Bottleneck Theory vs The Flood vs The Tribe of Benjamin

[dmmesdale]

Do you care about the well being of humans?

It is not about me. It is about assuming objective moral standards which magically apply to all persons everywhere at any time. Not caring about the well being of humans does not violate anything in nature which is assumed to be our source. We subjectively apply more value to humans than we do to cockroaches. Nature, which transcends us all, does not.

If the answer is yes then we both have a objective basis for our morality.

What is to stop you from changing your views tomorrow? Nothing. You have no anchor, atheist. Agreement does not equal objectivity which would take effect backward in time. They had their way of doing things relative to their culture. So, no there is no objective basis for morality or as Jeffery Dahmer said.

''I've always believed the theory of evolution as truth that we all just came from slime. If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?''

People who would answer no usually end up in prison.

People who pick their nose usually end up in prison. Nature does not grant you an extrinsic right to life. God does.

It is evil because no one wants to live in a society where the killing of innocents is considered good and just.

They have done that sort of thing throughout all of human history. You trying to convince me or yourself? You don't have me convinced. Even today, many argue for the rights of women to abort their late term pregnancies and the abortionists can harvest and sell body parts for profit. They don't see it as evil. They could care less and see it as profitable. If it is evil then you rationally tell me why your opinion trumps theirs. The fetus has no rights and who cares what the science says? You can argue for an objective basis for gravity. You cannot argue for an objective basis for morality. In your material world, every behavior is natural since there is nothing else.

''The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence.'' Freud.

Any meaning assigned is comforting fiction no different than God belief. At least live within the confines of your system. Life has no objective purpose, equality is myth, and the king can do no wrong. You pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other. That is your reality. Not ours.

 

[miknik5]

Now we take advice from men who do evil and suggest that it's okay to do so

 

[miknik5]

There is a source who remains constant even if we try to put evil for good, darkness for light, bitter for sweet

HE won't be confused

 

[AV1611VET]

I take it that this thread is not actually about bottleneck theory.

There's only so much can be said about it.

It's wrong as applies to the Flood ... 'nuff said.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats over and done with,...its Q&A time

Agreed.

 

[sfs]

There's only so much can be said about it.

It's wrong as applies to the Flood ... 'nuff said.

As long as you mean that there was no bottleneck caused by the Flood, or only one that later erased miraculously.

 

[AV1611VET]

As long as you mean that there was no bottleneck caused by the Flood,

IF a bottleneck event occurred ... and I don't see why it wouldn't ... then I'm sure God handled it His way.

Take the plants for instance.

I don't think a bottleneck event occurred with the plants.

I think they were just obliterated by the Flood: every grass, shrub, and tree.

All angiosperms: here today, gone tomorrow.

A bottleneck, by definition would have left a remnant susceptible to two options: bottleneck recovery or bottleneck extinction.

HOWEVER, we see a dove bringing a leaf from an olive tree back to Noah.

How could this be!?

 

[JD16]

IF a bottleneck event occurred ... and I don't see why it wouldn't ... then I'm sure God handled it His way.

Goddidit! sorry, can't help myself

I somehow don't think 1 million people is a guarantee that a bottleneck recovery will always occur.

1 million people? Nar, no gurantees

And for the record, 8 people after the Flood is 4 times the number of people who existed on the earth just 7 chapters earlier.

8 people? No problemo! The lord is my shepherd, there is nothing I shall want....

 

[Jadis40]

I don't know what to tell you
In the end many will rise up thinking they are in service to GOD but by what they do, they will mske manifest that they do not know their GOD

This is true. Even Jesus said that those who expelled the followers of Christ from the synagogues and killed them would think they were doing God a favor or performing a service for him.

John 16:2

 

[Skreeper]

It is not about me. It is about assuming objective moral standards which magically apply to all persons everywhere at any time. Not caring about the well being of humans does not violate anything in nature which is assumed to be our source. We subjectively apply more value to humans than we do to cockroaches. Nature, which transcends us all, does not.

Alright apparently you don't fully grasp what morality actually is so I'll give you a quick rundown:

Morality is a human construct and it's foundation is necessarily subjective. There is no universal right and wrong that always applies and is given by some entity. We use morality always with a goal or objective in mind so when we live in a society and agree on our moral foundation as a collective then we can make objective assessments of situations even if the foundation is subjective.

Example:

I think life is preferable to death and pleasure is preferable to pain. Therefore my moral goal is the well being of humans including me of course. Now when a person murders another we can objectively assess that situation and can say murdering a person brings pain and death which breaks our societies moral foundation, so we lock the murderer up or exile him.

Now you can say that the well being of humans is not the basis of your morality but since we have ample evidence that societies that don't value the well being of humans don't last very long, I wouldn't do that.

What is to stop you from changing your views tomorrow? Nothing. You have no anchor, atheist. Agreement does not equal objectivity which would take effect backward in time. They had their way of doing things relative to their culture. So, no there is no objective basis for morality or as Jeffery Dahmer said.

We always change our views and bringing a god into the picture doesn't solve that. There was a time where human sacrifice and slavery was considered acceptable even in the eyes of the christian god.

My anchor is the agreed upon moral foundation of the society I live in. I don't care about the morality of another social group because I'm not a part of it.

Even if you say god is your foundation of morality it is still subjective to that god. And when you just follow the orders of a deity then you don't even act a a moral agent, you're just a drone following orders.

God said something, I disagree. Solve that conflict!

