Was Noah and his family the only human survivors?

[Calminian]

A single gray wolf has more genetic diversity (i.e. differences between its two copies of the genome) than the poodle does, so it has somewhat more material to work with, but its still stuck with just two copies of every gene.

And how about the dire wolf? Even more? I think it safe to say the more we travel backward in time, the more potential diversity we find in animals.

If you start with a biblical presupposition, you'd have to conclude the ark animals were the perfect specimens needed to produce the different species we have today. Animals migrated quickly both naturally and by human intervention and were separated by vast distances and very different climates.

Prior to the flood, my guess is there were no poodles or any other extremely isolated genetic pools. There may have been diversity in species back then, but there may not have been the need, as the geographic environments were more uniform. Thus the ark animals may have been very similar to the original created animals. Perhaps these also had much longer lifespans, like humans did, along with kinds of genetic superiority.

It makes sense to me.

 

[sfs]

And how about the dire wolf? Even more? I think it safe to say the more we travel backward in time, the more potential diversity we find in animals.

There's zero evidence to support that idea. Forty thousand year old Neandertal bones show far less diversity than modern humans, for example. As far as we know, the things that determine genetic diversity are population size and mutation rate.

If you start with a biblical presupposition, you'd have to conclude the ark animals were the perfect specimens needed to produce the different species we have today.

If I start with a Biblical presupposition, I have to conclude that nothing in genetics makes sense. There's simply no way to shoe-horn real-world genetics into a recent Flood model.

Animals migrated quickly both naturally and by human intervention and were separated by vast distances and very different climates.

How quickly could this happen? Remember, you've got to get every species to every part of the world. Who took plants and animals to Hawaii and New Zealand and the Azores and the Galapagos? (And why did they carefully distribute the plants and animals so that they look related to geographically nearby species?)

It makes sense to me.

I'm sure it does, but then again, you're not a geneticist.

 

[Calminian]

There's zero evidence to support that idea. Forty thousand year old Neandertal bones show far less diversity than modern humans, for example. As far as we know, the things that determine genetic diversity are population size and mutation rate.

Well they had bigger brains, we know that much. What's you're evidence they were less diverse or had less potential for diversity? I'm getting the impression from you, that changes are not a simply matter of genetic potential, but has a lot also to do with environment.

If I start with a Biblical presupposition, I have to conclude that nothing in genetics makes sense. There's simply no way to shoe-horn real-world genetics into a recent Flood model.

Well, it's a fairly new science. I would suggest that maybe you're putting a little too much blind faith in it. The Bible is a much more trustworthy source of truth, and history.

How quickly could this happen? Remember, you've got to get every species to every part of the world. Who took plants and animals to Hawaii and New Zealand and the Azores and the Galapagos? (And why did they carefully distribute the plants and animals so that they look related to geographically nearby species?)

Well there is no record of Noah taking plants on the ark, except for food. I think some cultivated plants obviously were moved by humans, but not all plants. Many just survived the flood by various ways.

But animals have been known to become very diverse in a short period of time. We have domestic dogs as proof. Now breeders played a role in this obviously, but it shows how the potential is there.

If I look at the biblical model, I can see how animals may have migrated into open spaces, and how man could have transported them. If Noah was a real person and real ship builder his descendants would have been also. The descendants of Japheth in particular were known as maritime peoples. I have no doubt the knew how to transports animals on a boat as they themselves set out to explore the new world.

I could easily see a group of animals ending up in a very unique climate isolated from its kin, and subject to the need for adaption its kin were not. I mean we've seen moth populations completely changes colors in a matter of months, right? All you need are the right circumstances and some very interesting changes can occur. Those that the flood and dispersion would have provided should be given serious consideration.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by sfs

See here.


No single dog breed would have enough genetic variation to generate all modern breeds in only a few thousand years -- there's a limited amount of genetic variation you can pack into each animal.

And what exactly is that limit? And is that limit based on animals we observe today? And were the original animals God created different, or superior in any way?
​

As sfs pointed out, two per animal. For humans, this means that there has never been a single pair (as in Adam and Eve) or even a group of 5 (as with the allegory of Noah). Many genes have too many alleles to fit in that few people, and if you had read the link sfs so nicely supplied (written by Christians, for Christians), there is a ton of genetic evidence showing that the human population was always much larger than it gets in the Biblical stories (if read literally).

