The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[createdtoworship]

Let's go over those claims:

1. "Like I said my sources view the family as what was likely on the ark,"

2. "Also as far as genus barrier, the only reason why I use the illustration is that evolution does not appear on a wide scale."

Let's start with those two.

#1 I can post a link if you want, but I am not sure why they hold that view. I personally don't.

#2 I said there is no evidence, this is the default position. So you must provide evidence to the contrary, (the burden is on you to prove me wrong in saying there is no evidence), you would do so by providing evidence. Which you have not yet done in several days of debate.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

good point but you would have to count how many of those genra are land based vertebrates to solidify your point. I assume the numbers come down when excluding water based genra. As I mentioned a few posts ago.

Just to be clear, it wouldn't just be land vertebrates, it would be all land animals. Even if we completely discard aquatic taxa (which we can't; more on this below), insects alone make up 75-80% of animal life. So in reality, the already fairly conservative figure of 44,000 genera (remember I rounded down, plus we're not even taking into account the millions of species that are likely undiscovered at present) would not diminish by that much. If the starting point were 16,000 genera, you would still have to accept that many distinct genera were related due to having evolved from those original 16,000.

...a fish (like a salmon, talipia, molly, violet goby, guppy, sword tails and platys species) can desalinate or salinate if it desires, as long as the increase/decrease is small and constant. In fact 1 teaspoon of aquarium salt per 5 gallons actually helps cure some disease.

I had some examples of this, I will have to search my notes,

good comment.

Update: here is some rainbow trout that adjusted to 2/3 ocean salinization in 7-10 days

Some marine animals are indeed capable of acclimating to different conditions. But the fact remains that most aquatic animals cannot survive drastic environmental change. Coral reefs, and by extension the innumerable animals that depend on them, are very sensitive indeed to changes in water temperature, depth and chemical composition. Whales are a problematic example too; only a few species can deal with changes in salinity. But in any case, as I explained above, even if we exclude aquatic genera the figure doesn't change nearly enough to accommodate your figure of 16,000.

Also, I've asked this question a few times and I would really appreciate a direct answer:

Do you believe that the animals seen in the fossil record were present on the Ark?

 

[createdtoworship]

Just to be clear, it wouldn't just be land vertebrates, it would be all land animals. Even if we completely discard aquatic taxa (which we can't; more on this below), insects alone make up 75-80% of animal life. So in reality, the already fairly conservative figure of 44,000 genera (remember I rounded down, plus we're not even taking into account the millions of species that are likely undiscovered at present) would not diminish by that much. If the starting point were 16,000 genera, you would still have to accept that many distinct genera were related due to having evolved from those original 16,000.


Some marine animals are indeed capable of acclimating to different conditions. But the fact remains that most aquatic animals cannot survive drastic environmental change. Coral reefs, and by extension the innumerable animals that depend on them, are very sensitive indeed to changes in water temperature, depth and chemical composition. Whales are a problematic example too; only a few species can deal with changes in salinity. But in any case, as I explained above, even if we exclude aquatic genera the figure doesn't change nearly enough to accommodate your figure of 16,000.

Also, I've asked this question a few times and I would really appreciate a direct answer:

Do you believe that the animals seen in the fossil record were present on the Ark?

thank you for the comments, and to answer a few of your questions at once, I will post a clip for brevity:

Over one million animal species have been named, but it’s a mistake to assume all were on the Ark. The Bible says Noah took only air-breathing land animals. So that excludes sea creatures and possibly insects and other invertebrates. Of the land vertebrates, there are only around 33,000 named living species (and a few thousand more fossil species). These are divided into fewer than 10,000 genera and 1,000 families.

So how many kinds of animals were on the Ark? The answer depends on which modern taxonomic level—order, family, genus, or species—represents each original “kind.” A 1996 study assumed the genus, but the new Ark Encounter is evaluating each family.
above from:
No Kind Left Behind - Answers in Genesis

no kind was left behind, and that includes all extinct species and genra alive at the time of the flood.

but again I adhere to genra not kind as the barrier into which evolution cannot cross.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again.. (2)"