Evolution, the flood, and two of every animal

[Pete Harcoff]

Okay, I was watching a Hovind video recently (I know, I know), and he was talking about Noah's Ark, and that Noah would have only had to take about 8000 or so "kinds" of animals (therefore, 16000 animals total), and only mammals, reptiles, birds, and possibly some others.

In addition, other life not taken on the Ark (plants, fish, incects and so forth) would likely be killed off during the flood (extremely rapid environment change tends to do that), so you'd also have a more limited selection of other life.

Assuming, from a YEC standpoint, that this flood took place about 4400 years ago, how would one account for the current biodiversity of life on this planet (living and extinct)?

Secondly, how would one also explain how Noah and his family (8 people) took care of 16,000 animals? That means each person would be responsible for 2000 individual animals!! I don't know if anyone has pets, but taking care of just one or two animals is bad enough, but 2000?

Anyone care to take a stab at those?

 

[fieldsofwind]

well there's the biodiversity of life before the flood... then the flood and its effects on the records of biodiversity... and then there's the biodiversity after the flood...

just take a fruit fly and watch them multiply... pretty simple I'd say...

as to how they were taken care of... don't know... don't care

I believe it... because God says to...and I know you don't understand or agree with that.

actually... how about you take a stab at how there should not be such diversity among the animals in a 5000 year period.

take care

FOW

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
well there's the biodiversity of life before the flood... then the flood and its effects on the records of biodiversity... and then there's the biodiversity after the flood...

What?

just take a fruit fly and watch them multiply... pretty simple I'd say...

Pretty simple, you say? How do you account for all the genetic variety among existing animal species if you're starting off with only two (an extremely limited gene pool).

as to how they were taken care of... don't know... don't care

Surely you can do better than "don't know, don't care".

actually... how about you take a stab at how there should not be such diversity among the animals in a 5000 year period.

In a word: inbreeding.

 

[OneLargeToe]

Assuming, from a YEC standpoint, that this flood took place about 4400 years ago, how would one account for the current biodiversity of life on this planet (living and extinct)?

Oh, that's easy: ignorance.  In a YEC's tiny little world, the only animals they think were on the ark were dogs, cats, cows, some birds, elephants, lions, tigers, giraffes, and other popular TV animals.  Look at pictorals in the books...I've never seen one Komodo Dragon or Tasmanian Devil climbing onboard.  They are completely oblivious of the more exotic forms of life on Earth.

So it's easy for them to honestly believe that "all of the life on Earth" is decended from what was brought on the ark.

 

[fieldsofwind]

gotta hit the 'rack' there pete... will reply tomorrow though... look forward

 

[kaotic]

Well in a few words, The flood never happened.

 

[npetreley]

Assuming, from a YEC standpoint, that this flood took place about 4400 years ago, how would one account for the current biodiversity of life on this planet (living and extinct)?

Obviously, if the flood killed a lot of living things, the extinct part is easy. Remember that your idea of species and G~d's idea of "kinds" is not the same thing. So a lot of species now extinct could have been represented by "kinds" (relatives that modern science considers different species but are still the same "kinds") on the ark. There's no way to know for sure, since we don't now know what "kinds" really are.

Secondly, how would one also explain how Noah and his family (8 people) took care of 16,000 animals?

If you read Genesis 7, you'll see that G~d ushered the animals into the ark, not Noah. He was already on board. They "came to Noah" on the ark. I suppose it's possible that Noah and his family tended the animals, but I figure if G~d can do the gathering, G~d can also make sure they survived the trip.

 

[Hector Medina]

fieldsofwind,

You got right it on the first post!

Just sitck to your guns and don't listen to what the evolutionists say.

Keep watching HOVIND(www.drdino.com)

also:

www.answersingenesis.org


In Christ,

-Hector

 

[Praxiteles]

Hello there, funny looking beaver type person!

Originally posted by npetreley
Obviously, if the flood killed a lot of living things, the extinct part is easy. Remember that your idea of species and G~d's idea of "kinds" is not the same thing. So a lot of species now extinct could have been represented by "kinds" (relatives that modern science considers different species but are still the same "kinds") on the ark. There's no way to know for sure, since we don't now know what "kinds" really are.

No, we don't know what kinds are.  Pesky things are rather hard to pin down, aren't they?   Nonetheless, these kinds are capable of evolution at hitherto unrecorded rates.  When did this rapid evolution stop?

