How old is the earth?

[CrowCross]

That is Funny! As I said evolution is my favorite joke.
There is an article posted on the Mitochondrial Eve Thread.
It notes that Chimps are not 1% genetically different from Man.
Chimps are 15% genetically different from Man
According to the Theory, chimps and Men evolved from a common ancestor 7 million years
1% mutation difference between humans and apes =35 million mutation @ 7 million years
15% = 525 million mutation @ 7million years
OK, so we have 535 million mutations, not 35 million.

The evolutionist can either
change the rate
535 million divided by 7 million = mutation rate per yr = 76 mutations for year (1% = 5 mutations per year)
OR
increase the time
15 x 7 million
1% would take 7 million yrs
15% would take 105 million yrs

Yes, there seems to be an issue with time.

A second problem occurs when one realizes a second, third and so on RANDOM mutation must occur in a fashion that it builds upon a previous mutation in a way that it enhances the fitness of the "evolving" man.

 

[CrowCross]

This post displays a misunderstanding of the issues, especially as this is not an either–or thing (i.e., a 1% difference and a 15% difference are BOTH true). It all comes down to what is being examined. If you examine this here, it's a 1% difference. If you examine that there, it's a 15% difference. Anti-evolutionists conflate the two (fallacious category error) and pretend there is a conflict.

Yes, it does depend on how the differences are examined. The evo's have flown the 1% flag up the flag pole for a long time...and many bought into that misrepresentation. It has been so misrepresented that it has become ingrained in the minds of the students force fed the error that it is now hard to overcome the error with the actual truth.

 

[QVQ]

Off Topic Deleted QVQ

 

[John Bauer]

I studied Lemaitre a bit a couple years ago and I remember well..... "It was Lemaître's firm belief that scientific endeavour should stand isolated from the religious realm. With specific regard to his Big Bang theory, he commented: 'As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question.'

Albeit he was a Catholic Priest... and Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. ...

I am reminded of something Denis R. Alexander pointed out in his book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Monarch, 2014):

Now, there is a tradition in modern science not to use "God" as an explanation in scientific discourse. This tradition was nurtured by the early founders of the Royal Society partly in an attempt to let the natural philosophers (as scientists were then called) get on with their job without becoming embroiled in the religious disputes of the time, but also in recognition that the universe is, in any case, all the work of a wise Creator—so using God as an explanation for bits of it didn't really make much sense, given that God was in charge of all of it. (p. 215; emphasis mine)

 

[John Bauer]

And if I can't laugh at the absurdities of Darwinism ...

Of course you can. However, what you described was a strawman version (i.e., the laughable absurdity was something you invented).

You would assert, that 1% is what makes monkeys of us all.

I most certainly would not. This is yet another strawman—a distortion that is different from and usually weaker than the actual position.

My point is the evolutionist twiddle the math and deny the evidence, ...

What evidence do they deny, sir?

 

[John Bauer]

Yes, it does depend on how the differences are examined. The evo's have flown the 1% flag up the flag pole for a long time...and many bought into that misrepresentation. It has been so misrepresented that it has become ingrained in the minds of the students force fed the error that it is now hard to overcome the error with the actual truth.

As I said already, the "1% flag" was not their only one. They have also flown the 95% flag, and even the 85% flag. Again, it depends on how DNA is compared and what aspects of the genome are analyzed. The 99% figure captures how alike the shared parts of our genomes are, while the 85% reflects the total amount of DNA we actually have in common. Both are accurate, but they describe different levels of comparison.

99% similarity from aligned orthologous nucleotide identity: This figure typically refers to the similarity in aligned protein-coding regions of the genome. When comparing the sequences of genes that code for proteins (about 1-2% of the genome), humans and chimps share about 98.7% identical DNA. This number comes from early studies, like the 2005 Chimpanzee Genome Consortium genome analysis, which focused on single nucleotide substitutions in conserved, syntenic regions.

85% similarity from whole-genome content similarity: This lower figure often accounts for broader genomic differences, including insertions, deletions, and structural variations. When the entire genome is considered, including non-coding regions, repetitive sequences, and structural differences, the similarity drops significantly. Some studies emphasize these differences and estimate similarities around 85–87% by including indels and other genomic variations.

 

[QVQ]

What evidence do they deny, sir?

