Hyperevolution

[Mallon]

Ham's new house of wax posits that there were less than 200 original vertebrate "kinds" aboard Noah's ark, and that these diversified to form all living species in the intervening 4,000 years. Considering that there are about 57,739 named vertebrates today, this implies a speciation rate of 14.38 new vertebrate species/year. Needless to say, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom that only a few species originate per year (Sepkoski 1998). So the question inevitably arises: According to creationism, where are all these new species coming from and why are we not finding them?

 

[crawfish]

Now THAT'S a take I haven't heard before.

 

[gluadys]

Ham's new house of wax posits that there were less than 200 original vertebrate "kinds" aboard Noah's ark, and that these diversified to form all living species in the intervening 4,000 years. Considering that there are about 57,739 named vertebrates today, this implies a speciation rate of 14.38 new vertebrate species/year. Needless to say, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom that only a few species originate per year (Sepkoski 1998). So the question inevitably arises: According to creationism, where are all these new species coming from and why are we not finding them?

I wonder if he would like to take a stab at identifying which species were not on the ark and when and where they historically appeared for the first time.

It does seem to me that if new species were appearing that rapidly that humans would have been noticing at least some of them from ancient times on and there would be more or less continuous records of "this year's new species" as far back as the pyramids.

 

[Jadis40]

Ham's new house of wax posits that there were less than 200 original vertebrate "kinds" aboard Noah's ark, and that these diversified to form all living species in the intervening 4,000 years. Considering that there are about 57,739 named vertebrates today, this implies a speciation rate of 14.38 new vertebrate species/year. Needless to say, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom that only a few species originate per year (Sepkoski 1998). So the question inevitably arises: According to creationism, where are all these new species coming from and why are we not finding them?

This is yet another example of why Ham's creation theme park is so deceptive. He's picking random figures out of the air and presenting them as fact. To the scientifically uneducated, it may seem logical and possible on the most superficial of levels. But when they are confronted with reality, how damaging will that be to their faith when they realize that what Ham proposes is completely unsupported by any evidence?

 

[laptoppop]

Ham's new house of wax posits that there were less than 200 original vertebrate "kinds" aboard Noah's ark, and that these diversified to form all living species in the intervening 4,000 years. Considering that there are about 57,739 named vertebrates today, this implies a speciation rate of 14.38 new vertebrate species/year. Needless to say, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom that only a few species originate per year (Sepkoski 1998). So the question inevitably arises: According to creationism, where are all these new species coming from and why are we not finding them?

I'm very tired right now, so forgive me for a less than complete answer.

First a question - Do you have any links for Ham making such a declaration?

In any case, as I've said before, one person, no matter whom, does not speak for the entire YEC community, and certainly does not speak for me.

In terms of the "hyper evolution" -- my understanding is still growing rapidly. I've always been more interested in the fossils and geologic formation. However, the more I research, the more it appears:
- within the genetic code of each kind, there is a range of allowable variation. Changes within this allowable variation happen relatively freely.

- there are specific DNA repair mechanisms that kick in when the critter goes beyond the range of variation

- the coding for the variation limits is contained in what is often thought of a "junk" DNA

There are references for each of these thoughts - but honestly, I'm too tired to mess with them tonight.

 

[gluadys]

However, the more I research, the more it appears:
- within the genetic code of each kind, there is a range of allowable variation. Changes within this allowable variation happen relatively freely.

Please see my thread Variation and Variability
http://www.christianforums.com/t5536798-variation-and-variability.html
on this topic. It explains why the concept of "a range of allowable variation" does not work with a flood scenario.

- there are specific DNA repair mechanisms that kick in when the critter goes beyond the range of variation

This does not correctly describe the initiation of DNA repair mechanisms, and you have been told that before. It is time you corrected this error.

There is no particular correlation with the range of variation and the initiation of repair mechanisms. If there were, we would never get serious genetically based malformations. But we do. And we would never have minor DNA changes corrected. But they are.

- the coding for the variation limits is contained in what is often thought of a "junk" DNA

We all know by now that so-called "junk" DNA may have many non-protein coding uses. But before this use can be confirmed the existence of variation limits must be demonstrated. I don't think we have established that there is an upper limit (other than population size) on how many forms a gene may take.

 

[Mallon]

 

[laptoppop]

Thanks Mallon. Yah, I don't believe that. The ark was HUGE -- much larger than what you'd need for 200 pairs + extras for the clean animals.

 

[Mallon]

Hyperevolution is just one example of many processes that YECs must either accelerate relative to today's rates in order to fit into a 6,000-year timeframe. I thought it might also be interesting to list some of those processes here so we can put things into context.

- accelerated evolution
- accelerated speed of light
- accelerated plate tectonics and mountain building
- accelerated rates of isotope decay
- accelerated meteor impacts

I'm sure there's more. Feel free to add them here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ham's new house of wax posits that there were less than 200 original vertebrate "kinds" aboard Noah's ark, and that these diversified to form all living species in the intervening 4,000 years. Considering that there are about 57,739 named vertebrates today, this implies a speciation rate of 14.38 new vertebrate species/year. Needless to say, this flies in the face of conventional wisdom that only a few species originate per year (Sepkoski 1998). So the question inevitably arises: According to creationism, where are all these new species coming from and why are we not finding them?

It's not going to happen in linear fashion, most of the adaptive radiation would have occurred in earlier generations after the flood. In fact, one of the things that has me hopelessly puzzled is the logistics of the whole thing. I mean the early parent forms had to do some pretty rapid fanning out from the few thousands emerging from the Ark.

Actually, I think you are looking at smaller numbers but much larger gene pools. At any rate, that's my take on it.

 

[shernren]

Actually, I think you are looking at smaller numbers but much larger gene pools. At any rate, that's my take on it.

In real life, only large numbers give you large gene pools. Unless, of course, you feel like showing me a viable counterexample.