For instance, think about noses. What kind of noses do you think Adam and Eve would have had? A wide polynesian nose, or a peaked roman nose, or a pointed French nose, or a thick Palestinan nose, or a small nose, or, or, or....? There are too many varieties available to fit into two (or 5) people, and we see that in gene locus after gene locus.

Some gene loci have literally hundreds of different alleles, when an original pair like Adam and Eve could only have contained 4. For instance, check out the HLA alleles, here: HLA Nomenclature @ hla.alleles.org

And yes, sfs is an expert in genetics. We are all very lucky to have his input here.

Animals migrated quickly both naturally and by human intervention and were separated by vast distances and very different climates.

So the flightless birds got to New zealand with human help? How about the polar bears to the arctic, but not the antarctic? Until modern times, no humans had ever been to antarctica, yet somehow they took all the varieties of penguins there? The animal geography situation shows that absurdity of a global flood, and that's just the tip of the iceberg: Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition.

For instance, the OP mentioned the egyptian civilization. They have a list of kings that is continuous before and after the flood. In fact, the supposed year of the flood is smack in the middle of one Pharaoh's reign - yet somehow the whole civilisation never seemed to notice the flood! The same goes for other civilisations around the world. Every piece of evidence found is just as if the flood never happened.

When an interpretation of the Holy Word of God is so obviously wrong, it hurts both our witness and Christianity itself to go around saying it has to be right.

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:


As sfs pointed out, two per animal. For humans, this means that there has never been a single pair (as in Adam and Eve) or even a group of 5 (as with the allegory of Noah). Many genes have too many alleles to fit in that few people, and if you had read the link sfs so nicely supplied (written by Christians, for Christians), there is a ton of genetic evidence showing that the human population was always much larger than it gets in the Biblical stories (if read literally).

sounds like a fascinating science but like I said, it's a very young science and it sounds like you're putting all your eggs in one basket. We have a very well preserved historical record in Genesis, as well as countless flood legends all over the world. To ignore that seems to irrational.

But here's an article that may shed some light by a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology.

Speciation and the Animals on the Ark
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

For instance, the OP mentioned the egyptian civilization. They have a list of kings that is continuous before and after the flood. .....

I see problems with egyptian chronology which I don't see with Genesis. Genesis is a much more logical coherent history. I don't know if you've checked them out, but egyptian chronologies are a mess quite frankly. Or as one egyptologist put it, ‘merely a collection of rags and tatters’ Evolutionists flock to them because it fits their ideas of an older earth, but there are problems that shouldn't be ignored. For one, Egypt historically has been a divided kingdom. There has always been a divide between upper and lower Egypt and they've often had simultaneous kings. Thus, many of the pharaohs listed in their records should not be stacked chronologically. Once you decode it, it's much more inline with the Bible.

Here's an interesting article on how egyptian chronology actually supports biblical chronology.
Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?

And another along the same lines.

Timing is everything
A talk with field archaeologist David Down

Also,
Fall of the Sothic theory: Egyptian chronology revisited
by Damien F. Mackey

When an interpretation of the Holy Word of God is so obviously wrong, it hurts both our witness and Christianity itself to go around saying it has to be right...

Yes, I know this is the basis of your motive and you believe your helping out God by reinterpreting His Word. I would encourage you to believe he doesn't need your help. Trusting God's word even when it is hard is a blessing waiting for every man. It's a shame so many feel the need to pass that blessing up.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

As sfs pointed out, two per animal. For humans, this means that there has never been a single pair (as in Adam and Eve) or even a group of 5 (as with the allegory of Noah). Many genes have too many alleles to fit in that few people, and if you had read the link sfs so nicely supplied (written by Christians, for Christians), there is a ton of genetic evidence showing that the human population was always much larger than it gets in the Biblical stories (if read literally).

​

sounds like a fascinating science but like I said, it's a very young science and it sounds like you're putting all your eggs in one basket.

Regardless of how old it is, it's clear that there are two genes per locus per animal. Similarly, the gasoline engine is pretty new too, but no one suggests that because its new, that gasoline engines don't work. Sorry, you can't deny reality just because of how long we've known it. Well, you can, I guess, but there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

We have a very well preserved historical record in Genesis, as well as countless flood legends all over the world. To ignore that seems to irrational.

