You have to understand that real science is quite dissimilar to Baumgardners "clever-sounding speculation." How much heat does he say is produced? How much will this reduce the viscosity of the underlying magma and how will that affect the coefficient of friction? What are his assumptions, where is his data?
Can we scrutinize his model?
Take a guess at how much energy that would need. Where did it come from?
Noah would have been poached!
So were quite a few people in the past. Newton was a Christian, for example. That really changes nothing.
So all freshwater fish had to... hang on a minute - evolve into their present forms from earlier ones?
Please provide a mechanism - other than evolution - by which a species can change over time. By the way, I've no doubt that evolution could not have been responsible for this; 4,000 years is far to short a period of time.
Source please.
Evidence please.
Then why do we not see a genetic bottleneck characteristic of a period when a population is very small? Why do molecular clocks indicate a most recent common male ancestor in the order of 10s of thousands of years ago?
This doesn't explain why we only find marsupials in Australia and Polar bears in the Arctic. Are we to understand that there was only one pair of marsupials on board the Ark who went to Australia? Because otherwise there's no reason for the various species of marsupial to all be clustered in one geographical area. With polar bears, this rapid plate movement would presumably have meant that wherever the bears were wasn't the arctic - how did they survive?
Presumably you will say they "developed" from some other bear, so I await your reply on the mechanism which allows such diversification in a matter of centuries. We can assume this process happened over significantly less than 4,000 years since written records (which began before the flood, apparently, but lets assume they sprang up soon after) don't mention any hyper-evolution/development, and we haven't observed any of it happening recently. Hence species must have diversified within a couple of thousand years or so to be fixed by the time people started writing about them.
Of course, we are assuming that the animals actually survived - so the rather peckish lion didn't nibble on the zebra as they were leaving in an orderly fashion towards what would become Africa for no apparent reason.
Back on polar bears, we need to remember that ice is lighter than water and so a global flood would lift a polar icecap and float it off somewhere. Obviously this hasn't happened.
But at most 7 breeding pairs of a particular species of animal. Either way, we don't observe a corresponding genetic bottleneck, and we don't have any explanation for how an unviable population repopulated the earth.
Really? The annual population growth rate at the moment is estimated at about 1.14. one fourth of that rate is 1.035. (If we divided the figure 1.14 by 4 we'd get a decreasing population.)
Starting with a human population of 8 people, 4,000 years ago, with a rate of change of 1.06 we want the sum of a geometric series with 200 terms (generation time = 20 years as a reasonable estimate)
The sum of a geometric series of n terms with common ratio r and first term a is:
a(1-r^(n+1))/(1-r)
=8(1-1.035^201)/(-0.035)
=about 230,000
But this is not the point. A small initial population is unworkable. In a population of eight people, or their offspring, if one of you succumbs to disease, or becomes infertile, then that puts a huge dent in your result. Worse, it's not viable. Assuming they survived this, we should see a record of this in the genome, but we don't.
This, of course, is silly. If the paper were actually correct, then the earth would fill up with humans and then the death rate would have increased due to overcrowding. As it happens, population growth was of course rather less than a fourth of current values, as good old GCSE geography taught me. Referring back to our friend the Demographic Transition Model, in Stage 1, birth and death rates were very similar resulting in almost no population growth. It is only recently, with the advances of medicine, that population growth has become so high.
First of all, be careful with your terms. The genetic code is how sequences of bases correspond to amino acids. That hasn't changed one bit.
Now, I would like you to define deterioration and find some evidence of this deterioration. Taking into account that all the marsupials somehow "deteriorated" from the Ur-Marsupial, and all the bears from their bear ancestor and so on. Remember to define deterioration.
Oh, and a mechanism by which this occurs would be nice too - because as far as I know, mutations occur pretty much randomly. That would preclude pure deterioration.
Evidence, please.
Mechanism, please. We know exactly how and why incest is bad these days. I would like to know exactly what was different, rather than this rather vague notion of "deterioration." What exactly was different, why did that make incest dandy, and how did it change.
Upvote
0