Evolution, the flood, and two of every animal

Well from what i know (IMHO) inbreeding isn't safe. If alot of animals were inbreeding alot you would see animals deformed and getting health problems. But that is just (MO).

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Criminies!  You're suggesting that the kind of diversity we see today took place within a few hundred years!

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I was speculating (and ONLY speculating) that microevolution became more widespread WITHIN a few hundred years after the flood. All I'm speculating about is that the environment became more conducive to microevolution and perhaps even interbreeding (hybrids). I have no idea how that contributed to the numbers of species we have today because I don't know how species relate to kinds. Nobody does.

Originally posted by Praxiteles
OK.  It is rather important, though, if we're striving to explain modern diversity and posit a worldwide flood 4 thousand years ago.  Don't you think?  Daggy-waggy? 

Click to expand...

Sure it's important. And if I were striving to explain modern diversity, I might care that it's important. But:

1. I'm not striving to explain modern diversity.
2. I don't think anyone could explain it based on the Biblical story of Noah because the story doesn't contain enough detail for that kind of explanation.

Regardless, I don't see how anyone could answer that without having the animals of that time right here to test any hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Shucks! Foiled again.

Daggley waggley!

Originally posted by npetreley
No, I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I was speculating (and ONLY speculating) that microevolution became more widespread WITHIN a few hundred years after the flood. All I'm speculating about is that the environment became more conducive to microevolution and perhaps even interbreeding (hybrids). I have no idea how that contributed to the numbers of species we have today because I don't know how species relate to kinds. Nobody does.

Click to expand...

Ok.  At some point, though, speculation has to be compared with the evidence.  As it stands, there is no evidence that such rapid evolution is even possible, let alone likely.

Unless, of course, one posits the interference of the supernatural, at which point it ceases to be science. Darn.

Sure it's important. And if I were striving to explain modern diversity, I might care that it's important. But:

1. I'm not striving to explain modern diversity.
2. I don't think anyone could explain it based on the Biblical story of Noah because the story doesn't contain enough detail for that kind of explanation.

Click to expand...

1.  Oh?  But, but, but... that's what this thread is about.  Why, grasshopper, are you posting here if that is not your purpose?

2. Neither do I. (Perhaps you should alert the good folks at AiG to this).  However, even if one assumes that the story of Noah and his zoological barge is close to historical fact, one must still deal with the logistics of getting two representatives of each population of species/kinds/whatever to repopulate the entire earth with the diversity that we currently see.  If it can't be done without the supernatural, it's not science.

Cheers,

Prax

Some interesting things about the flood story:

- Seven pairs of each kind of ritually clean animal (sheep, etc) and seven pairs of each kind of bird - and a pair of every other kind.

- Noah and the animals lived inside the ark for more than a year. (Gen 7:8-11, 8:14-15)

- The ark was about 133 x 22 x 13 metres = 38,038 cubic metres (a cubic metre is 35.3 cubic feet) [assuming that there is no space taken up for the frame or any wasted space such as space for humans to walk in]

Let's assume that there are 8000 different "kinds"... (including all the different dinosaurs, etc) that means each kind (each pair) got less than 4.75 cubic metres... e.g. 2 x 2 x 1.2 metres. This includes enough food to feed them for more than a year... and as far as we know, many animals were carnivorous back then - and some like live insects.... I mean they don't usually eat grain....

Lots of different bacterias and diseases, etc, would have to come with too otherwise they'd be buried under lots of sediment and become extinct... but all the animals on the ark were supposed to survive as well.

blindfaith:

The Christian scientists agree with, as do quite a few of the evolution scientists out there, that before Noah's Ark, there was a "canopy" covering the earth. Meaning, there was a type of terrerium effect, hence the flood was probable.

Click to expand...

from Answers in Genesis:

...What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?


Canopy theory. This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For AiG’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from? from the Answers Book.

Click to expand...

OK. Let's do some math.

Let's say there was 1 "kind" of insect on the ark.

Today, after 6,000 years (or 1,460,000 days) of microevolution, there are 900,000 known species (according to encyclopedia.com).

