The Spread of Species Across the Globe

[Lazarus Short]

Somebody's post on another www forum got me to thinking about this again:

Now if Noah's Ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat, keep in mind that the place is near the center of the planet's land mass. It would have been a GREAT place from which to re-populate the earth with animals. God was wise. My point, however, is that as the animals left the Ark, left the area, and spread over the Earth, would not these "created kinds" develop into many varied species? I conjecture that the animals that stayed close to the Ark would have any exotic features bred back out - they would end up being fairly typical species of each kind.

On the other hand, as animals reached the limits of expansion, in isolated pockets, exotic features could flourish, there being fewer "average" members of their species to breed the features out. Consider exotic flightless geese in Hawaii, or Kiwi in New Zealand, or egg-laying mammals in Australia. I think I could chart exoticism versus distance from Ark and get a fairly good line. Does this make sense to you?

 

[R. Hartono]

All land was connected be4 the Noah flood otherwise how could the elephants travel to Sumatra island after being released from the ark on Mt.Ararat ? and how could Rhino travel to Java unless all land was connected be4 the flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

The congo of africa has some of the most diverse and exotic animals of the world and it is less than 3000 miles away. Yellow stone national park is about 6000 miles away, but has basic animals such as wolves, and elk.

Congo Rainforest Slideshow
Yellowstone Wildlife

I don't think this suggested correlation is accurate.

 

[parousia70]

The congo of africa has some of the most diverse and exotic animals of the world and it is less than 3000 miles away. Yellow stone national park is about 6000 miles away, but has basic animals such as wolves, and elk.....
I don't think this suggested correlation is accurate.

Party Pooper

 

[Job 33:6]

The party has been pooped.

 

[JackRT]

What flood?

 

[mark kennedy]

Following the flood the originally created kinds being represented would have had pristine genomes. When adaptive evolution happens and to a lessor extent hybrids, there is a founder effect that comes with a bottleneck of the gene pool. Then there is the inevitable accumulation of mutations over time, which leaves certain protein coding and regulatory genes dysfunctional. You have a gene that could produce vitamin C but it's broke at a mutational hotspot.

 

[The Barbarian]

Following the flood the originally created kinds being represented would have had pristine genomes.

Not possible. Their genomes would have, like every other genome, all sorts of mutations, gene duplications, and so on. There's nothing magical here. Every organism is born with mutations that neither parent had.

When adaptive evolution happens and to a lessor extent hybrids, there is a founder effect that comes with a bottleneck of the gene pool.

It doesn't have to be. Evolution also occurs in large populations, where there is no founder effect or bottlenecks.

Then there is the inevitable accumulation of mutations over time, which leaves certain protein coding and regulatory genes dysfunctional.

Wherever the protein is no longer necessary. Otherwise, such mutations are removed by natural selection.

You have a gene that could produce vitamin C but it's broke at a mutational hotspot.

This happened fairly early in primate evolution. Because we and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor, the gene is broken in the same point for both of us. The mutation has become fixed in the population, because the diet of primates was so rich in vitamin C that there was no need for them to produce it.

Otherwise, natural selection would have removed it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not possible. Their genomes would have, like every other genome, all sorts of mutations, gene duplications, and so on. There's nothing magical here. Every organism is born with mutations that neither parent had.

Then with billions of people on this planet why do we diverge by only 1/10th of 1%?

It doesn't have to be. Evolution also occurs in large populations, where there is no founder effect or bottlenecks.

Evolution happens in lots of settings, I'm describing the founder effect in a very small population getting much bigger quickly, with extraordinary adaptive evolution following in the wake.

Wherever the protein is no longer necessary. Otherwise, such mutations are removed by natural selection.

Natural selection eliminates the less fit, genomic copy errors are eliminated by molecular mechanisms.

This happened fairly early in primate evolution. Because we and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor, the gene is broken in the same point for both of us. The mutation has become fixed in the population, because the diet of primates was so rich in vitamin C that there was no need for them to produce it.

That diminishes from the gene pool, you have a real problem staying on point.

Otherwise, natural selection would have removed it.

And it's back to your clutch phrase that doesn't address the role of the gene pool in adaptive evolution, typical.

 

[Job 33:6]

Following the flood the originally created kinds being represented would have had pristine genomes. When adaptive evolution happens and to a lessor extent hybrids, there is a founder effect that comes with a bottleneck of the gene pool. Then there is the inevitable accumulation of mutations over time, which leaves certain protein coding and regulatory genes dysfunctional. You have a gene that could produce vitamin C but it's broke at a mutational hotspot.

Perhaps we could just point out the fact that there is no evidence for a global flood.

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps we could just point out the fact that there is no evidence for a global flood.

Perhaps we should recognize that the evidence doesn't change because you are predisposed to doubt a global flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

Perhaps we should recognize that the evidence doesn't change because you are predisposed to doubt a global flood.

Are you suggesting that there is evidence for a global flood? Geologic evidence?

 

[JackRT]

The reason for doubting a global flood is the absence of evidence supporting it. There is extremely strong evidence for a number of local floods of massive proportions. Examples are the flooding of the Black Sea basin about 7600 years ago and of the Gulf of Arabia about 10000 years ago. If there actually had been a global flood just 4300 years ago you would expect it to largely wipe out the evidence of any earlier local floods.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you suggesting that there is evidence for a global flood? Geologic evidence?

I never explored the subject matter very much, I'm sure there is.

 

[JackRT]

I never explored the subject matter very much, I'm sure there is.

