How old is the earth?

[QVQ]

From what you wrote can I deduce that the genetic make up of man according to your belief is that mans DNA hasn't decayed so-to-speak and is like the original DNA that Adam had?

Man's DNA was corrupted after Adam disobeyed God.
The flesh has not become more corrupt through degenerate evolution, which is just more evovution.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Just an Interesting Side note:
The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. A new article in Nature by Galápagos finch researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, “Speciation undone,” confirms what we’ve said here in the past — Galápagos finch species are capable of interbreeding — but adds a new twist: they’re interbreeding so much that in multiple cases, two “species” may be fusing back into one species.

 

[John Bauer]

Yes, a regression would be reverting to an earlier form. Landrace wheats (traditional, locally adapted) were used to develop the hybrid dwarf wheat.

Partially accurate. The reality is that a Japanese dwarf wheat, likely introduced from Korea, was crossed with a high-yielding American variety to produce a semi-dwarf wheat, Norin 10.

You said	The truth is
"Landrace wheats ..."	"A Japanese dwarf wheat ..."
"... (traditional, locally adapted) ..."	"... likely introduced from Korea ..."
"... were used to develop the hybrid ..."	"... was crossed with a high-yielding American variety to produce ..."
"... dwarf wheat."	"... a semi-dwarf wheat, Norin 10."

RhT 1b in dwarf wheat could be recessive.

No, it can't. The dwarfing allele Rht-B1b is semi-dominant—even one copy produces an intermediate height reduction (because the DELLA protein interferes with GA signaling in a dosage-dependent way):

• Rht-B1a—Rht-B1a = tall
• Rht-B1a—Rht-B1b = semi-dwarf
• Rht-B1b—Rht-B1b = fully dwarf

It can't even act recessive—because Rht-B1b exerts an effect even in single dose.

Dwarf wheat could also be genetically modified ...

It could be, yes—like any crop could be, using today's biotech tools. But that's a hypothetical, not the historical reality.

... as chemical and irradiation manipulation of genes were widely experimental in the 1920's and 1930's.

The timeline of mutagenesis technology and the breeding history of Norin 10 simply don't overlap in the way you're implying.

There were initial experiments in the 1920s and 1930s (with X-rays, not gamma rays), and these were research tools, not widespread agricultural breeding programs. Cobalt-60 wasn't even discovered (by nuclear reaction) until 1934, and gamma-ray facilities for agriculture came much later.

Again, Norin 10 was first produced in 1925, being registered and released 10 years later. It was preceded by Fultz-Daruma (1917), and Shiro-Daruma (1904)—the Rht-B1b mutation existing in all these lines way before mutagenesis technologies developed beyond the laboratory.

Mutation is mistake.

God doesn't make mistakes. In his providence God governs all natural processes, including mutations and even things we consider "random" (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29–30).

Mutations are just changes (in the nucleotide sequence of DNA), and not all changes are bad. Even in a fallen world, grace allows for variation that is useful and life-sustaining—like the dwarfing mutation in wheat that has fed untold millions.

(I would go so far as to say, theologically speaking, no change is bad.)

If, as you assert, RhT 1b is a mistake in recombination of genetic material specific to wheat, ...

Totally not what I said at all.

I said Rht-B1b is a specific nucleotide substitution (mutation)—namely, a "C" to "T" substitution at codon 383, converting a glutamine codon (CAA) into a stop codon (TAA), which produced a truncated protein that cannot bind gibberellins properly, making the plant gibberellin-insensitive. That resulted in a crop that has fed untold millions.

 

[John Bauer]

I don't see a regressions as that. I see a regression as the removal of certain genetic information rather than causing an enhancement of the fitness of the organism.

What if a mutation is just a change in certain genetic information, like a substituting a "C" with a "T" (from CAA to TAA)? No removal. Just a change. And what if that did cause an enhancement of the fitmess of the organism? For example, barley "ebr" mutants (mildew resistance).

Just as mutations can't add up over time and enhance a trait ...

Since we have direct evidence to the contrary (e.g., dwarf wheat), I will choose to ask, "What you mean by that?"

 

[QVQ]

God doesn't make mistakes. In his providence God governs all natural processes, including mutations and even things we consider "random" (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29–30).

