Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[dad]

Nope, a lucky find of Neanderthal DNA confirms that they are not a human ancestor.

OK. Let's play. Show the source. Hooha.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Doesn't matter at all with rapid evolution! We changed as needed fast. The only place that matters in inside your baseless belief system where you subjectively declare N man 'not a human'. No change is too great for the wonderful real past.

I seem to recall someone mentioning that N man interbred with humans. Do you really think people were so daft after the flood that they had sex with monkeys?

People have investigated that possibility: if humans ever had offspring with Neanderthals, the Neanderthal genes are no longer in our gene pool. For crying out loud, we have their DNA dad, what more do you want? They didn't even originate in the same geographic region; humans first appear in Africa. Neanderthals are restricted to Europe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

OK. Let's play. Show the source. Hooha.

| The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's a primer on the subject, something I'm sure the evolutionists will endlessly wring their hands over because it actually makes sense.

From the Ark, Terrestrial animal life was distributed either by land migration or rafting via oceanic currents. Dispersal through ocean currents also explains distributions of terrestrial plant life along coastlines.

That makes zero sense. How was this able to keep so many placental mammals out of Australia? The marsupial mole was able to run quickly across the Earth to get to Australia, but the Antelope could not? Sounds like a lot of bovine feces to me.

 

[dad]

People have investigated that possibility: if humans ever had offspring with Neanderthals, the Neanderthal genes are no longer in our gene pool. For crying out loud, we have their DNA dad, what more do you want? They didn't even originate in the same geographic region; humans first appear in Africa. Neanderthals are restricted to Europe.

You seem to be claiming DNA used to be the same? Good luck with that. N man if you are right DID have DNA, but who says that in the former state things would work out that we got it passed down?



"
When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At that time, at least two other species of hominid cousins walked the Eurasian landmass—Neanderthals and Denisovans. As our modern human ancestors migrated through Eurasia, they encountered the Neanderthals and interbred. Because of this, a small amount of Neanderthal DNA was introduced into the modern human gene pool.
Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA"

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/







"
At least one-fifth of the Neanderthal genome may lurk within modern humans, influencing the skin, hair and diseases people have today, researchers say.
Although modern humans are the only surviving human lineage, other groups of early humans used to live on Earth. The closest extinct relatives of modern humans were the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia until they went extinct about 40,000 years ago. The ancestors of modern humans diverged from those of Neanderthals"


http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html

 

[PsychoSarah]

You seem to be claiming DNA used to be the same? Good luck with that. N man if you are right DID have DNA, but who says that in the former state things would work out that we got it passed down?



"
When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At that time, at least two other species of hominid cousins walked the Eurasian landmass—Neanderthals and Denisovans. As our modern human ancestors migrated through Eurasia, they encountered the Neanderthals and interbred. Because of this, a small amount of Neanderthal DNA was introduced into the modern human gene pool.
Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA"

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/







"
At least one-fifth of the Neanderthal genome may lurk within modern humans, influencing the skin, hair and diseases people have today, researchers say.
Although modern humans are the only surviving human lineage, other groups of early humans used to live on Earth. The closest extinct relatives of modern humans were the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia until they went extinct about 40,000 years ago. The ancestors of modern humans diverged from those of Neanderthals"


At least 20% of Neanderthal DNA Is in Humans

And the Smithsonian made a different conclusion. Shocking twist, scientists don't always degree. There is a split on this issue, some, such as myself, do not view Neanderthals as interbreeding to any significant extent with humans, others view differently. There are credible sources on both sides of that, but all agree by this point that humans did not evolve from Neanderthals. Interbreeding doesn't make Neanderthals human ancestors like you seem to think it does. And that is if it even did happen. Now, I read your sources, but did you read mine?

 

[Blue Wren]

First, there were no continents when the animals got off the Ark.

The earth at the time was one landmass from Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The Bible calls it Eden, scientists call it Pangaea.

The one single ocean that emcompassed this landmass was called Panthalassa.

Second, you have to realize that God brought the animals to the Ark, and He would certainly lead them back home.

One way He could have done that is intimated in Acts 8 with the Apostle Philip.

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Just as God teleported Philip miles away, He could have teleported the animals back to their respective ecological niches as they disembarked.

