune response to narrative-destroying discoveries, that is > has taken you nearly 20 years to finally update yourself on state of > dinosaur soft tissue. this article is 10 years old. The iron-toast > theory mentioned in the article is now dead. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65293621-5ea2-442e-89da-3e2f9329eeccn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613041 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 9:46:39 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-06-16 16:38:50 +0000, patdolan said: > > > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:56:21 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-06-16 14:52:01 +0000, patdolan said:>> > On Friday, June 16, > >> 2023 at 6:04:55 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On > >> 2023-06-16 09:59:11 +0000, patdolan said:>> > On Thursday, June 15,> >> > >> 2023 at 7:24:45 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> >> On Thursday, June 15,> > >> >> 2023 at 4:07:03 AM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:> > On> >> Wednesday, > >> June 14,> >> 2023 at 9:22:56 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:> > >> >> On > >> 6/14/23 10:48> >> PM, patdolan wrote:> > > > the earth is not 4.5> >> > >> billion [years> >> old]. Newton said the oceans are> > > > not salty> > >> >> enough. Kelvin> >> said the earth is not cold enough. Gauss> > > > > >> said the> >> earth is> >> too magnetic.> > > Wow! You are over a > >> century out of date.> >> None of> >> those arguments hold up> > > > >> today:> > > * Newton did not> >> account> >> for all the processes > >> affecting the> > > salinity of the ocean,> >>> >> which has been > >> approximately constant> > > for at least 1.5 billion> >>> >> years.> > > >> > * Kelvin did not know about radioactive decay, which has>> >> >> > >> been> > > heating the earth from inside.> > > * I'm not sure Gauss> >> > >> ever> >> said that, but back then not enough> > > was known about the> > >> >> earth's> >> internal structure.> > >> > > Radiometric dating shows > >> the> >> earth is> >> indeed about 4.5 billion years old.> > >> > > Tom > >> Roberts>> >> >> >> Radiometric dating also conclusively proves that all > >> diamonds and> >> crude> >> oil are at most 50,000 years old.> >> Mitch > >> my man, find> >> below a curated list of over 100 papers so far,> >> > >> documenting soft> >> dinosaur tissue and other deep time> >> > >> soft-paleo-tissue:>>> >>> >> > >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit#gid=0>>>> > >> >> >> Many of these soft specimens are over a billion years old. A new> > >> >> theory> >> has been proposed that states the same chemical > >> reactions> >> responsible> >> for destroying soft tissues are now also > >> responsible> >> for preserving> >> soft tissue. This line of > >> argumentation has a very> >> Einsteinian, very> >> relativistic ring to > >> it. Don't you think?> >> >> >> Mitch, we know from the study of > >> biological molecule half-lives that> >> >> the hundreds of instances of > >> dinosaur soft tissue can be nowhere near>> >> > as old as the > >> Lyellists, the Huttonists and the Darwinists claim. We>> >> > also have > >> the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed,>> >> > and > >> presumably atheist mathematicians ( here:> >> >> > >> https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today> >> > >> are> > descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around> > >> >> the time> > of Noah.> >> Are you just making stuff up, or can you > >> give references to serious>> >> studies of biological molecule > >> half-lives? I suspect that you know as>> >> little about biological > >> molecule half-lives as you do about physics.>>>> >> --> athel -- > >> biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots> > Check my > >> links, Athel. Check my links. Reputable scientists all.> > Athel, do > >> you honestly ask this forum to believe that RBCs can last 75> > million > >> years in situ? > >> A youtube video is not a reference that any serios person would cite.> > >> As for the other, there are 122 publications, and I'm not going to> > >> plough through all them to find which ones are the most important for> > >> your claim. Please list ONE, maybe TWO, that you think convincing. > >> -- > >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > > > > Athel, the soft tissue storm began in 2005. Here is a link to a > > popularized account for the benefit of others on this cite: > > https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html > I don't want a popularized account; I want a serious one. Is it really > so difficult for you to give a proper reference? > > > > Mary Switzer's discovery has lead to over 100 others. > You scholarly expertise is so impressive that you haven't managed to > learn how to spell Schweitzer! > > She faced more attacks on her work than J Harlen Bretz. I would > > suggest you consult her seminal 2005 paper first. > > > > It is a testament to the insular nature of your profession and it's > > systemic immune response to narrative-destroying discoveries, that is > > has taken you nearly 20 years to finally update yourself on state of > > dinosaur soft tissue. this article is 10 years old. The iron-toast > > theory mentioned in the article is now dead. > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots Athel, your ignorance of this subject amounts to academic malfeasance. Will you commit to this forum that you will contact your students from 2005 on, and offer tuition refunds?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6697861c-cf11-4a86-9f70-5ac874f83e5dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613021 |
