|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Sure evolutionists make honest assumptions, but when it comes down to actual evidence for your position, actual studies that preclude all possibility of bottlenecks, then you are sorely lacking. For example, all marsupials in Australia have a common genetic signature with a species of South American marsupial, talk about a genetic bottleneck. That's not what genetic bottleneck means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
What part of "All animals that are descended from the critters on the Ark MUST show a genetic bottleneck event 4500 years ago and such a 4500 year ago bottleneck even marker is not found in humans, marsupials, cattle, our cousins the other great apes, horses ...?" don't you understand?
If even one human, one cow, one bull, one monkey, one chimp, one gorilla, one sheep, one goat, one of any living species descended from the critters on the ark does not show the 4500 year ago genetic bottleneck event signature then the Biblical Flood myths have been refuted. If the Biblical Flood stories were true then we MUST see a 4500 year ago bottleneck event signature in every living critter descended for the species or kinds or critters that were on the ark. It ain't there. There is no hole in the target. Anyone today claiming the Biblical Flood happened is simply wrong. What you feel really doesn't matter. You are simply wrong. It really is that simple. It should also get you to think about your sources. Since they are lying about something so easily tested as whether or not the Biblical Flood happened, how can you believe anything they say about stuff not so easily tested? Edited by jar, : remove extraneous "I" Edited by jar, : on sheep ---> one sheepAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Just for info, here's a chunk of the wiki for population bottlenecks.
It shows studies of actual bottlenecks in various species. They occur at differing times and for differing reasons. None are at 4,500 years. As these species have been studied specifically for bottlenecks, any incidence of it happening at 4,500 years would have been easily spotted.
Wisent, also called European bison (Bison bonasus), faced extinction in the early 20th century. The animals living today are all descended from 12 individuals and they have extremely low genetic variation, which may be beginning to affect the reproductive ability of bulls.[9] The population of American bison (Bison bison) fell due to overhunting, nearly leading to extinction around the year 1890, though it has since begun to recover (see table). Overhunting pushed the northern elephant seal to the brink of extinction by the late 19th century. Though they have made a comeback, the genetic variation within the population remains very low.A classic example of a population bottleneck is that of the northern elephant seal, whose population fell to about 30 in the 1890s. Although it now numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the potential for bottlenecks within colonies remains. Dominant bulls are able to mate with the largest number of females sometimes as many as 100. With so much of a colony's offspring descended from just one dominant male, genetic diversity is limited, making the species more vulnerable to diseases and genetic mutations. The golden hamster is a similarly bottlenecked species, with the vast majority descended from a single litter found in the Syrian desert around 1930. Cheetahs are sufficiently closely related to one another that transplanted skin grafts do not provoke immune responses,[10] thus suggesting an extreme population bottleneck in the past. The genome of the giant panda shows evidence of a severe bottleneck that took place about 43,000 years ago.[11] There is also evidence of at least one primate species, the golden snub-nosed monkey, that also suffered from a bottleneck around this time. Further deductions can sometimes be inferred from an observed population bottleneck. Among the Galpagos Islands giant tortoises themselves a prime example of a bottleneck the comparatively large population on the slopes of Alcedo volcano is significantly less diverse than four other tortoise populations on the same island. DNA analyses date the bottleneck to around 88,000 years before present (YBP).[12] About 100,000 YBP the volcano erupted violently, burying much of the tortoise habitat deep in pumice and ash. Bottlenecks also exist among pure-bred animals (e.g., dogs and cats: pugs, Persian) because breeders limit their gene pools by breeding with close relatives for their looks and behaviors. The extensive use of desirable individual animals at the exclusion of others can result in a popular sire effect. Before Europeans arrived in North America, prairies served as habitats to greater prairie chickens. In Illinois alone their numbers plummeted from over 100 million in 1900 to about 50 in 1990. These declines in population were the result of hunting and habitat destruction, but the random consequences have been a great loss in species diversity. DNA analysis comparing the birds from 1990 and mid-century shows a steep genetic decline in recent decades. The greater prairie chicken is currently experiencing low reproductive success. During the Toba eruption, bottlenecks had existed amongst humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, cheetahs, rhesus macaques, orangutans and tigers.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
First, assumptions are not just wild guesses that somebody made up. The assumptions in one train of thought are the conclusions from another train of thought. Good assumptions have already been tested and found to be correct. ... both evolutionary assumptions and creationist assumptions would predict many more such scenarios across many species. Second, any goober with a keyboard can "predict scenarios". Science isn't about making up assumptions and making up scenarios about what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened. It's about using tested assumptions to predict scenarios that can be tested. The keyword, in case you missed it, is "tested". The target can be tested for holes and lack of holes is evidence that you missed the target. You can predict until the cows come home to eat their beans that you woulda/coulda/shoulda hit the target but there are no holes in the target. The test "proves", if you like, that your scenario doesn't work. Edited by ringo, : Speling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Mindspawn can't find anything in the geological record suggesting a major sea level rise until he gets back 250 million years! So, that has to be the biblical flood.