It is ma'am

Well it appears the US Gov't in the cannola field studies did not deny
They set up an experiment to determine a question about genetics
The question they asked was exactly on point
The results were divided out to reveal one of the 3 ways that mutationn (evolution) fails in plant studies.
That was encouraging.

At least the US Gov't researchers understood the problem and how to arrive at a correct answer.

Because one thing that evolutionist deny deny deny is that all evidence of evolution by mutation is circumstantial and speculative.
That is Deny

And you can't keep mindlessly mocking my 3 point mutation 1) Sterile (won't come true from seed) 2) not viable, can't survive outside cultivation (controlled breeding) 3) revert to type (sheds the mutation or transgene in a few generations)

I didn't make up that list. That is well known that man has never seen evolution by mutation although we have seen recombination of genes already present within the species (controlled breeding). That is not evolution or mutation.

The US Gov't used that list as it is the plant breeders lament.
"Well, we know angiosperms have evolved at least once?"
But there isn't any evidence angiosperms are evolving or will suddenly evolve in the future.
And as far as we have been able and we have tried, we can't make them.
No evolution.

 

[John Bauer]

It is ma'am

My apologies. Thanks for the correction.

Well it appears the US government in the canola field studies did not deny.

That is not relevant. You said evolutionists deny the evidence. What evidence do they deny?

[Reiterated material about canola crops.]

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.

Because one thing that evolutionists deny is that all evidence of evolution by mutation is circumstantial and speculative.

I gave you a specific example of a point mutation (in Rht-B1b). Explain how it is "circumstantial and speculative."

Circumstantial: Implies a fact but doesn't directly prove it.

Speculative: Based on assumption or conjecture rather than solid evidence.

And you can't keep mindlessly mocking my 3 point mutation 1) Sterile (won't come true from seed) 2) not viable, can't survive outside cultivation (controlled breeding) 3) revert to type (sheds the mutation or transgene in a few generations)

I didn't mock it, much less mindlessly. I refuted each of those three points with direct evidence.

 

[QVQ]

I gave you a specific example of a point mutation (in Rht-B1b).

Do you undestand the difference between mutation and evolution?
And I have told you point mutation RhT-B1 is not an example of evolution.
It is an example of gene manipulation and induced mutations but those mutations did not evolve and will not evolve. Dead Ends

There are two ways to dwarf wheat
Hybrid (controlled breeding )
RhT 1b which is an induced mutation, irradiated or chemical

1) RhT Hybrids, if you buy a pack of F1 hybrid marigold, First planting big plants big flowers. Save seeds, Second planting flowers and plants are small like their ancestor. Hybrids are Controlled Breeding
The dwarf wheat in the Green Revolution is a hybrid.
The dwarfing is a natural gene (trait) that is selected by the plant breeder.
Won't come true from seed. You have to buy new seed or lose the dwarfing
Hybrid dwarf wheat is not a mutation or evolution. It is created by breeding which has been practiced for thousands of years. Certain traits inherent in the species will be selected but if the selective breeding stops, the animal or plant goes wild..poodle to mutt.

2) RhT 1b irradiation induced hybrids. Seeds require radiation and further contolled breeding to produce seeds with the mutation,
However the mutation is subject to repair and deselection so, in the long run, not viable. The irradiated strains shed the mutation in subsequent generations...deselection and repair
New seeds have to irradiateed to keep the mutation in subsequent generations.

I couldn't find any more specific information. Radiation mostly causes severe degeneration in genomes.
So no. RhT 1b is not a mutation that can evolve 1) won't come true from seed 2) not viable outside cultivation 3) repairs or deselects the mutation (reverts to type)

It helps to have hands on experience with animal and plant genetics as book learning is just repeat after me.

 

[Rella]

I am reminded of something Denis R. Alexander pointed out in his book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?, 2nd ed. (Monarch, 2014):

Now, there is a tradition in modern science not to use "God" as an explanation in scientific discourse. This tradition was nurtured by the early founders of the Royal Society partly in an attempt to let the natural philosophers (as scientists were then called) get on with their job without becoming embroiled in the religious disputes of the time, but also in recognition that the universe is, in any case, all the work of a wise Creator—so using God as an explanation for bits of it didn't really make much sense, given that God was in charge of all of it. (p. 215; emphasis mine)

Ah, I see. Yes, I also have read and heard things similar.

Not being a scientist (praise God) (I barely could dissect a frog) I am what one would call an anti-evolutionist.... and am totally pro God in creating everything.