That's only 0.616 new species of insects each day.

I can see it.

The problem with some of your posts is that THERE iS no a single piece of EVIDENCE of a flood. Sure say the Grand Cayon. But i can also say how the Grand Cayon was made.

Hi all!

I'd like to throw in my $0.02 if I may.

Genesis 7:6 tells us that:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Click to expand...

.

Genesis 8:14-16 tell us that:

And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dried. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry. And God spoke unto Noah, saying: 'Go forth from the ark, you, and your wife, and your sons, and your sons' wives with you.

Click to expand...

Thus, Noah & family were in the ark for just over one year.

Genesis 9:28-29 tells us that:

And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Click to expand...

Something doesn't jibe. Noah was 600 when the flood started. He was in the ark for (just over) one year. He lived 350 years after the flood & died at the ripe old age of 950. What happened to the year he was in the ark? One of my rabbis writes that:

The arithmetic of Noah's years (600 before + 350 after = 950) seems not to take into account the year of the Flood. There is a good case to be made for not considering the duration of the Flood in calculations of the chronology of the world. We might look at the Flood as a period of "suspended animation" - laws of nature were not in effect; perhaps time as we know it cannot apply to that interval. The animals in the ark did not function in their normal ways.

Click to expand...

This could explain a lot; interesting, no?

Comments?

Be well!

ssv

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Ok.  At some point, though, speculation has to be compared with the evidence.  As it stands, there is no evidence that such rapid evolution is even possible, let alone likely.

Click to expand...

I can see that you're not following me. I apologize if I'm not being clear or if I've distracted you with my notion of increased microevolution - I suspect that's the problem.

The ark carried X number of animals which produced the Y number of species we see today. The problem is not only that we don't know the value for X (we have a vague idea about Y), but that we don't know the relationship between X and Y. We don't know if tabby cats were on the ark, or if tabby cats are the product of interbreeding/microevolution based on the animals that were on the ark. So there's no way to grasp the scope of this problem.

Consequently, it is meaningless to say that the amount of rapid microevolution (and production of new species through interbreeding) was not possible because you don't know how much was required. Nobody knows what was on the ark, and nobody knows for certain what those animals could produce through microevolution or interbreeding. Bible believers simply assume that whatever was on the ark obviously produced what we see today because -- there they are!

You may not agree, but all you have as "proof" otherwise is a personal notion that Y is too large for it to have come from X. But since you don't know what "kinds" are or how they could or couldn't have produces what you count as species today, your personal opnion is just that -- a personal opinion, and not based on any hard data.

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Unless, of course, one posits the interference of the supernatural, at which point it ceases to be science. Darn.

Click to expand...

Thems the breaks. Maybe it all happened naturally. Maybe it didn't. I think it was natural. But how could I know? I wasn't there, and nobody recorded the process.

Originally posted by Praxiteles
1.  Oh?  But, but, but... that's what this thread is about.  Why, grasshopper, are you posting here if that is not your purpose?

Click to expand...

Because it's fun. You want to know the exact answers to these questions, now. I wouldn't mind knowing now, but I'm content to find out when I talk to the author of all things. In the meantime, I have fun participating in these dicsussions.

Originally posted by Praxiteles
2. Neither do I. (Perhaps you should alert the good folks at AiG to this).  However, even if one assumes that the story of Noah and his zoological barge is close to historical fact, one must still deal with the logistics of getting two representatives of each population of species/kinds/whatever to repopulate the entire earth with the diversity that we currently see. 

Click to expand...

I haven't read the AiG stuff on this, so I shouldn't comment. But molecules-to-man macroevolution is all speculation based on almost no confirmed details. So why shouldn't AiG be able to speculate based on the miniscule data of the Bible? Whatever anyone can test is science, and whatever is speculation is speculation. As long as they call it what it is, I have no problem with that.

Originally posted by Praxiteles
If it can't be done without the supernatural, it's not science.

Click to expand...

Like I said, if you don't know the details, how can you test it? And if you don't have the details and can't test it, how can you even come close to guessing whether or not the supernatural was required?