In addition to there being no evidence of a global flood at that time, there is nowhere in the geological record any evidence of Holocene, or even Quaternary fauna! All that is off by a couple hundred million years also! And the dating is also off by such a degree that an analogy would have Christ walking the earth about two weeks ago. 250 million years is a huge difference, but Mindspawn doubletalks his way around the problems by cherry picking bits and pieces from journal articles that for the most part actually disprove his claims. He has ducked the thread I set up for him to discuss dating. And then there is genetics: he keeps squealing, "prove it" for accepted science while promoting the most outlandish ideas with no supporting evidence (all in an effort to prop up a religious belief based on old tribal myths). In short, as Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning." And a complete waste of our time.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
mindspawn writes: Detailed SNP analysis across thousands of specimens in each species would be required to create a profile of the originators within each population. So far its only humans that have been analysed to this degree and it has been confirmed that all humans do come from only a few individuals. I'm not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to direct you to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread if you have complaints, and I was trying to encourage you to explain to Jar what form you think evidence against genetic bottlenecks would take. What I'm seeing now is that in addition to confusing how one uses evidence to draw conclusions, you're now confusing the concept of genetic bottleneck with most recent common ancestor. This isn't taking sides. I'm just pointing out to you errors of logic and fact (in this case, definitions) so that the discussion can move more constructively forward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(unless anyone could provide proof that these processes that I describe are impossible) How about we just ignore you? I mean, the process is NOT: prove these things that I have just made up as wrong, or I get to assume that they might have happened. Why should we waste that time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
We have seen that creationists abhor the evidence because it doesn't confirm their beliefs, and as a result they have to misrepresent, obfuscate, ignore, quote mine, or deny major fields of study. Additionally, some creationist rebuttals are based on abysmal ignorance of science and/or the scientific method. And when those methods don't suffice, they just make things up!
When presented with an observed fact (e.g., radiocarbon dating is accurate) they often come up with a "what-if" such as the following:Thus, it is possible (and, given the Flood, probable) that materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true ages of many fewer calendar years. Note: there is no evidence presented here, just a "what-if." But that unevidenced "what-if" is enough to let creationists persist in their beliefs in spite of all the contrary evidence. I guess when you have no evidence you go with whatever you can make up, eh?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
From the abstract of the article you cited: The Australasian and South American marsupial mammals, such as kangaroos and opossums, are the closest living relatives to placental mammals, having shared a common ancestor around 130 million years ago.That common ancestor would have lived roughly 130 million years before the "flood." Obviously I believe in compressed timeframes, even though I agree that dates give a relative comparison. The Purdue findings give a taste of my dispute with radioactive decay rates, I am really looking forward to participating more on the dating forum, when activity dies down in this thread and the biological thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Just for info, here's a chunk of the wiki for population bottlenecks. It shows studies of actual bottlenecks in various species. They occur at differing times and for differing reasons. None are at 4,500 years. As these species have been studied specifically for bottlenecks, any incidence of it happening at 4,500 years would have been easily spotted. I dispute evolutionary timeframes. So the 4500bp claim is irrelevant to me. Most of your examples are very recent bottlenecks, which show more clearly in DNA analysis. Its more difficult to define bottlenecks thousands of years ago, due to mutations since then that can create hundreds of thousands of alleles in large populations. I feel the comment "would have easily been spotted" is not an evidence based statement. Only when DNA tree analysis covers many specimens, that common ancestors are defined through common SNPs. This has been done with humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