Genesis doesn't claim to be literal history (and obviously is not), and theologian (including ancient Christians) have recognized this and pointed it out.

As I've explained before, the presence of highly divergent flood legends around the world only proves that humans tend to build cities by waterways, which is hardly a revelation.

But here's an article that may shed some light by a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology.

Um, why would you think that someone with a degree in molecular biology would be an expert in popluation biology?

More to the point, why would you ignore the consensus of millions of actual population biologists (and other relevant branches of biology) in favor of a few people who don't know what they are talking about?

Originally Posted by Papias

For instance, the OP mentioned the egyptian civilization. They have a list of kings that is continuous before and after the flood. .....

I see problems with egyptian chronology which I don't see with Genesis.

You see problems? In something you are clueless about? That's like me saying that I see problems in quantum physics, which I don't understand.

Your cited articles are all from creationists trying to push creationism, not from actual experts in Egyptian history. There are many actual experts, and I still wonder why creationists still fail to consult the consensus of the experts in the relevant field when they make a statement. It's like if I tried to use statements from a plumber to tell you how to deal with a cancer diagnosis.

The actual experts in Egyptian history show a clear picture, with records stretching solidly straight through the mythical flood, just as other histories do too.

Originally Posted by Papias

When an interpretation of the Holy Word of God is so obviously wrong, it hurts both our witness and Christianity itself to go around saying it has to be right...

Yes, I know this is the basis of your motive and you believe your helping out God by reinterpreting His Word. I would encourage you to believe he doesn't need your help.
​

"Reinterpreting"? What? Are you unaware that both ancient Jewish and ancient Christians have read Genesis in both literal and non-literal ways? The fact that you cling to one human interpretation that is obviously wrong is hardly justification for your claim that it is, or was, or can be, the only interpretation made.

I would encourage you to realize that your human interpretation is the human interpretation it is.

Trusting God's word even when it is hard is a blessing waiting for every man. It's a shame so many feel the need to pass that blessing up.

Yes! I encourage you trust God's word at all times! Just as you trust that Genesis 1 doesn't really mean the hard dome over a flat earth which it says.

Papias

 

[sfs]

Well they had bigger brains, we know that much. What's you're evidence they were less diverse or had less potential for diversity?

Geneticists have sequenced the entire genome of a Neandertal, so to see how much genetic diversity there was, all they had to do was count the number of places where the two copies in that individual differed. (They also did sequencing of other specimens, and found similarly low levels of diversity.)

I'm getting the impression from you, that changes are not a simply matter of genetic potential, but has a lot also to do with environment.

I can't think of anything I wrote that would have given that impression.

Well, it's a fairly new science. I would suggest that maybe you're putting a little too much blind faith in it.

There are many things we don't know in genetics, certainly. There are also many things we do know.

The Bible is a much more trustworthy source of truth, and history.

The Bible has a terrible record as a trustworthy source of history.

But animals have been known to become very diverse in a short period of time. We have domestic dogs as proof. Now breeders played a role in this obviously, but it shows how the potential is there.

And the resulting extreme reduction of genetic diversity is very easy to see in dogs.

I could easily see a group of animals ending up in a very unique climate isolated from its kin, and subject to the need for adaption its kin were not. I mean we've seen moth populations completely changes colors in a matter of months, right? All you need are the right circumstances and some very interesting changes can occur. Those that the flood and dispersion would have provided should be given serious consideration.

None of which would begin to explain the actual patterns we see in real genetics, or challenge the kind of evidence in that article I pointed you to.

 

[sfs]

But here's an article that may shed some light by a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology.

Speciation and the Animals on the Ark
by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.

Well, it shows he either doesn't know much about genetics or is choosing to ignore what he knows.

 

[Calminian]

...Regardless of how old it is, it's clear that there are two genes per locus per animal. Similarly, the gasoline engine is pretty new two, but no one suggests that because its new, that gasoline engines don't work. Sorry, you can't deny reality just because of how long we've known it.....

What reality am I denying? Genetics is one line of evidence. And I'm not even sure genetics alone tells us the story of diversity among animals. Even sfs admitted that 2 gray wolves would bring about more diversity than 2 poodles. You're saying, no, they would bring about the same exact amount of diversity. I know very little about genetics, but it seems you two genetic experts are at odds on this.

