Were all the flood animals perfect?

[Arikay]

Talking with Ikester got me thinking of something.

One of the problems with Adam and Eve being the starters on humanity is genetics. That they couldnt inbreed and create a line of good, diverse children. The reason that they did has been explained to me, as their genes were perfect. That we gained flaws in our genes as time went on because we brought sin into the world.

What about the animals though?

After the flood there was only two of each animal (except for a special few).

So each animal must have inbreed to spread across the world. So the animals needed to be perfect when they came off the ark to be able to inbreed successfully like Adam and Eve. Currently many (if not all) Animals have the same inbreeding problem as humans.

So why did the animals gain flaws like us humans?

did they commit their own sin? Or were they punished for our miss deeds?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Micaiah]

Animals would have become subject to the same decay and death that resulted from the fall as people. Two was obviously an adequate popluation to recommence the growth in the their populations, although some species may have become extinct after the flood if there was a drastic change in environmental conditions on earth. As you corretly point out, the genetic purity of these animals would account for the absence of problems due to inbreeding that we see today.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Seeing as how the flood is a good 1500 or so years after the Fall of man (on a YEC timescale, anyway), I don't know how anyone can claim these animals would have been genetically "pure". 1500 years is plenty of time to get all sorts of harmful, recessive genes to spread around the population.

 

[wblastyn]

What about Noah and his familiy? Wouldn't they have to inbreed to increase the earth's population of humans?

 

[Arikay]

So the animals were punished for the fall of man.

The confusing part is what Pete said. So the animals somehow stayed pure for 1500 years, but in the last 4500 years they became impure enough to not be able to inbreed?

Wblast: Yep. There were 8 of them on the ark. Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. They would of needed to inbreed to continue the population on the earth. So I would assume that Noah and his family were pure too.

So it took 4500 years to become "impure" for all animals and man. But they were able to stand around for 1500 years and stay pure.

Today at 02:24 AM Micaiah said this in Post #2

Animals would have become subject to the same decay and death that resulted from the fall as people. Two was obviously an adequate popluation to recommence the growth in the their populations, although some species may have become extinct after the flood if there was a drastic change in environmental conditions on earth. As you corretly point out, the genetic purity of these animals would account for the absence of problems due to inbreeding that we see today.

 

[Smilin]

Arikay,

I can't comment on your questions..sorry. Why?

First, I'd have to accept the notion the flood was
indeed global... (I've seen no scientific proof of that yet)
We debated that in depth many times...

Secondly, I can't accept your assigned timeline to such
a flood, given it is based within YEC beliefs (which can't
be proven scientifically either). For those of you who
wish to comment on this statement, please feel free
to visit my State Your Evidence for a 6,000 Year Old Earth
Thread.

Thirdly, as with the migration of man, if ALL species were
included in the ark... BOY DID THOSE PENGUINS HAVE A
JOURNEY once the ark landed.

Finally, If I were to accept an entire global washout,
the notion that Noah's sons repopulated the Earth
does not account for the racial diversification that exists
among mankind today.

Okay... Since I can't answer your questions...
I'll leave now...

Many Regards,
Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Today at 12:43 PM wblastyn said this in Post #4

What about Noah and his familiy? Wouldn't they have to inbreed to increase the earth's population of humans?

Excellent point... if indeed all other humans were eradicated...
how do you explain racial diversification that exists today???...

Disclaimer: I expect no answer, since I've posed this question
many times, (along with others) to no avail.

 

[Arikay]

But I think that was a pretty good answer.

Today at 10:58 AM Smilin said this in Post #6

Arikay,

I can't comment on your questions..sorry. Why?

First, I'd have to accept the notion the flood was
indeed global... (I've seen no scientific proof of that yet)
We debated that in depth many times...

Secondly, I can't accept your assigned timeline to such
a flood, given it is based within YEC beliefs (which can't
be proven scientifically either). For those of you who
wish to comment on this statement, please feel free
to visit my State Your Evidence for a 6,000 Year Old Earth
Thread.

