Post Flood Evolution?

[AliOgg]

What if the evolution of species didn't start till after the Great Flood?

God Bless You And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[PaladinValer]

Since there was no Global Flood and that evolution had been occurring since Life first was...

 

[Biliskner]

Since there was no Global Flood and that evolution had been occurring since Life first was...

how dogmatic.

 

[Vance]

how dogmatic.

Like saying that something "contradicts the Bible" when all it really does in contradict your reading of it?

 

[AliOgg]

Since there was no Global Flood and that evolution had been occurring since Life first was...

What's wrong my friend, never played What If?

And God Bless All His Peoples.

 

[Vance]

The problems are legion. Here are just a few:

First, there simply is not enough time to develop the vast array we have today.

Second, we have fossils from long before the flood period showing species which do not exist now.

Biogeography and genetics just won't work.

Someone would have to come up with a model for hyper evolution which fits all the data, but no one has ever come close.

 

[AliOgg]

how dogmatic.

Hello friend, don't worry I'm quite thick skinned, usually, but what do you think about the question, and although I try to be light hearted this is a very serious question for me, assume no evolution untill after the flood, the animals come out of the arc, spread out, multiply, evolution starts and the diversity of species comes about, explaining diversity of species and why the arc wasn't 20 miles long.
Humor me, think about this for a little while and get back to me.

And God Bless All His People.

 

[SBG]

I don't think there is a problem with evolution in the sense that all animals are within their kind, as the Bible states. Animals could have 'evolved' with staying in their own kind. Genesis states God created different types of animals, and out of these animals other animals would come forth following after their own kind.

 

[gluadys]

Hello friend, don't worry I'm quite thick skinned, usually, but what do you think about the question, and although I try to be light hearted this is a very serious question for me, assume no evolution untill after the flood, the animals come out of the arc, spread out, multiply, evolution starts and the diversity of species comes about, explaining diversity of species and why the arc wasn't 20 miles long.
Humor me, think about this for a little while and get back to me.

And God Bless All His People.

New species would need to appear almost every day and species would need to disappear into extinction almost every day.

This would surely be something noticed by humans, and in those cultures with written records it would almost certainly have been recorded that some species which had existed when the writer was 10 were extinct by the time he was 50 while other new species had appeared.

But no human civilization makes any reference to the constant appearance and disappearance of new plants and animals which would have to be occurring.

 

[Biliskner]

Like saying that something "contradicts the Bible" when all it really does in contradict your reading of it?

Like I've said to you Vance in a different thread, the Hebrew is at your disposal for the translation of Genesis 1-3.

You can read it however you want.

 

[Biliskner]

Hello friend, don't worry I'm quite thick skinned, usually, but what do you think about the question, and although I try to be light hearted this is a very serious question for me, assume no evolution untill after the flood, the animals come out of the arc, spread out, multiply, evolution starts and the diversity of species comes about, explaining diversity of species and why the arc wasn't 20 miles long.
Humor me, think about this for a little while and get back to me.

And God Bless All His People.

Hi,
Like the other dudes have said, there is too much evidence (fossil and geographic strata) to have evolution only begin after the flood. But then again there was no flood according to TEs (theistic evolutionists) so that "what if" is kind of stupid in their eyes i guess.

The way I think about it with just reading the Bible is that God created humans and animals/birds/fishies/etc. with DNA that encompasses all the variety we see today. So take humans. We have black, yellow, white skins. Adam and Eve's genome contained all these varieties of skin colors. How it was expressed phenotypically in the first two humans is anybody's guess. As these guys "knew" each other, they had kids, and the genome spread. So after a long time, like 4-5 thousand years we get this spread of different skin colors. AiG can explain the animals one much better. Here's a link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

Don't buy the whole new different meaning of "evolution" as seen here on these forums. It is not what the secular payganistic world means when they say "evolution". usually it takes some more time to figure out what the difference in meaning is when TEs use 'evolution' and when secular people use 'evolution, TE's have incorporated 'evolution' into their worldview (and sometimes into their reading of Scripture) but if you want to know the difference between real evolution as meant by Darwin, here is the link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp

Better still read Origins and the Blind Watchmaker and also Brave New World then read the Scriptures and see what you think.
Cheers

 

[Biliskner]

i'm not sure if i hate doing this or love doing this...

New species would need to appear almost every day and species would need to disappear into extinction almost every day.

dogma.
listen to your own words. where is your evidence?

This would surely be something noticed by humans, and in those cultures with written records it would almost certainly have been recorded that some species which had existed when the writer was 10 were extinct by the time he was 50 while other new species had appeared.

more dogma. where is your evidence?

But no human civilization makes any reference to the constant appearance and disappearance of new plants and animals which would have to be occurring.

this is the kicker. this last paragraph debunks your first two paragraphs.
where is the evidence? there is none!
what's more, it's the most dogmatic of all three paragraphs!