If you read Genesis 7, you'll see that G~d ushered the animals into the ark, not Noah. He was already on board. They "came to Noah" on the ark. I suppose it's possible that Noah and his family tended the animals, but I figure if G~d can do the gathering, G~d can also make sure they survived the trip.

Well, he is somewhat omnipotent.

Given that, it strikes me as odd that he should have chosen such a messy and fiddly way to expunge the planet of life.  Mysterious ways, huh?

Unfortunately, proposing that the process was miraculous takes it out of the realm of science.  Darn.

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Praxiteles]

Hey Hector!

When are you going to come clean? Come on now, fess 'up! You're gimmick-y to the gills, aren't you?

Cheers,
Prax

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by npetreley
Obviously, if the flood killed a lot of living things, the extinct part is easy. Remember that your idea of species and G~d's idea of "kinds" is not the same thing. So a lot of species now extinct could have been represented by "kinds" (relatives that modern science considers different species but are still the same "kinds") on the ark. There's no way to know for sure, since we don't now know what "kinds" really are.

What about inbreeding, though? This is a very real, observable, and testable problem. Since you only have two of every "kind" (not even species), how does one avoid the problem of inbreeding and create such genetic diversity of life (and it such short time, too)?

If you read Genesis 7, you'll see that G~d ushered the animals into the ark, not Noah. He was already on board. They "came to Noah" on the ark. I suppose it's possible that Noah and his family tended the animals, but I figure if G~d can do the gathering, G~d can also make sure they survived the trip.

True, I guess someone with the power to create an entire universe, could probably care for 16000 measly animals. It does kinda beg the question as to why He even had Noah build the Ark, in the first place.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Hello there, funny looking beaver type person!

What in the name of Kenneth Toby's cardboard belt?!? You and someone else recognized Daggett, the bevoire of fame from my favorite cartoon show?

Originally posted by Praxiteles
No, we don't know what kinds are.  Pesky things are rather hard to pin down, aren't they?   Nonetheless, these kinds are capable of evolution at hitherto unrecorded rates.  When did this rapid evolution stop?

Never, probably. This is just a wild unscientific guess, but hybrids, microevolution probably increased rapidly for a few hundred years after the flood and reached a sort of equilibrium sometime after that (about the same time our life spans reached a rough equilibrium).

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Unfortunately, proposing that the process was miraculous takes it out of the realm of science.  Darn.

Well, I didn't mean to pose it as the answer, just as a possibility. IMO it's not important so I haven't given it much consideration.

 

[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.

Pete, I think there were probably more animals than what you originally posted. Let me ask you this ~ let's think pacoderms. There wouldn't be a lot of room for 2 full sized elephants, right? But wouldn't there have been room for 2 baby elephants? Male and female?

Isn't it documented that a 1/3 (or is it 2/3) that became extinct after the flood? I know that the evolutionists have a field day with this one. Think about this for a minute; you have two animals after the flood, and the environment has changed drastically ~ ice age progressing, 2.2x less oxygen in the atmosphere, etc....if 1 animal dies from exposure, disease, etc., then you have extinction of that species don't you? Not a whole lot of "natural selection" thought to that one.

What causes sedimentary formations? What explains the Grand Canyon or any of the other rock formations around the world? Water.

Why is it a majority of the animal fossils found are going UPHILL? What causes an animal to go uphill? Water. Noah's ark.

Please continue.....

~Terri

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
What about inbreeding, though? This is a very real, observable, and testable problem. Since you only have two of every "kind" (not even species), how does one avoid the problem of inbreeding and create such genetic diversity of life (and it such short time, too)?

What about inbreeding? The problem is that we don't know what "kinds" are. So we don't know how interbreeding affects this problem. I would guess (and this is just an unscientific guess) that interbreeding created thousands or more of what we call species today, but only one of those had to be on the ark because all of these species could be represented by one "kind". Unfortunately, since we don't know what "kinds" are, that can only be speculation - there's no way to test the hypothesis.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by 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.

Pete, I think there were probably more animals than what you originally posted. Let me ask you this ~ let's think pacoderms. There wouldn't be a lot of room for 2 full sized elephants, right? But wouldn't there have been room for 2 baby elephants? Male and female?