The result of recombinaton and mutation is specific to that species.
RhT 1b cannot mutate in man because man does not have that gene.
So the only evolution of RhT 1b is a mutated recombination of Wheat DNA.
Nothing added, nothing subtracted, no evolution

There are certainly mistakes in copying DNA. And most are bad or useless.
And so far, "mutations" in irradiation, chemical, transgene insertion have resulted in 1) Sterile 2) not viable 3) revert to type.

I posted a quote on Post #501 concerning the isolation population controlled breeding of Darwin's Finches. The finches are #3, revert to type.
Any "speciation" between the Finches is variations within the species.

 

[CrowCross]

Just an Interesting Side note:
The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. A new article in Nature by Galápagos finch researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, “Speciation undone,” confirms what we’ve said here in the past — Galápagos finch species are capable of interbreeding — but adds a new twist: they’re interbreeding so much that in multiple cases, two “species” may be fusing back into one species.

I have no problem with speciation...the animals that came off the ark speciated.

 

[CrowCross]

Since we have direct evidence to the contrary (e.g., dwarf wheat), I will choose to ask, "What you mean by that?"

Descent with modification.....school book evolutionism is impossible.

Man didn't evolve from a lesser primate that split and made chimps.

 

[QVQ]

I have no problem with speciation...the animals that came off the ark speciated.

God created heaven and earth.

Darwinian Evolution was the religion of my childhood. Evoltution created All. Darwin, gospel, explained it all.
I studied the theory in school but it was mostly "repeat after me."
Then I was professionaly involved with livestock and farming
My hobbies were hybridizing plants and purebred animal

The Theory wasn't matching what I was seeing in real life. My anecdotes (as @John Bauer called them) from out on the rural route didn't match what I had been taught. Then the research I had to do about genetics, it looked as if Evolution was being disproved.

I don't have any special theory to replace it. The best I can do is "God created heaven and earth, Amen"
I will leave the theorizing to the geneticist who are gathering scientific evidence that is telling an entirely different story than Darwin.

 

[David Koberstein]

Some Christians think the earth is between 6,000 and 15,000 years old, coinciding with the Neolithic Age. Astronomers think it is 4.5 billion years old. Here is an attempt to resolve this incongruity.

Jesus turned water into wine in John 2:


How old was this wine?

If you asked the human observers/witnesses, the servants would say a few seconds old.

The story continued:


If you asked the expert, the banquet master, "How old is this wine?" He would say it was months or even years old.

So which answer is true?

Both are true, depending on the perspective. The supernatural perspective tells us that it was only a second old. The natural perspective tells us that it was at least some months old.

Similarly, in Genesis 1:


In the beginning, God created a 5-dimensional universe, 4-dimensional space-time, plus 1 spiritual dimension with dark matter and dark energy.


How old is the earth?

If we ask an astronomer from a natural perspective, he can only study present-day physical data based on scientific calculations. It is 4.5 billion years old. That's the scientific 4-D space-time perspective.

On the other hand, from the supernatural angle, if we read the passage literally, the present-day earth is only some thousands of years old. That's the biblical witnessed-time from the 5th-dimensional perspective.

So which answer is true?

Both are true depending on the time perspective. God created the earth with the embedded evolutionary records of billions of years of real history. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It focuses on the story of redemption. In terms of witnessed-time history, it is only some thousands of years old. On the other hand, from the scientific point of view, the earth is billions of years old.

This is different from Last Thursdayism because God tells me the contrary. God did not create the universe last Thursday. Genesis contradicts this. I can also contradict this. I was alive last Thursday. God was with me. God dwells in me. It happened in real live-time. I didn't see God create this universe last Thursday. I believe in the words of God, not Last Thursdayism.

Jesus spoke about it as a historical witnessed-time event in Mark 10:


From the perspective of scientific time, the details of this embedding are amazing:

• 24,000-year-old animal found alive, well, and ready to reproduce
• Fossils reveal what may be the oldest known case of the dino sniffles.

There are two different frameworks of time. Basically, witnessed-time started when Adam opened his eyes. On the other hand, space-time is measured by scientific calculations. Both are physically or spatially real in their respective frameworks of time. Even scientifically, there is something funny about time.

See also Adam, Eve, and evolution.

The current year on the Hebrew Calendar is 5785. Which means it has been 5785 years since creation.
This number comes from the ages of the Tanakh (Old Covenant) Jews.
Shalom Aleichem