Does it say anything in the Bible, about animals being teleported around the world? Creationists, I've often read them argue that evolution, is it not mentioned in the Bible. To support creationism, so much, is not directly referenced in the Bible, either, is it? Thank-you, for your time.

 

[dad]

And the Smithsonian made a different conclusion. Shocking twist, scientists don't always degree. There is a split on this issue, some, such as myself, do not view Neanderthals as interbreeding to any significant extent with humans, others view differently. There are credible sources on both sides of that, but all agree by this point that humans did not evolve from Neanderthals. Interbreeding doesn't make Neanderthals human ancestors like you seem to think it does. And that is if it even did happen. Now, I read your sources, but did you read mine?

OK so I looked at your link. A few questions..

If the way mtDNA was passed down or produced in the past was not the same due to whatever reasons such as different laws, how would we know now? They already assign a different origin for nuclear and mtDNA in your link. How would we know if there was another way than from, say being passed down by mom? Even the process of polymerization and other basics of the processes that form DNA today use our physics. If we were to change physics could the basic shape or functions of DNA be altered?

Could the factors that now lead to male inability to have much mtDNA have been different to a degree if the past was different in fundamental nature and laws?

Chemical reactions involve laws of physics and any change in laws could result in a difference in reactions.

"A monomer (/ˈmɒnəmər/ MON-ə-mər[1]) (mono-, "one" + -mer, "part") is a molecule that may bind chemically to other molecules to form a polymer." wiki


Note this also

"In biochemistry, the primary structure of a biological molecule is the exact specification of its atomic composition and the chemical bonds connecting those atoms (including stereochemistry)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_structure#Primary_structure

Obviously how atoms behave depends on laws and forces. I think it is clear that to simply gawk at DNA today and assume it was the same always is nothing more than a statement of faith! No wonder there are gaping disagreements among scientists.

 

[lifepsyop]

That makes zero sense. How was this able to keep so many placental mammals out of Australia?

It could have been any number of reasons.

Why didn't placental mammals thrive in Australia in an evolutionary model? Think about your answer before you respond.

The marsupial mole was able to run quickly across the Earth to get to Australia, but the Antelope could not? Sounds like a lot of bovine feces to me.

Your evolutionary explanation is no less ad-hoc than mine. ("Natural Selection dun it.") Marsupials happened to ecologically thrive in Australia while placentals didn't. The exact reasons are unclear.

Try again.

 

[Loudmouth]

It could have been any number of reasons.

Like what?

Why didn't placental mammals thrive in Australia in an evolutionary model?

Australia broke off from the Americas before the newly evolved placental mammals could migrate there and establish a foothold. There is only limited fossil evidence of a few placentals making it to Australia before the continent moved away so that no more placentals could make it to Australia until very recently.

"The indisputable remains of Australian placental mammals started from the Miocene, when Australia moved closer to Indonesia. After 15 MYA bats appeared reliably in the fossil record, and after 5-10 MYA rodents did. The subsequent introductions of placental mammals into Australian fauna were about 1 MYA (rats), several thousand years ago (dingo), and 200 years ago (many species); the last two were made by humans."
Mammals of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The flood doesn't explain the fossil record in Australia, nor the post-flood species distribution. You claim there are reasons, but you can't give us one.

 

[lifepsyop]

Like what?

Like placental mammal populations were more favored in other regions.

Like marsupials were the first to be driven from a central mammal population, and thus became established in more distant regions.

Like I said, any number of reasons.

Here is Evolutionists' "explanation" for the lack of placentals in Australia:

"In Australia, terrestrial placental mammals disappeared early in the Cenozoic (their most recent known fossils being 55 million-year-old teeth resembling those of condylarths) for reasons that are not clear, allowing marsupials to dominate the Australian ecosystem."
Marsupial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, your model explains so much about Australian biogeography.

Australia broke off from the Americas before the newly evolved placental mammals could migrate there and establish a foothold.

So why couldn't placentals potentially have reached Australia via rafting events? Wouldn't that be your explanation if that's what was found?

There is only limited fossil evidence of a few placentals making it to Australia before the continent moved away so that no more placentals could make it to Australia until very recently.