Genesis doesn't claim to be literal history (and obviously is not), and theologian (including ancient Christians) have recognized this and pointed it out.

Yes, theologians have also denied christ's resurrection is literal. You and JS Spong almost argue identically. He uses the identical hermeneutic you do.

That's not true however of the early church fathers. They were virtually all young earthers who believed in literal days. They just happened to also believe those literal days also were symbolic of future time periods. Even Augustine, you're poster boy for the TE movement, was a young earther who believed Genesis was a literal account, including the creation flood and babel accounts. So I really don't know where you're going with this. Early church allegory was nothing like the TE movement today.

As I've explained before, the presence of highly divergent flood legends around the world only proves that humans tend to build cities by waterways, which is hardly a revelation.

Oh, yeah, because just the mere site of water make one start reciting stories about a family being saved in a boat from a deluge along with saved kinds of various animals.

I admire your Mark Twain like faith.

Um, why would you think that someone with a degree in molecular biology would be an expert in popluation biology?

Why would you doubt a guy's knowledge merely because he disagrees with you?

People can become experts in many things, even if their formal education doesn't match the expertise. Bill Gates didn't have a business degree, yet he's a better businessman than most with degrees.

Your cited articles are all from creationists trying to push creationism,...

More logical fallacies. Attacking the arguer rather than the argument. There are experts in Biblical history that agree with me and disagree with you. It's a silly way to argue. Just look at the arguments and see if you can understand them and try to respond.

"Reinterpreting"? What? Are you unaware that both ancient Jewish and ancient Christians ....

Wrong again. Pick up Josephus some time and read his antiquities of the jews. His history corroborates Genesis quite nicely from the sources drew from. He was an ancient jewish historian. He was drawing largely on jewish tradition and historical accounts.

But all we need is scripture. Genesis is very clearly a historical narrative with chronological genealogies that link Adam to Jacob (the ancestor of Moses and Christ). You can choose man's interpretations of egyptian history of you like. I'll take scripture. It is the most well preserved collection of ancient documents in the world.

 

[Calminian]

Geneticists have sequenced the entire genome of a Neandertal, so to see how much genetic diversity there was, all they had to do was count the number of places where the two copies in that individual differed. (They also did sequencing of other specimens, and found similarly low levels of diversity.)

I'll take your word for it. I just have no idea what that implies. I merely stated Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do. I look at Neanderthal as a superior creature to us in many ways, stronger and smarter. Is there something in the genes that makes you disagree with that?

The Bible has a terrible record as a trustworthy source of history.

Well Bishop Spong were certainly agree with you. He thinks the whole resurrection things is merely allegory.

I would say both of you are terribly mistaken, and trusting any wind of doctrine that comes along to satisfy your animosity of the Bible.

And the resulting extreme reduction of genetic diversity is very easy to see in dogs.

And yet look at the diversity? Can you think of an animal family more diverse?

None of which would begin to explain the actual patterns we see in real genetics, or challenge the kind of evidence in that article I pointed you to.

I have no doubt genetics is a valuable science (as are all sciences). It's a matter of how you apply it and what assumptions you start with. If the gray wolf would produce more diversity than the poodle, then it's fair to suggest that the original dog kind of the ark (the ancestor of the gray wolf) would have had the potential for even more diversity. I'll take your word on the genetic information you've shared. You know much more about that than I do, and frankly I wouldn't mind picking your brain on it, as I learn more about it. You've raised some points that warrant further investigation. But nothing you've said negates this simple point I've made above, don't you agree?

 

[Calminian]

Well, it shows he either doesn't know much about genetics or is choosing to ignore what he knows.

And I'd say those are crippling assumptions that will keep you from learning all God has for you. If you simply dismiss anyone with a differing opinion, and become suspicious of their motives, you'll never glean from them anything which might be valuable. You'd be surprised where wisdom hides—usually out in the open where the cynics never go.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

What reality am I denying? Genetics is one line of evidence.

You are denying the reality of the fact that two genes at each locus, with more than four alleles in many populations for a given locus shows that we can't be descended exclusively from an original pair (such as Adam and Eve).

Yes, it is true that many other lines of evidence also show that our ancestral population was never down to just two people within the past 10 million years - that doesn't change the fact that you deny the reality stated above.

And I'm not even sure genetics alone tells us the story of diversity among animals.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there are plenty of other lines of evidence that show how evolution gave us our present diversity.