I cannot rationalize evolution no matter how far back one goes for the simple reason that you 99 44/100% of the time need a male and female and if one evolves, by the time a second evolves the first would be dead. I am more on the thought of interbreeding.

We have biblical examples of that when we read the Sons of God married and bred with the Daughters of man.... if you believe the account, as I do .

Or if you have had your DNA run (3 times in my case) and find that from somewhere a very long time ago I have Neanderthal varients.

But this is just my opinion.....

 

[CrowCross]

while the 85% reflects the total amount of DNA we actually have in common.

Which considering that amount...it shows we and chimps didn't split.
The amount of difference, mutation required and time allowed clearly shows that.

I'd stick with what God said.

 

[EarlyActs]

further corroboration of the Walam Olam is the cataclysm references which are abundant in other cultures outside the Bible, and a centralized tower society, giantism, etc. It is by no means the only record referring to such things. Knowing modern science, it is highly likely that these items are suppressed.

Once modern science realizes the connection between the Biblical cataclysm account and the ice age, a lot of modern science will collapse. A recent doc admitted to the suppression of Bretz for years, but failed to account for the thing which made Bretz credible (through a colleague): the source of the enormous amount of water that moved, which was the northern ice cover.

 

[John Bauer]

Do you undestand the difference between mutation and evolution?

Yes, ma'am.

And I have told you point mutation RhT-B1 is not an example of evolution. ... The dwarfing is a natural gene (trait) that is selected by the plant breeder.

[All emphases mine.]

Whether or not it's an example of evolution, at least here you quietly concede that Rht-B1b is a mutation. Originally, you said it wasn't: "Dwarf wheat was developed ‘through traditional cross-breeding techniques, utilizing naturally occurring dwarf genes’ (quote from article). It isn't a mutation ..." (source). "Dwarf wheat ... is not a mutation" (source).

(It is worth pointing out that the article she quoted—for which she didn't provide the source—said that these dwarf genes were "naturally occurring." Naturally occurring means not induced.)

[The mutation of Rht-B1] is an example of gene manipulation and induced mutations, but those mutations did not evolve and will not evolve. Dead ends.

I think there might be some equivocation with the term "evolve" here, because these mutations certainly did evolve somewhere in the prehistoric past. (We don't know how long ago.) These dwarfing genes appear to have originated with Shiro Daruma, a semi-dwarf Japanese landrace wheat that has been around for millennia.

So, I'm afraid that Rht-B1b was a naturally-occurring point mutation, as the article you quoted said—neither induced nor manipulated—which Japanese breeders exploited to create the Norin series of wheat through traditional Mendelian breeding, not mutagenesis protocols. See: Takeo Matsumoto, "Norin 10: A Dwarf Winter Wheat Variety," Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly 3, no. 4 (1968): 22–26.

For example, they crossed Shiro Daruma (Japanese) with Fultz (American) in the early 1900s to create Fultz-Daruma, which was bred with Turkey Red (Ukrainian) in the 1920s to create Norin 10, which was registered in October of 1935. And it was Norin 10 that agronomist Orville Vogel first introduced to America in 1946, crossing it with local wheat lines to create varieties like Gaines. Norman Borlaug used Norin 10 to create the high-yielding, semi-dwarf wheat varieties (e.g., Pitic 62) which fueled the Green Revolution in Mexico and beyond.

But this is just book-learning, so what do I know.

There are two ways to dwarf wheat: hybrid (controlled breeding), and Rht 1b which is an induced mutation, irradiated or chemical.

There is also a third way: A naturally-occurring mutation, found in Japanese semi-dwarf wheat.

Question: What is the source of your claim that the Rht-B1b point mutation was induced?

Rht hybrids, if you buy a pack of F₁ hybrid marigold, ...

I have a basic grasp of how hybrid seed crops work.

However, unlike F₁ hybrids (which segregate in F₂), dwarf wheat cultivars with these alleles are homozygous, pure-line, and self-pollinating. These features explain why the dwarfing mutation is heritable, viable, and persistent across generations (contrary to your claim that mutations are sterile, not viable, and revert to type).

For the reader: The fact that these cultivars are homozygous across key loci is what tells us they're not F₁ hybrids.

A homozygous locus (e.g., Rht-B1b/Rht-B1b) ensures that all progeny receive the same allele from each parent. In pure-line wheat, virtually all key traits are genetically fixed, meaning the offspring inherit the same traits without variation. And self-pollination ensures the integrity of the dwarfing trait is stably inherited.