 

[gluadys]

Don't buy the whole new different meaning of "evolution" as seen here on these forums. It is not what the secular payganistic world means when they say "evolution". usually it takes some more time to figure out what the difference in meaning is when TEs use 'evolution' and when secular people use 'evolution, TE's have incorporated 'evolution' into their worldview (and sometimes into their reading of Scripture) but if you want to know the difference between real evolution as meant by Darwin, here is the link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp

I have only taken time to skim this article and much more could be said about it. However, here are three criticisms of it.

A major point is the common practice of _Teaching about Evolution _and the _Nature of Science_ to call all change in organisms ‘evolution.’ This enables _Teaching about Evolution_ to claim that evolution is happening today.

This is not a "new" definition of evolution. This is the same definition used by Darwin and is still used today.

However, creationists have never disputed that organisms change; the difference is the type of change.

Emphasis added.

This is quite simply not true. It is true that by the time Darwin published the 6th edition of Origin, that some creationists began accepting that species were not immutable, and Darwin makes note of that. But the standard creationist belief in 1859 was that "kind"="speices"=immutable form. To say that creationists never disputed that organisms change is a form of creationist amnesia.

In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants.

This is both right and irrelevant. It is true that an originally created species could have more heterozygosity in that more of its genes coud be polymorphous. But this still does not address the question of multiple polymorphisms for the same gene. If one assumes the original population of the species to be one male and one female, the limit of variability for any one gene locus is 4 alleles. But there are numerous examples of gene loci, in the human as well as animal genomes, where the variability of a single locus goes into hundreds of alleles. The only known source of new alleles is mutation.

Evolution explains the reduction of heterozygosity by natural selection which eliminates less fit alleles. It explains an increase of variability at specific genetic loci by mutation. Creationist sites often agree with the first statement, but forget the importance of the second.

For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated below,3 a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.

This assumes a Mendelian scenario for long and short hair. It assumes hair length is a product of a single gene with two discrete alleles. In fact, hair lenght, like most traits, is affected by numerous genes whose combined effect creates a continuum of varied hair lenghts describable in a bell curve.

Most members of the species will cluster around the mean hair length with smaller and smaller distributions toward both extremes.

Those near the mean will have an approximately equal number of genes coding for long vs short hair length. So if there are ten genes affecting hair length, they will have a distribution of LLLLLSSSSS or perhaps 6L4S or the reverse. Those at the "short" extreme might have LLSSSSSSSS and those at the "long" extreme might have LLLLLLLLSS. (Genomes of 10L or 10S are possible but highly improbable.)

Now, if you have selective pressure towards shorter hair, this does not mean dogs lose all their L alleles. What it means is that the average shifts from 5L5S to e.g. 3L7S. This average can always be reversed.

How to get a long-haired dog from short-haired dogs.

Let us suppose that Dog A and Dog B are both short-haired dogs. Both have ten genes governing hair length, and both have two copies of each gene for a total of 20 genes. Both have inherited two genes for long hair (L) from each of their parents.

Since genes are usually inherited independently of each other, these L genes do not occur in the same loci.

Let's say that the genome of Dog A looks like this:

paternal LSSSLSSSSS
maternal SSLSSLSSSS

And the genome of Dog B looks like this:
paternal SSSSLLSSSS
maternal SLSSSSSLSS

Now gametes from Dog A can contain none, one, two, three or all four of the L alleles:

SSSSSSSSSS
LSSSSSSSSS
LSLSSSSSSS
LSLSLSSSSS
LSLSLSLSSS

Similarly with gametes from Dog B

SSSSSSSSSS
SLSSSSSSSS
SLSSLSSSSS
SLSSLLSSSS
SLSSLLSLSS

Now if we pair up the 4L gamete from Dog A with the four L gamete from Dog B we get a genome that looks like this:

paternal LSLSLSLSSS
maternal SLSSLLSLSS

Let's call this Dog C

When Dog C creates gametes, some could have up to seven L genes:

LLLSLLLLSS

So the ability to grow long hair does not generally disappear from a species, and the species remains able to adapt to both warmer and colder climates.

 

[gluadys]

i'm not sure if i hate doing this or love doing this...



dogma.
listen to your own words. where is your evidence?



more dogma. where is your evidence?

Simple math. Determine how many kinds on ark. Determine current number of species in these kinds. Calculate needed frequency of speciation.

this is the kicker. this last paragraph debunks your first two paragraphs. where is the evidence? there is none!
what's more, it's the most dogmatic of all three paragraphs!

From frequency of speciation (and extinction) previously calculated referenced to average human life-time, calculate how many new species must be appearing (and how many disappearing) in average human life-time.

Of course, there is no evidence. That is the point. If speciation were actually occuring as frequently as needed for all of today's species to be derived from the kinds on the ark--there ought to be evidence in the legends and written records of human civilizations. AFAIK there are none. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Biliskner]

Simple math. Determine how many kinds on ark. Determine current number of species in these kinds. Calculate needed frequency of speciation.