Even sfs admitted that 2 gray wolves would bring about more diversity than 2 poodles. You're saying, no, they would bring about the same exact amount of diversity. I know very little about genetics, but it seems you two genetic experts are at odds on this.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Sfs and I agree on every point I'm aware of (other than Catholic doctrine). For instance, we both have pointed out that there are two genes per locus (in diploid creatures like us), and that genetic diversity has not, in general, been decreasing in animals in general from 6,000 years ago to now. Over earth's 4.6 billion year history, it's gone up and down many times, such as the large loss of genetic diversity 65 million years ago, from which it has greatly increased to now.

Originally Posted by Papias

Genesis doesn't claim to be literal history (and obviously is not), and theologian (including ancient Christians) have recognized this and pointed it out.

Yes, theologians have also denied christ's resurrection is literal. You and JS Spong almost argue identically. He uses the identical hermeneutic you do.
​

Hey, this is one for a logic textbook. You've done the slippery slope fallacy. Just because myself and theologians agree with an old earth and modern science, doesn't mean we deny the resurrection.

That's not true however of the early church fathers. They were virtually all young earthers who believed in literal days. They just happened to also believe those literal days also were symbolic of future time periods. Even Augustine, you're poster boy for the TE movement, was a young earther who believed Genesis was a literal account, including the creation flood and babel accounts. So I really don't know where you're going with this. Early church allegory was nothing like the TE movement today.

Well, it was also nothing like modern astronomy. I pointed out that there was a diversity then, as there is now. Augusting, Origen, and others recognized that the days could not be literal days.

​

Originally Posted by Papias

As I've explained before, the presence of highly divergent flood legends around the world only proves that humans tend to build cities by waterways, which is hardly a revelation.

Oh, yeah, because just the mere site of water make one start reciting stories about a family being saved in a boat from a deluge along with saved kinds of various animals.

I admire your Mark Twain like faith.

​

Newsflash Cal: Rivers flood. When there is a flood, you move your family and help some animals (especially your livestock) using a ..... boat (oh, did you think they'd avoid it by flying?). If you extend that to a global flood legend, then it doesn't take a genius to realize that other animals have to be put in the boat too.

Originally Posted by Papias

Um, why would you think that someone with a degree in molecular biology would be an expert in popluation biology?

Why would you doubt a guy's knowledge merely because he disagrees with you?

I wouldn't. As we've seen on this thread, I base that on a guys credentials and the consensus of the experts. You, on the other hand have shown repeatedly on this thread and others that you'll swallow a line by some bumpkin in another field, or someone with no credentials, if they happen to agree with you. And, you'll happily ignore the knowledge of literally millions of experts if they disagree with you. 'sounds like you were thinking of yourself, not me.

Originally Posted by Papias

Your cited articles are all from creationists trying to push creationism,...

More logical fallacies. Attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

Again, simply false. It is not fallacious to expect cited sources to be experts in the field. In fact, you yourself know this well when you go to a doctor, or have an automechanic fix your car.

There are experts in Biblical history that agree with me and disagree with you. It's a silly way to argue. Just look at the arguments and see if you can understand them and try to respond.

No, we were talking about biology. There is not a consensus of the experts that agrees with you in biology nor genetics. You know that, right? Can you let us know that you know that?

In the case of Genesis being literal, yes, there are theologians on both sides of that discussion.

Originally Posted by Papias

"Reinterpreting"? What? Are you unaware that both ancient Jewish and ancient Christians ....

Wrong again.

Um, no. I didn't say "all". Of course there are plenty of ancients who saw genesis literally. I've already named two ancient Christians, and can name ancient Jews, like Philo, who saw allegory and didn't require a strictly literal reading.

Genesis is very clearly a historical narrative with chronological genealogies that link Adam to Jacob (the ancestor of Moses and Christ).

.....so interprets the human calminian, based on what he wants in his human mind.....


In Christ-

Papias

 

[RedRover]

And how about the dire wolf? Even more? I think it safe to say the more we travel backward in time, the more potential diversity we find in animals.

The more wild they are the more variation they have. The more domesticated they are, the less variation they have. In theory poodles come from wolves. But you could never go backwards and get a wolf out of a poodle.