''I've always believed the theory of evolution as truth that we all just came from slime. If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?''

The person you quoted obviously doesn't understand the theory of evolution. And the point of modifying your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges is because we live in a cooperative society and we necessarily depend on getting along to survive. We are a social species in case you forgot.

Life has no objective purpose

Life's only objective purpose is the live and reproduce. There is no other god given purpose since we humans imbue purpose onto things.
Would you like if we decided that you have to become an [Insert random profession]?
I'm guessing you wouldn't like that so why would you want a god that tells you what you had to do?

 

[miknik5]

This is true. Even Jesus said that those who expelled the followers of Christ from the synagogues and killed them would think they were doing God a favor or performing a service for him.

John 16:2

Yes?

I know that
Even though HE said do not live by the sword we all know there are still those destined for the sword

They may THINK they are in service to GOD by uprooting what is not in their right to uproot, but they aren't

They go out from HIM and take matters into their own hands

Not by power or by might, sayeth the LORD

But by MY SPIRIT

Those who go out are making manifest that they go out by their own spirit

Not HIS

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In bottleneck theory, you have a population tooling along at a given rate: say 1 billion strong.

Then a bottleneck event* occurs, and the population is severely reduced: say to 1 million.

At this point, two things can happen: a bottleneck recovery or a bottleneck extinction.

I contend that God intervened after the Flood and prevented a bottleneck extinction.

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Later on, the tribe of Benjamin came very close to extinction in the Battle of Gibeah (Judges 19-21), but God intervened and brought it back.

Thoughts?

* catastrophism in action

Bottlenecks are not a theory. They are a phenomena of reality.
It's what happens when population size gets heavily reduced "overnight".

The only way you can marry this phenomena with your flood myth, is by stating that god went out of his way to explicitly make all traces of said genetic bottlenecks disappear magically in all species. Explicitly to make it look as if no bottleneck event ever took place.

And then you are on the teritorry of last thursdayism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I somehow don't think 1 million people is a guarantee that a bottleneck recovery will always occur.

Biologically seeing, a population over 300 individuals normally should do just fine in surviving.
It's when it drops under 200 that the risk of extinction is becoming very very real.
Such populations today are branded as "endangered species". Actually, I think we already call it endangered species when there are far more then 200.

A population of mere 8 individuals, while 3 are even siblings and sons of the 4th one?
That population is biologically doomed to extinction.

And for the record, 8 people after the Flood is 4 times the number of people who existed on the earth just 7 chapters earlier.

Assuming the book reflects actualy reality, off course.
But we all know that it doesn't. You know it to. I don't buy for a second that you truelly believe otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I like your signature.
I believe there is plenty of evidence for a global flood. A bottleneck certainly did occur at some point in the "recent" past for some reason or another. That is without doubt in my mind.

Then why does the actual evidence of reality suggest the exact opposite?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

maybe in the natural world 8 people are not genetically diverse enough to populate the earth. I was reading about health issues and the difficulty getting pregnant after so long. (maybe it isn't due to our diet, eh? lol)
But this is not the natural world, God ordained this.

So... it's a magical world, instead?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is genetic evidence that a bottleneck did occur and that the population numbers dropped far below the level that you consider untenable for repopulation and yet here we are!

Genetic bottleneck theory

Wow....

1. you are lying / misrepresenting / just mistaken about numbers that JD16 said are "untenable" for repopulation. JD16 said nothing on the subject that isn't in line with what you are quoting here

2. the bottleneck you are sharing here converges with a volcano eruption in a region that makes sense, considering geographic distribution of human populations at that time

3. this bottleneck dates to +50k years ago. LOOOONG before to legendary bible flood

4. this bottleneck is not a universal one. The bottleneck predicted by the flood myth should be present in ALL species and should ALL date to the same period.

In context of the legendary flood myth, what we are looking for a is universal bottleneck in all species, which also matches a geological flood layer, dated to the same period.

We don't find that. At all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, I see where you're going with it....but you error....babies have babies....and those babies have babies. Add to that a much greater percentage of heterozygosity and purer DNA....and your bottleneck problem vanishes.

Indeed.

When you add magic, all problems go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A population bottleneck (or genetic bottleneck) is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts) or human activities (such as genocide). Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population;

That's nice....but, I did notice they didn't even attempt to show what an increased heterozygosity and purer DNA would have on a population. They kinda brushed it aside.

I know right...

On top of that, they also didn't even attempt to show what effect additional DNA creating fairies and supermagical incubators would have on a population either!

They kind of brush that aside as well...
Not to mention that there were a lot more storks back then, which -as we all know- equals more babies!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, then how did it happen? Talk about a bottleneck.....imagine a time when there was only one simple cell....and now we have all of the life we see today. Your bottleneck theory claims life should not have even begun.

Inbreeding is a problem for species that produce sexually.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have. I think the world look exactly like a flood hit it.
Something happened.

If nothing else something created all of this oil and coal. And it didn't happen by animals lying around on the ground waiting to be buried. Some disaster buried massive amounts of plant matter and animals and squished them in order to create the deposits we see today.

If people don't want to believe in a flood... fine, whatever. their choice. But they have to believe in something. Because we are not getting new oil deposits based on the evolutionist theory of how oil and coal deposits were created.

Hmmm...

Perhaps you should look up what the average required credentials are of people that are hired to tell oil companies where to drill next in search of oil... and what criteria they use to conclude where there is a good chance of hitting oil.