This could explain a lot; interesting, no?

Click to expand...

No its not interesting there is no evidence at all of a world flood.

Hi all!

What's evidence got to do with it? I still think it's interesting.

Be well!

ssv

Cause with out evidence you have no proof. Just like god no evidence so no proof that he exist.

It's magic, Pete!

--tibac

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Okay, so far nobody has been able to tackle the problem of inbreeding and trying to create a diverse population based on a single pair of animals.

What about the population of humans, then? How does one go from a mere 8 humans to about 6 billion in the span of about 4000 years? Anyone want to try that one?

Click to expand...

That's extremely easy. Here's one article on it.

http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

I researched this a few years ago, and what I found interesting was that even secular studies show that things like wars and plagues have very little affect on population growth. I know that doesn't have anything to do with your challenge, but it surprised me.

Population growth is actually only a problem for evolutionists, not creationists. According to even conservative estimates, the world should have been way overpopulated by now if evolution were true. Evolutionists "solve" it with the speculation that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers for millions of years, and populations did not grow at all until after the advent of agriculture.

Population growth is actually only a problem for evolutionists, not creationists. According to even conservative estimates, the world should have been way overpopulated by now if evolution were true. Evolutionists "solve" it with the speculation that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers for millions of years, and populations did not grow at all until after the advent of agriculture.

Click to expand...

   Hehehehehehe. Oh goodness, Nicky. You don't actually buy those arguments, do you? I figured you for smarter than that. Do you know what "carrying capacity" means?

 

HOw about the period when the flood alledgedly took place according to the o.p.? That doesn't quite rhyme with recorded cultural history as we know it.

Here's a quote from a thread on this particular subject that ran on Internet Infidels a month ago. This was posted there by a member called Marduck

"King Zoesser and Imhotep would have had a rough time building his step Pyramid in all that icky flood debris 4800 years ago. Not to mention the Sumerians building their city states and inventing agriculture and beer making and the people in Anatolia and China etc.
BTW the Egyptians have no Noah type Flood myth, I guess they wern't home at the time. Probably summered on Mars. "

Click to expand...

There's a lot of other relevant questions to be found in that same thread, if you think you cn bare looking at them. If you want I can p.m. you the link.

Originally posted by npetreley
...Population growth is actually only a problem for evolutionists, not creationists. According to even conservative estimates, the world should have been way overpopulated by now if evolution were true. Evolutionists "solve" it with the speculation that our ancestors were hunter-gatherers for millions of years, and populations did not grow at all until after the advent of agriculture.

Click to expand...

Most of the world until a few centuries ago was inhabited by hunter-gatherers and sometimes animal herders. In the case of hunter-gatherers, they go around in tribes of 50 or so, looking for food. They need to travel quite far to find their food - they're "nomadic". To survive they'd need the food that many square kilometres of land produces. I think I read somewhere that if everyone was a hunter-gatherer, the earth could only support about 5-10 million people (or maybe it is 10-20 million?). And if they had primitive agriculture, I think it said the earth could support 500 million people. BTW, there is also a problem with over-farming... e.g. the Middle East used to be "the fertile crescent" and North Africa used to be good farmland I think - now they are desert due to over-farming. So if you have too many people around it can create deserts or starvation and then the population falls again... animal populations do that - they rise and fall... too many animals makes food scarce, which leads to some starvation and a decrease in population, which leads to food becoming more abundant. But on average, their population is fairly constant (it doesn't increase or decrease forever).

Hunter-gatherers would use the same methods as animals do... (e.g. they don't store food for long periods of time or create farms) so there is no reason to expect human hunter-gatherer populations grow forever while animal populations reach a limit (the "carrying capacity").

Originally posted by excreationist
the Middle East used to be "the fertile crescent" and North Africa used to be good farmland I think - now they are desert due to over-farming.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression North Africa turned into desert primarily due to a change in weather patterns. If the flood and continental drift are related, perhaps the weather patterns changed because Africa was shifted into a different position.

You seem to know a lot about what it was like in the supposed age of hunter-gatherers. Were you there?