Not really. Lots of evidence for some very large local floods but nothing on a global scale.

 

[Job 33:6]

I never explored the subject matter very much, I'm sure there is.

Im sure there is also evidence for dragons, but ive never actually looked into it...

 

[JackRT]

There may be several grains of truth to the flood mythology of Noah and similar mythologies from elsewhere in the ancient Middle East. About 25 years ago it was discovered (" Noah's Flood" by Ryan and Pitman) that in antiquity the Black Sea was a freshwater lake with a water level at least 155 meters (510 feet) below its present level. It was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a silt plug in the Straits of Bosporus. This plug broke through about 5600 BC due primarily to the dramatic rise in sea levels caused by the melting that ended the last ice age.. It created an immense waterfall whose sound was most likely audible for 100 or more miles. The Black Sea basin filled to its present level over a period of several weeks. It is estimated that the shore line advanced at the rate of a mile or more per day. For the people living around the lake it was a catastrophe of immense magnitude. It was likely the single most memorable flood in all of human history. The racial memory of this event probably inspired the Gilgamesh epic which in turn inspired the Noah narrative in the Bible. The evidence for this flood is scientifically solid. This prompted the National Geographic Society to finance an underwater search along the ancient shoreline for evidence of pre-flood human habitation. This search has been successful! A settlement has been found at a depth of 90 meters approximately 12 miles off the coast of Turkey. It is in a remarkable state of preservation because it is located in an area of the Black Sea where the water is completely devoid of oxygen with the effect that biological decomposition does not take place. This means that wooden artifacts such as tools, planks, housing beams etc are preserved intact. What is also quite amazing is that while there is solid scientific evidence for this local flood some 7600 YBP, there is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood just 4300 YBP. One would think that a more recent, more catastrophic event would have wiped out evidence of the earlier Black Sea event. There is also evidence for a similar event causing the flooding of the Gulf of Arabia about 10,000 YBP.

 

[Job 33:6]

Part of understanding the theory of evolution...requires an understanding of geology, which by default, results in an understanding of the geological evidence (or lack thereof) for a global flood.

If you havent "explored the subject matter much", then you cant rightfully propose a global flood. And if you cant rightfully propose a global flood, then the statement "Following the flood the originally created kinds being represented would have had pristine genomes. ", just isn't justified.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the notion of "pristine genomes":
Not possible. Their genomes would have, like every other genome, all sorts of mutations, gene duplications, and so on. There's nothing magical here. Every organism is born with mutations that neither parent had.

Then with billions of people on this planet why do we diverge by only 1/10th of 1%?

With 3 billion base pairs, that would be, um... three million differences. Lots of mutations. However, it is true that humans went through a bottleneck that greatly reduced variation, back before anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans diverged from a common ancestor.

Barbarian observes:
Evolution also occurs in large populations, where there is no founder effect or bottlenecks.

Evolution happens in lots of settings, I'm describing the founder effect in a very small population getting much bigger quickly, with extraordinary adaptive evolution following in the wake.

Doesn't seem have happened to humans. Our population was fairly small for a rather long time. And the key change in H. sapiens (larger brain, smaller face, paedomorphic trend) goes back before H. sapiens existed.

Natural selection eliminates the less fit

Tends to. It's not a lock, though.
Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all. Tends to eliminate the unfit.

genomic copy errors are eliminated by molecular mechanisms.

Most of the time. But it's imperfect. In each of us, the error correction failed a couple of dozen times or so.

That diminishes from the gene pool

It would, if it weren't for that error rate built into the system. Interestingly, the error rate for various organisms seems to be about optimal for each of them. But that too, can evolve.

you have a real problem staying on point.

Seems like we arrived at a rather important point.

(Barbarian notes that a broken vitamin C gene would have been removed by natural selection, if primates didn't have diets rich in vitamin C)

And it's back to your clutch phrase

It's just a fact. There's no harm in lacking the gene for vitamin C if you get all you need from your diet.

that doesn't address the role of the gene pool in adaptive evolution

That's precisely what it does. Why do you suppose other mammals still have the gene? It's not because no lion ever had the gene broken. It's because such lions were likely to leave fewer or no offspring, and thereby the mutation would be removed from the genome of the population.

It's a rather direct demonstration of natural selection. For primates, and for carnivores.

typical.

Pretty much so.

 

[mark kennedy]

Barbarian, regarding the notion of "pristine genomes":
Not possible. Their genomes would have, like every other genome, all sorts of mutations, gene duplications, and so on. There's nothing magical here. Every organism is born with mutations that neither parent had.

Ugh says the caveman, you are projecting modern observation with speculation about past periods. Mutations have almost nothing to do with adaptive evolution, which is probably the worst legacy of Darwinism.

With 3 billion base pairs, that would be, um... three million differences. Lots of mutations. However, it is true that humans went through a bottleneck that greatly reduced variation, back before anatomically modern humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans diverged from a common ancestor.

Not mutations, differences with regard to comparative genomics.

Barbarian observes:
Evolution also occurs in large populations, where there is no founder effect or bottlenecks.

Ugh says the caveman, baloney.

Doesn't seem have happened to humans. Our population was fairly small for a rather long time. And the key change in H. sapiens (larger brain, smaller face, paedomorphic trend) goes back before H. sapiens existed.

No, it goes back about 2 mya and it had to be permanently fixed.

Tends to. It's not a lock, though.
Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all. Tends to eliminate the unfit.

That's not Darwinism.