By way of contrast, F₁ hybrids contain heterozygous loci by design and, when replanted, the F₂ generation segregates phenotypically and genotypically, resulting in inconsistent performance. Dwarf wheat does not behave like this; it breeds true.

RhT 1b irradiation induced hybrids. Seeds require radiation and further contolled breeding to produce seeds with the mutation,

While there are Rht alleles created through radiation in wheat (e.g., Rht12 or other variants studied in mutagenesis programs), these are not the alleles in Norin 10 or modern commercial dwarf wheat.

The dwarf wheat in the Green Revolution is a hybrid.

That statement is simply incorrect. The fact that these cultivars are homozygous is the genetic evidence that proves it.

F₁ hybrids, by definition, are (a) heterozygous at key loci, (b) genetically uniform in the F₁ generation but segregate in the F₂, and (c) not stable across generations (i.e., farmers can't save seed without performance loss).

Green Revolution dwarf wheat cultivars are (a) homozygous at key loci, (b) developed through traditional pedigree breeding, not hybrid seed systems, and (c) self-pollinating pure lines, so they breed true—no segregation, no reversion, no loss of dwarfing trait.

Hybrid dwarf wheat is not a mutation or evolution. ... So no, RhT 1b is not a mutation that can evolve

And we're back to saying it's not a mutation.

[Hybrid dwarf wheat] is created by breeding which has been practiced for thousands of years.

For the reader: She is not acknowledging the difference between traditional pedigree breeding (used in crops like dwarf wheat) and hybrid seed systems (used in crops like canola), perhaps failing to recognize their fundamental genetic and agronomic differences.

Traditional pedigree breeding is a method of line breeding that uses successive self-pollination and selection to produce homozygous, stable, true-breeding cultivars.

Hybrid seed systems involve crossing two distinct homozygous inbred parental lines to create an F₁ hybrid that is heterozygous and genetically unstable in subsequent generations—traits segregate in F₂, which is why farmers must purchase new seed each season.

RhT 1b irradiation induced hybrids. Seeds require radiation and further contolled breeding to produce seeds with the mutation,
However the mutation is subject to repair and deselection so, in the long run, not viable. The irradiated strains shed the mutation in subsequent generations...deselection and repair
New seeds have to irradiateed to keep the mutation in subsequent generations.

The dwarfing genes were not produced by artificial irradiation. It was found in a Japanese landrace wheat and subsequently used in pedigree breeding programs, not mutagenesis protocols.

(We are also back to saying it's a mutation again. My head is starting to spin.)

It helps to have hands on experience with animal and plant genetics, as book learning is just repeat-after-me.

I am content to let the reader be the judge of that.

---

I AM REITERATING MY REQUEST BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT:

Question: What is the source of your claim that the Rht-B1b point mutation was induced?

 

[Rella]

Good morning boys and girls....

I want to post this link because it kind of falls under the heading of this thread of How old the Earth is, with quite a twist.

It is 30 or 40 min long, but I was not bored once.... I wont say it hanged my mind but offers some gap fillers for certain things.

Have a look and if not too early grab your popcorn or at least some coffee or tea and enjoy.... with an open mind.

https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=63Nx_xa-rOM

THE BOOK REMOVED FROM GENESIS — THE LOST CHAPTER HIDDEN BY THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL

 

[EarlyActs]

Good morning boys and girls....

I want to post this link because it kind of falls under the heading of this thread of How old the Earth is, with quite a twist.

It is 30 or 40 min long, but I was not bored once.... I wont say it hanged my mind but offers some gap fillers for certain things.

Have a look and if not too early grab your popcorn or at least some coffee or tea and enjoy.... with an open mind.

https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=63Nx_xa-rOM

THE BOOK REMOVED FROM GENESIS — THE LOST CHAPTER HIDDEN BY THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL

I'm 10 mins in and the burden of the script is not on the age of the earth but rather on the origin of evil. It seems to think Genesis, as is, is taken by surprise about the Nephilim and giants, rather than just muting it to focus on the Seed. And that there is some surprise about evil existing in the universe.

I have read people who thought that evil did not exist until the moment Adam sinned, but that would not address the pre-existing evil of Satan before he comes on the scene or stage of Genesis.