Isn't it documented that a 1/3 (or is it 2/3) that became extinct after the flood? I know that the evolutionists have a field day with this one. Think about this for a minute; you have two animals after the flood, and the environment has changed drastically ~ ice age progressing, 2.2x less oxygen in the atmosphere, etc....if 1 animal dies from exposure, disease, etc., then you have extinction of that species don't you? Not a whole lot of "natural selection" thought to that one.

What causes sedimentary formations? What explains the Grand Canyon or any of the other rock formations around the world? Water.

Why is it a majority of the animal fossils found are going UPHILL? What causes an animal to go uphill? Water. Noah's ark.

Please continue.....

~Terri

None of that is related to what I was asking (though if you want to discuss flood geology, the "water" canopy, etc, I'll start a new thread on it after I get done with this one).

 

[kaotic]

What causes sedimentary formations? What explains the Grand Canyon or any of the other rock formations around the world? Water.

You are right it was water, But not by a flood. Have you heard something called IceAge. Well then the ice melted it formed the Grand Canyon.

The theory is.

Reversal of Earth's magnetic field

The Earth's magnetic field decreases to almost nothing every few hundred thousand years, and then reappears with the north and south poles flipped. A decrease in the magnetic field could result in a decrease in the amount of particle storms, cosmic rays and subatomic particles that the field deflects on a daily basis. This would, again, erode the protective ozone layer. And if the poles were to flip, many creatures that navigate magnetically could be affected. A full magnetic reversal could cause massive ecological problems across the whole of the Earth.


So i believe when that happens the USA would have been on the south pole. where it would have been frozen.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by npetreley
What in the name of Kenneth Toby's cardboard belt?!? You and someone else recognized Daggett, the bevoire of fame from my favorite cartoon show?

Tic... toc!   

Fantastic.  Can't have enough of Norb and Daggy-waggy.

Never, probably. This is just a wild unscientific guess, but hybrids, microevolution probably increased rapidly for a few hundred years after the flood and reached a sort of equilibrium sometime after that (about the same time our life spans reached a rough equilibrium).

Criminies!  You're suggesting that the kind of diversity we see today took place within a few hundred years!  That's astounding.  We really would have seen lions giving birth to cute little [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-cats!  And horses giving birth to zebras!  And chimps giving birth to... 

You are aware that we are genetically more similar to chimps than zebras are to horses, are you not?

Well, I didn't mean to pose it as the answer, just as a possibility. IMO it's not important so I haven't given it much consideration.

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? 

Cheers,

Prax

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by npetreley
What about inbreeding? The problem is that we don't know what "kinds" are. So we don't know how interbreeding affects this problem. I would guess (and this is just an unscientific guess) that interbreeding created thousands or more of what we call species today, but only one of those had to be on the ark because all of these species could be represented by one "kind". Unfortunately, since we don't know what "kinds" are, that can only be speculation - there's no way to test the hypothesis.

That's irrelevant. Even if you take two of every species on the Ark, you still have the problem of inbreeding. There would obviously have to be something to overcome the effects of inbreeding in order to have a healthy, successful, and diverse population.

And if you don't count every species, that becomes even more of a problem (since as Praxiteles pointed out, you must have extremely fast rates of speciation to account for current biodiversity).

Furthermore, how did all these animals return to their appropriate climates/habitats?

 

[paulewog]

Inbreeding?

That's what MADE the genetic diversity of life, isn't it?

They took two dogs. Mother Dog and Father Dog. Those two dogs had the genes for every kind of dog...

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
That's irrelevant. Even if you take two of every species on the Ark, you still have the problem of inbreeding. There would obviously have to be something to overcome the effects of inbreeding in order to have a healthy, successful, and diverse population.

And if you don't count every species, that becomes even more of a problem (since as Praxiteles pointed out, you must have extremely fast rates of speciation to account for current biodiversity).

Furthermore, how did all these animals return to their appropriate climates/habitats?

Duh. My tired brain (what little of it there is) read inbreeding but thought interbreeding, which is why I responded the way I did. My bad. As for inbreeding, I have no idea how that affected things. One theory I heard was that inbreeding was actually beneficial to creatures before the flood. I'm too tired to look up the reasoning behind that, but it has the support of Biblical history (incest wasn't "bad" early in the Bible, but it was later). Regardless, I don't see how anyone could answer that without having the animals of that time right here to test any hypothesis.