Which came first? plants or animals?

[Subduction Zone]

I'm glad you like it.

Here's another one, Kylie ... just for you:

The Bible speaks of the Internet (electronic communication).

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Not even close.

There must be a term for that sort of fallacy. You are simply trying to squeeze reality into scripture. That is both a biblical sin and a logical one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not even close.

There must be a term for that sort of fallacy. You are simply trying to squeeze reality into scripture. That is both a biblical sin and a logical one.

Here's a logical sin, just for you:

The Bible speaks of underwater currents in the ocean.

Psalm 8:8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a logical sin, just for you:

The Bible speaks of underwater currents in the ocean.

Psalm 8:8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

Nope. again nothing about the underwater currents there. For a long time it was known that seas had currents. That is surface currents. Again, no evidence that refers to underwater currents at all.

Do you have any other failures of yours that you would like to bring up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have any other failures of yours that you would like to bring up?

Another amazing fact scientists can't wrap their clipboards around is the fact that a mother that is pregnant is, in fact, carrying a child in her womb.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another amazing fact scientists can't wrap their clipboards around is the fact that a mother that is pregnant is, in fact, carrying a child in her womb.

I guess that stating the obvious would be another error.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that stating the obvious would be another error.

Ya ... I didn't think you would deny that one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ya ... I didn't think you would deny that one.

But you are implying another foolish analogy here. Just because the Bible is right about simple ideas does not mean it is correct about complex ideas.

You are cherry picking your out of context quotes. You are quote mining the Bible and that is by definition blasphemy.

Strange how literalists have no problem with blasphemy when it works for themselves.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you are implying another foolish analogy here. Just because the Bible is right about simple ideas does not mean it is correct about complex ideas.

You are cherry picking your out of context quotes. You are quote mining the Bible and that is by definition blasphemy.

Strange how literalists have no problem with blasphemy when it works for themselves.

Regardless of your commentary, I feel I have answered Kylie's question to my satisfaction.

 

[Gracchus]

A Bottleneck happens when many species die out and go extinct, and few survive to reproduce, and that did NOT happen with the Flood.

You have defined an extinction event.
A bottleneck occurs when a species is reduced to a few individuals and this causes a decrease of genetic diversity in that species.
The classic example of a bottleneck is the cheetah, which all seem to be descended from a very small population, perhaps fewer than fifty individuals.
So, if there were millions of species and none of them went extinct, but each species were reduced to a few individuals, each individual species would have been genetically bottle-necked.
Homo sapiens shows genetic evidence of a bottleneck about 60000 years ago. It seems the species was reduced at that time to a few thousand individuals.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have defined an extinction event.
A bottleneck occurs when a species is reduced to a few individuals and this causes a decrease of genetic diversity in that species.
The classic example of a bottleneck is the cheetah, which all seem to be descended from a very small population, perhaps fewer than fifty individuals.
So, if there were millions of species and none of them went extinct, but each species were reduced to a few individuals, each individual species would have been genetically bottle-necked.
Homo sapiens shows genetic evidence of a bottleneck about 60000 years ago. It seems the species was reduced at that time to a few thousand individuals.

60,000? Did you add an extra 0 there, or is that the number? Just curious. Because 60,000 years ago is a bit too far in the past for modern humans, although it is close (relatively speaking).

 

[Aman777]

You have defined an extinction event.
A bottleneck occurs when a species is reduced to a few individuals and this causes a decrease of genetic diversity in that species.
The classic example of a bottleneck is the cheetah, which all seem to be descended from a very small population, perhaps fewer than fifty individuals.
So, if there were millions of species and none of them went extinct, but each species were reduced to a few individuals, each individual species would have been genetically bottle-necked.
Homo sapiens shows genetic evidence of a bottleneck about 60000 years ago. It seems the species was reduced at that time to a few thousand individuals.

Dear Gracchus, What you call Homo sapiens were actually the sons of God (prehistoric man). Noah brought the Human intelligence of Adam to this Earth some 10k years ago. The creatures Noah brought with him could produce offspring with the creatures who were already here when Noah arrrived. This added to what was already here and would have been the opposite of a bottleneck.

The sons of God (prehistoric man) changed from animal to human intelligence and the ToE didn't even notice. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dear Gracchus, What you call Homo sapiens were actually the sons of God (prehistoric man). Noah brought the Human intelligence of Adam to this Earth some 10k years ago. The creatures Noah brought with him could produce offspring with the creatures who were already here when Noah arrrived. This added to what was already here and would have been the opposite of a bottleneck.

The sons of God (prehistoric man) changed from animal to human intelligence and the ToE didn't even notice. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Now explain to me how the flood causes the opposite of a bottleneck?

 

[Aman777]

Now explain to me how the flood causes the opposite of a bottleneck?