Related to this is the definition of 'tohu.' The LXX team went with 'submerged' when they put the Torah in Greek. Yet the term 'tohu' is used for a destroyed Jerusalem in Jeremiah 4, unless Jeremiah is merely making a metaphor, like Daniel does about the coming destruction in Dan 9 in 'the end will come like a destructive flood.' If 'tohu' is about destroying something in wrath, then it speaks of an episode before creation week.

 

[QVQ]

(We are also back to saying it's a mutation again. My head is starting to spin.)

Mendelian Genetics
Recombination of Existing Genes. (no mutation)
1) When I hybridize African Violets, I choose plants with Existing characteristics. All those genes (traits) selected are in the plant/species.. All Genes are present in the organism. None Added, None Subtracted No Mutation No Evoluton.

Genetically Modified Organism ( chemical -radiation)
1) Chemical induced: Polyploidism in Irises (Colchicine) This process damages the DNA. These changes in the genome are mutations
2) Radiation induced: wheat, rice barley..
GMO are Mutations. The genes for the plants are mutated (damaged) and then subjected to Mandelian Genetics (selected recombination)

GMO are Mutated but not Evolved
In Subsequent generations GMO plants Repair the Genome or Deselect the Mutation (damaged genome)
And the GMO variety fail on my list of #3) Revert to Type.

It is difficult to find information about GMO. Anyone who is interested in GMO wheat is encouraged to do their own research.
GMO wheat is prohibited in the US.

Meanwhile....
To me, Genetics is a box of tools. I certainly do not use the Motor Manual for my truck for religious instruction.
# Question and this is important, what does Genetics have to do with Christian Theology?

(note: I make a clear distinction between the science of genetics and the theory of evolutiom)

 

[QVQ]

Deleted by QVQ Double Post
See Post #476 above

 

[Rella]

I'm 10 mins in and the burden of the script is not on the age of the earth but rather on the origin of evil. It seems to think Genesis, as is, is taken by surprise about the Nephilim and giants, rather than just muting it to focus on the Seed. And that there is some surprise about evil existing in the universe.

I have read people who thought that evil did not exist until the moment Adam sinned, but that would not address the pre-existing evil of Satan before he comes on the scene or stage of Genesis.

Related to this is the definition of 'tohu.' The LXX team went with 'submerged' when they put the Torah in Greek. Yet the term 'tohu' is used for a destroyed Jerusalem in Jeremiah 4, unless Jeremiah is merely making a metaphor, like Daniel does about the coming destruction in Dan 9 in 'the end will come like a destructive flood.' If 'tohu' is about destroying something in wrath, then it speaks of an episode before creation week.

The age is suggested by what they are offering as things from pre-Gen 1.

If those things did happen in a writing that got left out or tossed out of the OT... that was certainly not just by 20 or 50 year extension to time...

So, I would say it is within consideration for here.

The rest can be taken under advisement, but I have read enough in the book of Enoch to agree with the suggestions there.

 

[CrowCross]

Good morning boys and girls....

I want to post this link because it kind of falls under the heading of this thread of How old the Earth is, with quite a twist.

It is 30 or 40 min long, but I was not bored once.... I wont say it hanged my mind but offers some gap fillers for certain things.

Have a look and if not too early grab your popcorn or at least some coffee or tea and enjoy.... with an open mind.

https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=63Nx_xa-rOM

THE BOOK REMOVED FROM GENESIS — THE LOST CHAPTER HIDDEN BY THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL

I watched the video....it seemed like an infomercial asking questions but never really giving an answer. Often repeating what was said in the previous part.

That said...the book of Enoch....

There is something true about the book of Enoch. Jude quotes it in his book.
Jude 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,.......this comes from 1st Enoch where 1:9 says.... 9 Behold! He comes with tens of thousands of His holy ones to pass judgment upon all,

It is believed that the Jews of that day knew of the book of Enoch. It is said that when Jesus mentions the many mansions in John 14:2 the many mansions Jesus is refering to the book of Enoch. Enoch 39:4.

To add...Gen 6 only mentions the fallen angels marrying the women and doesn't go into detail, because they already knew the story and there was no reason to elaborate on it. Jude 6 explained it.

The book of Enoch is included in the Ethopian bible.

There are those that believe that the "Book of Watchers" Chapter 1-36 and the "Parables" chapter 36 through 71 were written by Enoch while the remander was written by another much later on.

For good insight into the book of Enoch....search fro the work and videos presented by Timothy Alberino. Here is a great interview that was presented on Blurry Creatures.