Thirdly, as with the migration of man, if ALL species were
included in the ark... BOY DID THOSE PENGUINS HAVE A
JOURNEY once the ark landed.

Finally, If I were to accept an entire global washout,
the notion that Noah's sons repopulated the Earth
does not account for the racial diversification that exists
among mankind today.

Okay... Since I can't answer your questions...
I'll leave now...

Many Regards,
Smilin

 

[Arikay]

Ive tried to think about that in the YEC point of view. So far the best I have come up with is that They have a healthy set of recesive genes that arent being used. And mutation/micro evolution might be used to explain away the rest of it.

Today at 11:01 AM Smilin said this in Post #7




Excellent point... if indeed all other humans were eradicated...
how do you explain racial diversification that exists today???...

Disclaimer: I expect no answer, since I've posed this question
many times, (along with others) to no avail.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 01:45 PM Arikay said this in Post #5

The confusing part is what Pete said. So the animals somehow stayed pure for 1500 years, but in the last 4500 years they became impure enough to not be able to inbreed?

Thinking about it, I suppose one argument might be that pre-Flood animals (and humans) had far slower breeding cycles than post-Flood ones. After all, people were living upwards of 900 years during this time, so I guess it could be extrapolated to apply to animals, as well.

Slower breeding cycles obviously equals slower rates of genetic change. The downside, though, is the populations of all that life would be much, much less diverse (and probably a whole lot smaller).

Of course, all of this is pure speculation at best, like all the other solutions to various Flood problems. There's no Biblical or scientific evidence to support any of this.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 02:21 PM Arikay said this in Post #9

Ive tried to think about that in the YEC point of view. So far the best I have come up with is that They have a healthy set of recesive genes that arent being used. And mutation/micro evolution might be used to explain away the rest of it.

I need to bump back into existence my 'Biblical Stories that Support Evolution' thread.... Arikay, you might find it interesting. (I couldn't get
any responses from the 'Evolution is from Satan' crowd)

And FIW, I tried thinking from the YEC point of view when I was first exposed to it, about 5 years ago. Thumbing through one of their books,
I was only able to hold that thought for about 3 minutes.

For those of you who think I'm a heathen... please visit my 'State your Evidence Thread'.... my mind can be changed.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 02:22 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #10



Thinking about it, I suppose one argument might be that pre-Flood animals (and humans) had far slower breeding cycles than post-Flood ones. After all, people were living upwards of 900 years during this time, so I guess it could be extrapolated to apply to animals, as well.

Slower breeding cycles obviously equals slower rates of genetic change. The downside, though, is the populations of all that life would be much, much less diverse (and probably a whole lot smaller).

Of course, all of this is pure speculation at best, like all the other solutions to various Flood problems. There's no Biblical or scientific evidence to support any of this.

Okay Pete... your basic assumption boils down to this:
(correct me if I'm wrong)

Before the Flood, people and animals had very little sex????

Is that what you're saying?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 02:32 PM Smilin said this in Post #12

Okay Pete... your basic assumption boils down to this:
(correct me if I'm wrong)

Before the Flood, people and animals had very little sex????

Is that what you're saying?

Precisely

Of course, given the wickedness of the pre-Flood world, one would expect lots of sex. Unless they were all homosexual back then. Or had abortions. Or...

You know, coming up with ad hoc explanations is hard.

 

[Smilin]

Today at 02:39 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #13
Precisely

Of course, given the wickedness of the pre-Flood world, one would expect lots of sex.

Okay,

God's commandment to 'Go forth and populate the Earth' would mean 'have all the sex you can stand' to me... but that's just my thoughts.

Now, to follow your line of reasoning:
Assuming a global flood, and the total destruction of mankind..
and assuming your notion of longer breeding cycles...
and if you accept my interpretation of God's word to state
hey folks.. have at it...
Then I too expect the people of the pre-flood world were mainly
preoccupied with sex...

Perhaps it was the menstrual cycles of the female population that
were delayed... perhaps instead of a monthly cycle it was a yearly
cycle?

IMAGINE IT.. A WORLD with women only suffering PMS just once a year..

Just rambling thoughts here..
Smilin