Dear PS, The Flood was on Adam's earth and not the present earth. Noah brought some of the animals from Adam's Earth to the present Earth on the Ark. These animals could also be called common ancestors. A good example is Humankind. A direct descendant of Adam, Noah, brought Adam's Human intelligence to our Planet of Apes, and today, there are more than 7 Billion Humans here, in just 10k years. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dear PS, The Flood was on Adam's earth and not the present earth. Noah brought some of the animals from Adam's Earth to the present Earth on the Ark. These animals could also be called common ancestors. A good example is Humankind. A direct descendant of Adam, Noah, brought Adam's Human intelligence to our Planet of Apes, and today, there are more than 7 Billion Humans here, in just 10k years. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Every time you capitalize Planet of Apes, I think of the movies

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear PS, The Flood was on Adam's earth and not the present earth. Noah brought some of the animals from Adam's Earth to the present Earth on the Ark. These animals could also be called common ancestors. A good example is Humankind. A direct descendant of Adam, Noah, brought Adam's Human intelligence to our Planet of Apes, and today, there are more than 7 Billion Humans here, in just 10k years. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

It seems that you do not understand. If the animals were already here there was no point in Noah gathering all of the animals up. If the animals that we see today came from the Ark we would have a massive population bottleneck worldwide dating to the Ark.

So either Noah wasted his time gathering animals or there was no flood.

Which one do you think it was?

<Staff Edit>

 

[EternalDragon]

You have defined an extinction event.
A bottleneck occurs when a species is reduced to a few individuals and this causes a decrease of genetic diversity in that species.
The classic example of a bottleneck is the cheetah, which all seem to be descended from a very small population, perhaps fewer than fifty individuals.
So, if there were millions of species and none of them went extinct, but each species were reduced to a few individuals, each individual species would have been genetically bottle-necked.
Homo sapiens shows genetic evidence of a bottleneck about 60000 years ago. It seems the species was reduced at that time to a few thousand individuals.

The problem is that you are looking at a creature that did not start out as a cheetah but is an off shoot variety from a more genetically diverse species. So eventually it lost genetic information along the way and then was reduced in number, causing the bottleneck.

I doubt you would easily find bottleneck evidence in species off the ark or at the least scientists don't really know what they are looking for.

As for humans, where ever that 60,000 year old date came from, I doubt it is reliable. In any case, it is the same as the cheetah. You are looking at human remains from long after they departed the ark. (The out of Africa theory I am assuming?)

 

[PsychoSarah]

The problem is that you are looking at a creature that did not start out as a cheetah but is an off shoot variety from a more genetically diverse species. So eventually it lost genetic information along the way and then was reduced in number, causing the bottleneck.

I doubt you would easily find bottleneck evidence in species off the ark or at the least scientists don't really know what they are looking for.

As for humans, where ever that 60,000 year old date came from, I doubt it is reliable. In any case, it is the same as the cheetah. You are looking at human remains from long after they departed the ark. (The out of Africa theory I am assuming?)

Need I remind you that we don't just continuously lose genetic variation over time? If that were the case, we would all be like cheetahs by now.

 

[EternalDragon]

Need I remind you that we don't just continuously lose genetic variation over time? If that were the case, we would all be like cheetahs by now.

In your estimation then, genetic variability and genetic diversity doesn't exist?

The interdependence between genetic and species diversity is delicate. Changes in species diversity lead to changes in the environment, leading to adaptation of the remaining species. Changes in genetic diversity, such as in loss of species, leads to a loss of biological diversity.[1] Loss of genetic diversity in domestic animal populations has also been studied and attributed to the extension of markets and economic globalization.

Genetic diversity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PsychoSarah]

In your estimation then, genetic variability and genetic diversity doesn't exist?

The interdependence between genetic and species diversity is delicate. Changes in species diversity lead to changes in the environment, leading to adaptation of the remaining species. Changes in genetic diversity, such as in loss of species, leads to a loss of biological diversity.[1] Loss of genetic diversity in domestic animal populations has also been studied and attributed to the extension of markets and economic globalization.

Genetic diversity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You forget that through genetic mutation that genetic diversity "replenishes"

 

[Gracchus]

The problem is that you are looking at a creature that did not start out as a cheetah but is an off shoot variety from a more genetically diverse species. So eventually it lost genetic information along the way and then was reduced in number, causing the bottleneck.

The loss in variability was a result of the drastically reduced population. The more genetically diverse species that the cheetah descended from was a larger population of cheetahs.

I doubt you would easily find bottleneck evidence in species off the ark or at the least scientists don't really know what they are looking for.

The "ark" is a story. It didn't happen. You might just as well claim that superman reduced genetic variability with his x-ray vision.
If each species had all descended from just two individuals, we would find very low genetic variability in all species, even lower than in the cheetah.

As for humans, where ever that 60,000 year old date came from, I doubt it is reliable.

The date is an estimate, based on known rates of mutation.

In any case, it is the same as the cheetah. You are looking at human remains from long after they departed the ark. (The out of Africa theory I am assuming?)

There is more genetic variability in sub-Saharan humans than there is in all the rest of the human species. Since all non-African humans are descended from small original populations that moved out of Africa, there is less variation in the emigrants than in the base population.