So why did the placental mammals die off?

The flood doesn't explain the fossil record in Australia, nor the post-flood species distribution. You claim there are reasons, but you can't give us one.

The potential reasons that I listed above are obvious. Australian biogeography is no problem at all to the flood model. We know this because you can't frame an argument to the contrary, as usual, just bald assertions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like placental mammal populations were more favored in other regions.

Based on what?

Like marsupials were the first to be driven from a central mammal population, and thus became established in more distant regions.

Based on what? Making stuff up really isn't helping you.

Here is Evolutionists' "explanation" for the lack of placentals in Australia:

"In Australia, terrestrial placental mammals disappeared early in the Cenozoic (their most recent known fossils being 55 million-year-old teeth resembling those of condylarths) for reasons that are not clear, allowing marsupials to dominate the Australian ecosystem."
Marsupial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is clear why they never came back. There was no path from the Americas to Australia. That's the part you keep ignoring.

So why couldn't placentals potentially have reached Australia via rafting events? Wouldn't that be your explanation if that's what was found?

They didn't reach Australia via rafting events. You seem to want to invent a fantasy world in order to ignore the real world.

So why did the placental mammals die off?

Why didn't antelope make it to Australia after the flood, but marsupial moles did? Was there a placental mammal force shield around the continent?

 

[lifepsyop]

Based on what?

What do you mean "based on what"? It stands to reason that marsupials would be driven furthest from placental dominated regions. Is there some magical barrier preventing marsupials migrating somewhere that placentals didn't? I'd love to hear you explain this. But to do that, you'd have to have an argument, and we know you don't like those.

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you mean "based on what"? It stands to reason that marsupials would be driven furthest from placental dominated regions.

Why wouldn't Australia be placental dominated? How were the marsupial moles able to outrun the antelope to Australia?

Is there some magical barrier preventing marsupials migrating somewhere that placentals didn't?

Is there a magical barrier that prevented placentals from migrating to Australia?

 

[lifepsyop]

Why wouldn't Australia be placental dominated? How were the marsupial moles able to outrun the antelope to Australia?

What is this magical power making it impossible for Antelope to resist running to Australia?

Is there a magical barrier that prevented placentals from migrating to Australia?

Nope. Got an argument yet as to why placentals HAD to migrate to Australia no matter what? Were they being herded by the Darwin fairies?

 

[justlookinla]

What do you mean "based on what"? It stands to reason that marsupials would be driven furthest from placental dominated regions. Is there some magical barrier preventing marsupials migrating somewhere that placentals didn't? I'd love to hear you explain this. But to do that, you'd have to have an argument, and we know you don't like those.

It would be interesting for him to explain that. I'm with you, I doubt that happens.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would be interesting for him to explain that. I'm with you, I doubt that happens.

I am still waiting for an explanation from you guys. How can marsupial moles beat antelope to Australia? What is this magical barrier that prevented all of these migrating placental mammals from going to Australia?

 

[Loudmouth]

What is this magical power making it impossible for Antelope to resist running to Australia?

What? You are saying that there is some magical force that made all placental mammals resist going to Australia?

Nope. Got an argument yet as to why placentals HAD to migrate to Australia no matter what? Were they being herded by the Darwin fairies?

Why wouldn't they migrate to Australia?

 

[lifepsyop]

How can marsupial moles beat antelope to Australia?

Differential ecological pressures... or maybe you're right and it would have to be a LoonyToons style foot race between all animals.

Why wouldn't they migrate to Australia?

Marsupials are driven away from central Eurasian placental populations, and consequently are the first groups to migrate across a land bridge from southeast Asia to Australia. By the time placental populations migrate in large numbers to southeast Asian region, the land bridge has significantly subsided. There is your explanation.

And you're left with the argument that the Darwin fairies herded all animals at the same time towards Australia.

 

[Astrophile]

Marsupials are driven away from central Eurasian placental populations, and consequently are the first groups to migrate across a land bridge from southeast Asia to Australia. By the time placental populations migrate in large numbers to southeast Asian region, the land bridge has significantly subsided. There is your explanation.

So why are there placental mammals in South America and Madagascar? Why are there no marsupials in Madagascar?