On June 16, patdolan wrote: > We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and > presumably atheist mathematicians > ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people > on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived > around the time of Noah. A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that they "knew" each other - -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fdd58e8-18b5-497c-8e75-53b39223e781n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613046 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-7, RichD wrote: > On June 16, patdolan wrote: > > We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and > > presumably atheist mathematicians > > ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people > > on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived > > around the time of Noah. > A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that > they "knew" each other - > > > -- > Rich Numeraphile indicates that it was a single mating pair from which we are all descendants, between 500 and 3,000 years ago. If it was Noah and his wife, then there were also three sons and three daughters in-law extant. Old Noah and his wife may have not copulated, post-flood. But the 3 young couples almost certainly did, both matrimonially and adulterously. The Numeraphile video's speculation still holds good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 17:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u6ij0k$ufqe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #613046 |
On 6/16/2023 2:55 PM, RichD wrote: > On June 16, patdolan wrote: >> We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and >> presumably atheist mathematicians >> ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people >> on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived >> around the time of Noah. > > A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that > they "knew" each other - > There's "Y chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", who were the most recent common ancestor of all men's Y Chromosome and everyone's mitochondrial DNA respectively. By knowing the mutation rates in the Y chromosome/mitochondrial DNA respectively, they can estimate how long ago they lived. I don't know the estimates but I do know they're significantly different. Not only weren't they a mating pair, they didn't even live during the same time. There is a genetic bottleneck from about 70,000 years ago when there was a near-extinction event for humans (a volcano I think) and all humans alive now are descended from a rather small population (a few thousand breeding pairs) which survived it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c969c6e5-445b-4837-bdb9-909765fe0323n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613054 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 6:08:40 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: > On 6/16/2023 2:55 PM, RichD wrote: > > On June 16, patdolan wrote: > >> We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and > >> presumably atheist mathematicians > >> ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people > >> on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived > >> around the time of Noah. > > > > A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that > > they "knew" each other - > > > There's "Y chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", who were the most > recent common ancestor of all men's Y Chromosome and everyone's > mitochondrial DNA respectively. By knowing the mutation rates in the Y > chromosome/mitochondrial DNA respectively, they can estimate how long > ago they lived. I don't know the estimates but I do know they're > significantly different. Not only weren't they a mating pair, they > didn't even live during the same time. > > There is a genetic bottleneck from about 70,000 years ago when there was > a near-extinction event for humans (a volcano I think) and all humans > alive now are descended from a rather small population (a few thousand > breeding pairs) which survived it. Moroney mutated into Volney in just one year. Now Volney is mutating into Bodkin at warp speed. Incredible. It gives some credit to Pat's timeline for evolution since Noah.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-16 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2bf73db-ccdd-4061-8887-4dd0773297dan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613054 |
On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 2:08:40 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 6/16/2023 2:55 PM, RichD wrote: > > On June 16, patdolan wrote: > >> We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and > >> presumably atheist mathematicians > >> ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people > >> on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived > >> around the time of Noah. > > > > A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that > > they "knew" each other - > > > There's "Y chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", who were the most > recent common ancestor of all men's Y Chromosome and everyone's > mitochondrial DNA respectively. By knowing the mutation rates in the Y > chromosome/mitochondrial DNA respectively, they can estimate how long > ago they lived. I don't know the estimates but I do know they're > significantly different. Not only weren't they a mating pair, they > didn't even live during the same time. > > There is a genetic bottleneck from about 70,000 years ago when there was > a near-extinction event for humans (a volcano I think) and all humans > alive now are descended from a rather small population (a few thousand > breeding pairs) which survived it. Volrony, see my numeraphile link to educate yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 08:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u6k947$18189$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #613066 |