From frequency of speciation (and extinction) previously calculated referenced to average human life-time, calculate how many new species must be appearing (and how many disappearing) in average human life-time.

Of course, there is no evidence. That is the point. If speciation were actually occuring as frequently as needed for all of today's species to be derived from the kinds on the ark--there ought to be evidence in the legends and written records of human civilizations. AFAIK there are none. Feel free to prove me wrong.

i have zero idea of what you're saying.

are you saying that the number of species we see today cannot possibly be derived from the number that was on Noah's arK?

 

[gluadys]

i have zero idea of what you're saying.

are you saying that the number of species we see today cannot possibly be derived from the number that was on Noah's arK?

I am saying there is nowhere near enough time passed for so many new species to evolve since the usual dates given for the flood, unless evolution was happening at a super-fast rate that was obvious to observers in their life-time. You would have to cram up to half a billion years of evolution (by scientific dating) into less than 6,000 years. For example, beetles alone account for over a million species. So if we began with a single beetle kind, you are looking at 200 new species per year--not counting fossil species. That is about 4 per week--and that is assuming such a rate of speciation is still occurring. There is no evidence in historic or current literature that speciation is or ever has occurred at such a rate.

You get the same sort of thing with other kinds. Did the ark carry just one rodent kind or several? If it carried just one, and all the current rodent species are derived from it, you need to account for about 2000 speciations or about 1 at least every five years continuing right up to 2005. You can reduce the need for such fast evolution by dividing rodents into groups, each of which is represented on the ark: rats, squirrels, beaver, etc. But the more groups, the greater the population of the ark. I have never seen a feasible population of the ark which does not demand super-speed post-flood evolution.

So, maybe you would like to crunch the numbers?

 

[Biliskner]

I am saying there is nowhere near enough time passed for so many new species to evolve since the usual dates given for the flood, unless evolution was happening at a super-fast rate that was obvious to observers in their life-time. You would have to cram up to half a billion years of evolution (by scientific dating) into less than 6,000 years. For example, beetles alone account for over a million species. So if we began with a single beetle kind, you are looking at 200 new species per year--not counting fossil species. That is about 4 per week--and that is assuming such a rate of speciation is still occurring. There is no evidence in historic or current literature that speciation is or ever has occurred at such a rate.

You get the same sort of thing with other kinds. Did the ark carry just one rodent kind or several? If it carried just one, and all the current rodent species are derived from it, you need to account for about 2000 speciations or about 1 at least every five years continuing right up to 2005. You can reduce the need for such fast evolution by dividing rodents into groups, each of which is represented on the ark: rats, squirrels, beaver, etc. But the more groups, the greater the population of the ark. I have never seen a feasible population of the ark which does not demand super-speed post-flood evolution.

So, maybe you would like to crunch the numbers?

i would looooooooooooooooooooooooove to. but you know where to go to find it for yourself. they've done it for the whole world to see, and that's a winner

your argument is flawed because it is not a linear growth but an expodential growth.
take Noah. 8 ppl saved on the boat (yes that's 8 HUMANS, not ape like human non-human hybrid - whatever you guys want to insert in here)

now we have how many billion? 3, 4? and that's AFTER having World Wars of many sorts (i include Assyria kicking Israel's butt on many occasions.)

in 4 thousand years of population growth the human population has 'filled the earth'. the same is with your rodent. 1 kind on the ark = expodential growth = whatever you see now (i don't know how many species in particular you're thinking of.)

it's not that hard to comprehend. if the mathematics are 1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6!.... ffs, the numbers are not problem.

 

[gluadys]

i would looooooooooooooooooooooooove to. but you know where to go to find it for yourself. they've done it for the whole world to see, and that's a winner

your argument is flawed because it is not a linear growth but an expodential growth.
take Noah. 8 ppl saved on the boat (yes that's 8 HUMANS, not ape like human non-human hybrid - whatever you guys want to insert in here)

Now you are talking about something entirely different. Population growth is not at all the same thing as increasing the number of species. Population growth doesn't affect the number of species at all.

But if you want to talk population growth be sure to read this.

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm#bunnies

 

[Biliskner]

Now you are talking about something entirely different. Population growth is not at all the same thing as increasing the number of species.

ohhh.... of course that's something completely different...


(c.f. response below)

Population growth doesn't affect the number of species at all.

chopping down trees to make room for population growth whether that be commercial/industry or residential doesn't effect the number of species?

why yes.....

 

[gluadys]

ohhh.... of course that's something completely different...


(c.f. response below)




chopping down trees to make room for population growth whether that be commercial/industry or residential doesn't effect the number of species?

why yes.....

No, it doesn't. Not unless you overuse the resource to the point of making a species extinct---which is the opposite of creating new species.

It makes room for more of the same species, or for planting an imported species that already exists elsewhere, or for changing the distribution of existing local species. In and of itself it does not generate new species.

For that, you need a breeding program to artificially create new species and/or a natural process of speciation. So given the topic of post-flood speciation, the matter of population growth is irrelevant and off-topic.