YEC Fossil evidence?

Hello,

This is an off shoot of the second Kinds thread. and is similiar to what I asked there, but I thought I would make a new thread for fun.
In it the basic definition of kinds seems to be some sort of grouping just above species. With Horse, Donkey and Zebra all being in the same kind. We are also assuming that no new genetic information can be added. The Horse has 10 more chromosomes (almost double) than the zebra, so we must assume that in the Horse-like kind the horse is closer to perfection than the zebra. since no new information can be added we assume that the kind started with the horse, and that only the horse was on the ark (since noah only took 2 of each Kind aboard).

One way to test a hypothesis is to see if the evidence fits the hypothesis.
If we assume that two horses were taken onto the ark around 4400 years ago, then that means that the Donkey and the zebra must have deevolved from there.

(note, actual dates are just guesses)
So, if the horse was around 4400 years ago,
we should find some transition fossils from horse to donkey.
Then the donkey should appear say around 3000 years ago.
Then we should find some transition fossils from donkey to zebra.
Then the zebra should appear, say 2000 years ago.
Then the zebra should have continued to deevolve.

Unless the rate of deevolution has changed, we should be seeing the transition animals of a horse like kind with half the chromosome count as the zebra, to have appeared recently.

So, can fossils back up the hypothesis that 4400 years ago came only the horse and that it deevolved into other horse like kinds over the last 4400 years?

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

We should also, note, find that there is a positive relationship between a fossil's age and its apparent complexity. Really complex critters, full of information, should be further back in the fossil record.

__________________
--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic

We should also find (according to the flood model) evidence of migratory patterns of the world's species from Turkey (where the Ark supposedly landed) for the last 4000 years or so.

Good questions I'll see what i can come up with.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Descarte, “It is truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”

This here is not an answer to the questions,nonetheless it is related to it.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-152a.htm

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Descarte, “It is truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.”

Interesting article, it does have some mistakes in it.

First of all, Scientists Have seen new species appear.

Second, Two of a single like kind, dont have enough genetic diversity to make all the variations that are supposed to happen.

Third, They make an assumption that "then not even billions of years would suffice! [refering to mutations]" but dont give any evidence to back up why they wouldnt suffice.

Fourth, if everything worked the way they say it does, as I mentioned, we should easily find fossil evidence to back up the claims that the perfect animal came first and that other types of the kind came after.

If this is true, then we should find a gap where zebras dont exist in the fossil record. There should be a bunch of old zebras (where the flood supposably distorted their C-14 dating when it killed them), then there should be no more zebras until the horse deevolved back into the zebra.
So there should be a fossil gap where the zebra stops existing and then pops back into existance. Because the flood supposably distorted c-14 dating, this gap should appear very large to us.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Good point. Instead we find something quite different. The further down something is in the fossil record the less likely it was to survive post flood.  Now you might make the ad hoc arguement that dinosaurs and mammal like reptiles were not well adapted to the post flood world for some reason but what about mammals?

Here is an interesting little flood sorting problem regarding mammals presented by Glenn Morton
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/fish.htm
On the genus level the numbers of members of extant mammalian genera in the various geological epochs is:

oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic          43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous        36 genera-no living members
Paleocene        213 genera-no living members
Eocene           569 genera-3 extant genera
Oligocene        494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene          749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene         762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene      830 genera 417 extant genera
youngest

How is it that there is such a good correlation between how deeply mammalian fossils got buried and how well they survived after comming off the ark? You would think that at least one plaeocene mammal would have survived until today. Why is that the are only three extant genera from all those Eocene mammals and 417 from the pleistocene mammals. Why did flood sorting predict post flood survival? Could it be that there never was a global flood and that all those fossil really were buried over millions of years.  How do YECs interpret these data to fit nicely in a young earth time frame? They often say it is easy, so it should be easy.   I have yet to see this supposedly easy task accomplished by a YEC.  I wonder why not.

The Frumious Bandersnatch 

I said it in another thread and I'll say it here. This is the most intriguing argument I have seen. This question should be submitted to ICR, AiG and Hovind....and posted on II. You guys are on to something.

Not a bad idea.

Another thing I think I posted in a different thread is that if the flood somehow distorted all radiocarbon dating then not only should we see zebras disapear and reappear, but radiocarbon dating should suggest a very large gap between the disapearance of zebras and their reappearance, since the flood should have distorted Pre Flood animals readings to make them older than they appear.

So we should possibly see a couple thousand to a couple million year gap between zebra and zebra (or, non perfect horse like kind, and non perfect horse like kind.)

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Good point and that is something well worth looking into. Only we need to start our search in Armenian where the Ark landed.

http://www.armenianhighland.com/crad...onicle100.html

We are told that Noah stayed in this area, but his four sons went out to different areas to repopulate the earth. They must have taken animals with them.

I am not so sure they had any wild animals at all. Perhaps all they had were more along the line of domesticated animals that were needed for them to substain life. Sense there were farmers and hurdsman, rather than food gathers.