 

[PersephonesTear]

In the context of a local flood (or floods) instead of a global one, were Noah and his family the only survivors of the human race?

Or was he and his family simply the only survivors of his "world" and all the rest of the people of his "world"/land died except him and his family.

Of course this goes into the question in whether humanity existed all in one area of the earth at the time of the flood, or humanity was spread out, and therefore there were areas of the world, in which human communities other then Noah and his civilization, were not destroyed by the flood.

I do think having Noah and his family being the only humans left bring up problems of genetic issues with the interbreeding within the family, and also problems with how homosapiens could have grown in large number's since then (present day, 7 billion) if there were not that many survivors of the flood. Also adding up all the natural disasters,wars,diseases, etc, that has happened since the flood, which has killed a lot of people if you add up all those factors and more, makes it hard for me to believe that Noah and his family were the only humans left which eventually led to 7 billion. Also i heard that there is historical evidence of the Egyptian civilization existing before the supposed date of the flood, and obviously they were not wiped out by it.

What are your opinions on this?

Uuuuuuuum... ahem.

Okay, I know Wikipedia can be just awful at accurate information, but it's still a starting point. If I am understanding this (Identical ancestors point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) article correctly, then all humans alive today do have a point of common ancestry that is within the past 5,000 to 15,000 years. There is a Most Recent Common Ancestor who lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago, meaning that every human alive today is descended from that person... And using that, they can push back further to a point between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago when everyone alive today had an array of Identical Ancestors.

So, what this does NOT tell us is how many people were alive on the earth the point at which our Most Recent Common Ancestor was alive.

What it does tell us, however, is that the problems you're talking about regarding 7 billion people not being able to be generated within such a short amount of time from a limited amount of genetic stock isn't really a problem... because it did, in fact, happen that way. Every person alive on the earth right now has a single common ancestor that was alive a relatively short time ago.

And this was all worked out through genetics and the testing of DNA. There is no geologic history involved in these calculations, so there's no possible way to determine based on this alone whether there was a global flood or a local flood and/or whether Noah and his family were the only people who lived through it or even if every human in the world lived in the same region at the time.

But it is, according to this idea, probable that we are all recently inbred due to a genetic bottle neck.

I really would like to see some data on how many breeding pairs of humans were thought to be included in the Identical Ancestors Point.

 

[sfs]

I'll take your word for it. I just have no idea what that implies. I merely stated Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do. I look at Neanderthal as a superior creature to us in many ways, stronger and smarter. Is there something in the genes that makes you disagree with that?

No. Their brain size just isn't relevant here -- the only point of bringing in Neandertals was to point out that they had less diversity than we, their partial descendants, do.

Well Bishop Spong were certainly agree with you. He thinks the whole resurrection things is merely allegory.

Lots of people agree with me who don't think the Resurrection is an allegory.

I would say both of you are terribly mistaken, and trusting any wind of doctrine that comes along to satisfy your animosity of the Bible.

Animosity of the Bible? Where did you get that idea? If you think that people can't love the Bible and also think it's historically incorrect in many places, you really need to acquaint yourself with a broader range of Christian thought. Like pretty much anything that isn't conservative evangelicalism. I love the Bible. I read it every day, I'm (very slowly) translating the New Testament from Greek, and I have shelves full of Bible commentaries.

And yet look at the diversity? Can you think of an animal family more diverse?

I don't think you quite understand. Each breed shows a great loss of diversity, which is why all dogs in a breed look so similar. The genetic diversity in the ancestral population was large, and different parts of that diversity were selected to form the breeds.

I have no doubt genetics is a valuable science (as are all sciences). It's a matter of how you apply it and what assumptions you start with. If the gray wolf would produce more diversity than the poodle, then it's fair to suggest that the original dog kind of the ark (the ancestor of the gray wolf) would have had the potential for even more diversity. I'll take your word on the genetic information you've shared. You know much more about that than I do, and frankly I wouldn't mind picking your brain on it, as I learn more about it. You've raised some points that warrant further investigation. But nothing you've said negates this simple point I've made above, don't you agree?

You can postulate any amount of diversity in the few animals on the Ark you like, absolutely. What you can't do, however, is explain how we got the diversity we see today in most species from a small number of recent ancestors, regardless of how diverse they were.

