Radioactivity and divergence

[laptoppop]

Here's a crazy thought.

ICR's RATE project has data and analysis that seems to indicate accelerated rates of radioactive decay, apparently during the flood. This would create greater amounts of radiation. One possibility is that Noah and his family were mostly shielded from the radiation by the mass of water in the flood.

One interesting issue is that the rates of divergence between different members of a "kind" seems to have been especially high right after the flood.

I wonder if the two are related -- if slightly higher amounts of residual radiation caused more rapid mutation/divergence (within the boundaries of a kind) than what we see now.

 

[juvenissun]

Here's a crazy thought.

ICR's RATE project has data and analysis that seems to indicate accelerated rates of radioactive decay, apparently during the flood. This would create greater amounts of radiation. One possibility is that Noah and his family were mostly shielded from the radiation by the mass of water in the flood.

One interesting issue is that the rates of divergence between different members of a "kind" seems to have been especially high right after the flood.

I wonder if the two are related -- if slightly higher amounts of residual radiation caused more rapid mutation/divergence (within the boundaries of a kind) than what we see now.

I have reservation about their model of accelerated "evolution" of many life kinds. It created a status which seems demanded a major explanation. One could be the one you said (not crazy at all). In stead of going toward this direction, I would rather to spend more time to figure out a better definition of "kind".

Besides, I am not sure what is the proposed mechanism of diversification. Evolutionist simply translated this idea to "accelerate evolution", which would certainly raise A LOT of problems.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm not sure I've ever seen ICR talk about the diversity explosion right after the flood. Bringing the gene pool down to pairs of animals is a pretty draconian reduction, and it appears that we need to account for the growth from pairs into the current diversity.

The Word says that Noah took two of each (unclean) kind onto the ark. The definition of "kind" is something various folks are working on -- baraminology, I believe it is called. But lets say for example, that there is a "dog" kind. For that to diversify into the current variation of yappers is quite a lot.

So my thoughts are just one possibility of how God did it.

It is crucial to note that I am NOT talking about "evolution". I'm talking about bounded variations within a kind, not structural informational changes like limbs or organs or bones. For the most part it would be color and size and some shape variations -- but a dog would be a dog, never a cat.

 

[shernren]

I wonder how that would square with the common creationist claim that most (if not all) mutations are harmful and not beneficial; or the more subtle claim that mutations reduce variation and not increase it (e.g. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine).

 

[laptoppop]

I think it would square just fine with my view that to an extreme degree most mutations are either harmful or neutral. Variations within a kind would be neutral.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure I've ever seen ICR talk about the diversity explosion right after the flood. Bringing the gene pool down to pairs of animals is a pretty draconian reduction, and it appears that we need to account for the growth from pairs into the current diversity.

The Word says that Noah took two of each (unclean) kind onto the ark. The definition of "kind" is something various folks are working on -- baraminology, I believe it is called. But lets say for example, that there is a "dog" kind. For that to diversify into the current variation of yappers is quite a lot.

So my thoughts are just one possibility of how God did it.

It is crucial to note that I am NOT talking about "evolution". I'm talking about bounded variations within a kind, not structural informational changes like limbs or organs or bones. For the most part it would be color and size and some shape variations -- but a dog would be a dog, never a cat.

So, what is the definition of biological "kind"?

 

[laptoppop]

So, what is the definition of biological "kind"?

Google up "baraminology" and you'll get lots of hits where folks are working on figuring that out.

 

[busterdog]

Here's a crazy thought.

ICR's RATE project has data and analysis that seems to indicate accelerated rates of radioactive decay, apparently during the flood. This would create greater amounts of radiation. One possibility is that Noah and his family were mostly shielded from the radiation by the mass of water in the flood.

One interesting issue is that the rates of divergence between different members of a "kind" seems to have been especially high right after the flood.

I wonder if the two are related -- if slightly higher amounts of residual radiation caused more rapid mutation/divergence (within the boundaries of a kind) than what we see now.

Why assume that all other constants remained at the same values if the decay rates are higher? There is plenty of evidence that the variations in other values allow you to conserve energy even if the Rate of decay is higher. Eg, if the particle moves faster, does it necessarily have the same mass?

A quote from Setterfield:

Fortunately, those models have absolutely nothing to do with my model, which is based on energy conservation. When energy is conserved in the process of c varying, other associated atomic constants vary in such a way that there are very few observable physical effects, such as the problem that you raise.

There is more and more coming out all the time to show that constants are not constant, though they seem to exist in what appear to be constant ratios, such as planck's constant x speed of light = a constant.