On 6/16/2023 8:24 PM, patdolan wrote: > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 2:08:40 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 6/16/2023 2:55 PM, RichD wrote: >>> On June 16, patdolan wrote: >>>> We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, acclaimed, and >>>> presumably atheist mathematicians >>>> ( here: https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people >>>> on earth today are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived >>>> around the time of Noah. >>> >>> A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that >>> they "knew" each other - >>> >> There's "Y chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve", who were the most >> recent common ancestor of all men's Y Chromosome and everyone's >> mitochondrial DNA respectively. By knowing the mutation rates in the Y >> chromosome/mitochondrial DNA respectively, they can estimate how long >> ago they lived. I don't know the estimates but I do know they're >> significantly different. Not only weren't they a mating pair, they >> didn't even live during the same time. >> >> There is a genetic bottleneck from about 70,000 years ago when there was >> a near-extinction event for humans (a volcano I think) and all humans >> alive now are descended from a rather small population (a few thousand >> breeding pairs) which survived it. > Volrony, see my numeraphile link to educate yourself. Sorry, I prefer actual science. A genetic bottleneck of Noah, his wife and a few daughters-in-law is too tight and humanity is unlikely to have survived it. (see King Charles II to see what the outcome of such a family tree would be). Not to mention Adam & Eve themselves!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 19:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qchcm9.159vztu1q79dglN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #613093 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 6/16/2023 8:24 PM, patdolan wrote: > > On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 2:08:40?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 6/16/2023 2:55 PM, RichD wrote: > >>> On June 16, patdolan wrote: > >>>> We also have the mathematical demonstration from fine young, > >>>> acclaimed, and presumably atheist mathematicians ( here: > >>>> https://youtu.be/Fm0hOex4psA?t=974 ) that all people on earth today > >>>> are descended from a single mating pair of humans who lived around > >>>> the time of Noah. > >>> > >>> A single pair, yes, but not necessarily a mating pair. No proof that > > >>they "knew" each other - > There's "Y chromosome Adam" and > >>"Mitochondrial Eve", who were the most recent common ancestor of all > >>men's Y Chromosome and everyone's mitochondrial DNA respectively. By > >>knowing the mutation rates in the Y chromosome/mitochondrial DNA > >>respectively, they can estimate how long ago they lived. I don't know > >>the estimates but I do know they're significantly different. Not only > >>weren't they a mating pair, they didn't even live during the same time. > >> > >> There is a genetic bottleneck from about 70,000 years ago when there > >> was a near-extinction event for humans (a volcano I think) and all > >> humans alive now are descended from a rather small population (a few > >> thousand breeding pairs) which survived it. > > > Volrony, see my numeraphile link to educate yourself. > > Sorry, I prefer actual science. > > A genetic bottleneck of Noah, his wife and a few daughters-in-law is too > tight and humanity is unlikely to have survived it. (see King Charles II > to see what the outcome of such a family tree would be). Not to mention > Adam & Eve themselves! Eve was supposed to be from Adam's rib, so they would have started out with no genetic diversity at all, But that is creationist nuttery, and there is talk.origins for that. Let's agree to just stop responding to it, or reply with a Follow-up-To: set, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-17 19:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kf699nFmq5fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #613125 |
On 2023-06-17 17:30:42 +0000, J. J. Lodder said: > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> … ] >> Sorry, I prefer actual science. >> >> A genetic bottleneck of Noah, his wife and a few daughters-in-law is too >> tight and humanity is unlikely to have survived it. (see King Charles II >> to see what the outcome of such a family tree would be). Not to mention >> Adam & Eve themselves! > > Eve was supposed to be from Adam's rib, > so they would have started out with no genetic diversity at all, > > But that is creationist nuttery, and there is talk.origins for that. > Let's agree to just stop responding to it, On the whole I agree, but this excursion into creationism illustrates how often crackpots who believe in one kind of nuttery also believe in others. > or reply with a Follow-up-To: set, > > Jan -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web