 

[sfs]

And I'd say those are crippling assumptions that will keep you from learning all God has for you. If you simply dismiss anyone with a differing opinion, and become suspicious of their motives, you'll never glean from them anything which might be valuable. You'd be surprised where wisdom hides—usually out in the open where the cynics never go.

Your response seems to have nothing to do with what I wrote. I made no assumptions: I read the article, and I observed that it contained really ignorant statements about genetics. I'm not suspicious of his motives, and in fact think his motives are probably good. It's his genetics that's bad.

 

[sfs]

Okay, I know Wikipedia can be just awful at accurate information, but it's still a starting point. If I am understanding this (Identical ancestors point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) article correctly, then all humans alive today do have a point of common ancestry that is within the past 5,000 to 15,000 years. There is a Most Recent Common Ancestor who lived between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago, meaning that every human alive today is descended from that person... And using that, they can push back further to a point between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago when everyone alive today had an array of Identical Ancestors.

So, what this does NOT tell us is how many people were alive on the earth the point at which our Most Recent Common Ancestor was alive.

Everything up to here is correct, I believe.

What it does tell us, however, is that the problems you're talking about regarding 7 billion people not being able to be generated within such a short amount of time from a limited amount of genetic stock isn't really a problem... because it did, in fact, happen that way. Every person alive on the earth right now has a single common ancestor that was alive a relatively short time ago.

What you write here, however, doesn't seem to follow logically. The fact that we all had at least one ancestor in common a few thousand years ago tells us nothing at all about how big the population was then, and therefore tells us nothing about whether a small ancestral genetic stock is possible or not. Other methods have to be used to determine that (methods described in an article I already linked to).

And this was all worked out through genetics and the testing of DNA. There is no geologic history involved in these calculations, so there's no possible way to determine based on this alone whether there was a global flood or a local flood and/or whether Noah and his family were the only people who lived through it or even if every human in the world lived in the same region at the time.

Actually, no, this estimate has nothing to do with genetics or DNA. It's entirely based on a computer model of what's known about human history -- how many people lived where and when.

But it is, according to this idea, probable that we are all recently inbred due to a genetic bottle neck.

No, their model has no major genetic bottleneck, and the idea of a recent common ancestor is unrelated to bottlenecks.

I really would like to see some data on how many breeding pairs of humans were thought to be included in the Identical Ancestors Point.

This paper has figures, tables and references that provide some information on that subject. If the IAP was 10,000 years ago, it looks like the population might have been a few million.

 

[EternalDragon]

Cheetahs by comparison actually do derive from as few as 6 individuals about 10,000 years ago. As a result of so much inbreeding cheetah skin can be grafted from any cheetah to any cheetah without ever provoking an immune response. If we all came from Noah just 4,000 years ago then we should be the same as cheetah in this regard.

Cheetas also suffer from inbreeding. If only one female from outside the group is brought in it fixes that problem.

Noah had a wife and his three sons had wives. So it is possible to have a stable and varied population from those four couples.

 

[EternalDragon]

See here.


No single dog breed would have enough genetic variation to generate all modern breeds in only a few thousand years -- there's a limited amount of genetic variation you can pack into each animal.

So maybe a dire wolf, grey wolf, Dingo and one other were aboard the ark that could interbreed. Would that work?

 

[gluadys]

So maybe a dire wolf, grey wolf, Dingo and one other were aboard the ark that could interbreed. Would that work?

Nope. Even if they could all interbreed, four animals limits the gene pool to 8 alleles per gene.

A recent starting point of only 8 alleles (or fewer) would put them in nearly the same situation as the cheetahs.

You are being misled because you are not discriminating between variation in a population and variants in an individual. Sure, it is true that a typical wolf population exhibits more variation than a typical poodle population. Say for example that for a certain gene, you only find four different variants in the poodle population while you find 60 different variants in the wolf population.

But as soon as you bring just one of each into the ark, you put them on a basis of equality, because each one can only bring along two alleles. So the one poodle can only bring two of the four variants in the poodle population and the one wolf can only bring two of the 60 variants in the wolf population. ALL THE OTHER VARIANTS ARE LOST! They are destroyed because the other poodles and wolves get drowned in the flood.

Same principle applies if you substitute dingos or dire wolves or any other member of the canine clade. The amount of pre-existing variation in the population counts for nothing. Only what gets saved in the ark matters, and with four animals that is at most 8 alleles per gene.