First, assumptions are not just wild guesses that somebody made up. The assumptions in one train of thought are the conclusions from another train of thought. Good assumptions have already been tested and found to be correct. Second, any goober with a keyboard can "predict scenarios". Science isn't about making up assumptions and making up scenarios about what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened. It's about using tested assumptions to predict scenarios that can be tested. The keyword, in case you missed it, is "tested". The target can be tested for holes and lack of holes is evidence that you missed the target. You can predict until the cows come home to eat their beans that you woulda/coulda/shoulda hit the target but there are no holes in the target. The test "proves", if you like, that your scenario doesn't work. You say "The test "proves", if you like, that your scenario doesn't work." Which test? Without evidence, you are making an assumption yourself. I would like to see your evidence that my scenario does not work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I mean, the process is NOT: prove these things that I have just made up as wrong, or I get to assume that they might have happened. That is exactly what the process is about. If you agree the ark story was actually possible, then we are in happy agreement, and my job here is done. If you state the ark story was impossible, then the onus is on you to find evidence for your statement. This includes disproving EVERY possibility. If you cannot disprove every possible scenario, this makes your confident claim that the ark story is impossible, just childish banter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
We have seen that creationists abhor the evidence because it doesn't confirm their beliefs, and as a result they have to misrepresent, obfuscate, ignore, quote mine, or deny major fields of study. Additionally, some creationist rebuttals are based on abysmal ignorance of science and/or the scientific method. And when those methods don't suffice, they just make things up! The what if's are only logically applicable when someone childishly says "in every possible scenario the ark story is impossible". This is when it becomes appropriate to reply with "Well what if......." A sweeping and childish statement like "All vegetation would definitely die off" only requires a few "what ifs" as a defense. A more mature response would be:1) I think that the predators would eat the rest, but I cannot prove the predator/prey ratios so I cannot really say. 2) I think that there was a lot of genetic diversity on the ark, and therefore I think that the kind of vegetation that would regrown after the flood would not have fed the huge variety of animals that I think were on the ark. I however do not have the DNA proof as to how many species were on the ark, and how many diversified since the ark, so I have no idea of the numbers of herbivores on the ark. 3) I think that there was not enough space on the ark, but its too much effort to try and give actual numbers. In truth I do not know how many animals there were on the ark. Its the ones who make the sweeping statements that must prove the sweeping statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Mindspawn writes: Obviously I believe in compressed timeframes. I suddenly feel the need to list the things that you believe that that is contrary to settled science. maybe others can help out? I'm just trying to work out how wrong science is according to you and you alone. 1. Compressed time scales2. No mountains 3. Less salty seas 4. Humans 150 million years ago 5. Accelerated evolution 6. Disputed evolutionary timeframes 7. Disputed Radioactivity decay rates 8. Genetics isn't advanced enough to detect bottlenecks 9. Geological evidence of global flood (I'm just going to ignore all that crap about bean eating cows, miraculous olive trees and immediate fields of salt grown grass sowed by swarms of birds from tons of Noah gathered seeds on the mountains that where hills. And of course, accept fully that carnivores will find and eat rotting stranded fish instead of the animals released from the ark.) Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
I'm not trying to have a discussion with you. I'm trying to direct you to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread if you have complaints, and I was trying to encourage you to explain to Jar what form you think evidence against genetic bottlenecks would take. Do you honestly feel its my place to explain to Jar how to disprove a bottleneck? He already made the claim that genetics disproves the ark through a lack of bottlenecks. I feel that when a person makes a claim that the Holy Bible has been already disproved with genetics, such a massively significant statement requires good evidence, that is publicly produced. Jar must prove how a bottleneck with 14 animals and many germline mutations within the last 4500 years CANNOT produce the DNA diversity that we observe today. That's a difficult thing to prove. I do not feel that my request that he backs up his statement is unreasonable in any manner. Neither should I tell him how to back it up, he should merely produce his evidence or refrain from making sweeping statements that have no factual basis. Jar said:"Anyone today who is still claiming the Biblical Flood ever happened is just wrong" "The animals we see today are NOT what we would see if the ARK had been real." "It would also have to show in cattle and pigs and goats and dogs and vampires and zombies and it ain't there. Even a blind geneticist could see that." In what manner does DNA refute a bottleneck? What does Jar see in DNA that he believes makes a genetic bottleneck impossible 4500 bp in many large mammals? He must show his proof, or just stop endlessly repeating himself. What part of DNA refutes 4 female ancestors 4500 years ago, or one male ancestor 4500 years ago? Anything. I need any evidence from him.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024