|
Author
|
Topic: Rodent speciation and Noah's Ark.
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6751 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
Message 1 of 31 (274458)
12-31-2005 4:59 PM
|
|
|
Recently, NotSoBlindFaith brought up a few points in the Noah's ark thread that I feel could be better tackled in it's own thread. There are roughly 3000 known rodent species. If the flood happened 3000 years ago, we are expecting a rate of 1 new rodent a year. But, as Discreat_Label pointed out, speciation in a population is non-linear so in truth an actual calculation would be exponential. This means you are expecting on the order of 467 new species a year! DL's post in it's entirety:
quote:
Well to be truthful a linear equation describing speciation in my opinion would be intelletually dishonest, mostly because populations don't follow linear rates of growth. But understandable to using a linear module because it is the easiest model to describe.
So if we were to assume speciation as an exponential function where
f(x) = 16000(1.001095)^x where x represents time.
Where 1.001095 is extrapolated because 16000 land "kinds" turn into 427,000 land species. We now have an equation that adequately describes the fact that populations are not linear.
However of course there is a flaw in this description because then it demonstrates that the rate of mutation is changing as time is changing. (YECs may believe this is a wonderful thing however, the rate at which speciation is occuring does not match up to observed life)
So again we do a little bit of calculus and we find that the rate of change
f'(x)= 17.5156*(1.001095)^x
which represents the number of speciation events as time changes
plug in 3000 for x into the rate equation and we get a nice round number of:
467 speciation events occuring per year after 3000 years. WOW!!
Course all of this is pure speculation but i think that 427 speciation events occuring like this would indicate a much higher rate of new species discoveries then currently occuring. 
Bringing caclulus to new levels of fun.
NSBF responded with the following article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/...494%255E1702,00.html This article mentions that new rodent species are discovered at the rate of roughly 1 a year. Presumably NSBF is inferring that those newly discovered species are also newly evolved. NSBF continues by stating:
quote:
No, as you said, we have 3,000 years to get a capybara. Plus you know, beavers and other aquatic rodents have those same features. Also, the order rodentia has less natural variability then what has been isolated by dog breeders. They haven’t had nearly as long to do that. Many species of mouse for instance, look incredibly similar, even though they live at opposite sides of the globe. They only have slight differences, such as the amount of fur on there tails, size, and ear shape. Each of which is quit easy to get in a short amount of time with genetic variation.
There are several problems with NSBF's propositions which I will address here:
1) Newly discovered rodent species are also newly evolved. Order Rodentia is the larges order of mammals. 3000 species and growing. The fact that we uncover new species every year or so is testament to the groups large size and variability. A similar group of animals in which we discover new species all the time is insects. Insects have over 350,000 known species and the number grows all the time, this does not mean these new species are evolving all the time. Finally, DL's post made some corrections in the math and notes that we should actually be seeing much more than a rate of 1 species per year. We should litteraly be able to see rodents morphing before our very eyes. 2) Differences between various rodents are not that big and could be bred in the alloted 3000 years. If NSBF's proposition is true, scientists should be able to breed rats, capybaras, or beavers out of a mouse or perhaps a squirrel. The question is, why can't scientists breed lab mice into capybaras over a succession of years? Mind you, I don't mean an actual capybara, but rather a capybara like creature? Scientist's couldn't breed mice into Rats if they tried. It simply doesn't work in the way NSBF is proposing. As I said in the previous thread a rat and a mouse share a 10% difference in their genome. They are as distant from each other as they are from human beings. NSBF says dogs show more variability. Morphologically, perhaps, genetically NO WAY! The difference between dog breeds is estimated as just below 1%. Further, NSBF asserts that the differences in capybara and beavers from other rodents, are minor and could be trivially breaded for. This assertion betrays a lack of understanding as to just how different a beaver is from a rat. The following link notes some of the differences between beavers and other rodents: Not Found
quote:
Water. The beaver dens near water, feeds in or near water, and usually travels by water. The beaver has several adaptations which make him very much at home in water. His lungs, liver, and heart are so adapted that the animal can stay submerged for up to fifteen minutes and can travel up to one-half mile under water. Therefore, ponds and other bodies of water furnish ready escape from enemies. The beaver's nose and ears are equipped with valves that close when the animal is under water. His lips form a watertight seal that allows the animal to gnaw under water. The beaver's eyes are protected by transparent eyelids which allow good vision under water. His hind feet are completely webbed, which provides good propulsion in water and the leverage to push and pull heavy limbs into place in dams. Beavers in captivity usually require drinking water.
Everything about the animal, from eyes, to it's liver is specialized for living in the water. These things simply could not have arisen from a squirrel-like ancestor some 3000 years ago.
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 2 of 31 (274459)
12-31-2005 5:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
12-31-2005 4:59 PM
|
|
Where to put it?
Biological evolution? I'm not sure where this should go.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 4:59 PM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 5:08 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6751 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 3 of 31 (274464)
12-31-2005 5:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
12-31-2005 5:07 PM
|
|
Re: Where to put it?
Bio. Evo. sounds right. As long as it's ok to tie the basic subject to Noah's Ark. That is, the proposition that beavers could have come about in 3000 years after the ark.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-31-2005 5:07 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by Faith, posted 12-31-2005 5:14 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 4 of 31 (274466)
12-31-2005 5:12 PM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1700 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 5 of 31 (274468)
12-31-2005 5:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Yaro
12-31-2005 5:08 PM
|
|
Re: Where to put it?
Just a point of fact: It's been 4500 years, not 3000, since the Flood.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 5:08 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2005 6:33 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 6 of 31 (274469)
12-31-2005 5:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
12-31-2005 4:59 PM
|
|
New species?
Insects have over 350,000 known species and the number grows all the time, this does not mean these new species are evolving all the time. It also doesn't mean that they are not. This appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the finding of new species but that doesn't mean it kills the other explanation. I think the idea that speciation is happening at this rate can be explored logically for quite awhile and I'd like to see that done. There must be, if it is thought about a bit, consequences to test the idea. abe NSBF should be asked to describe in more detail how he thinks this has transpired. On that base we can test his hypothosis and he can modify it accordingly. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-31-2005 05:16 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 4:59 PM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 5:20 PM | | NosyNed has not replied | | | Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 12-31-2005 6:21 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6751 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: 07-12-2003
|
|
|
Message 7 of 31 (274471)
12-31-2005 5:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
12-31-2005 5:15 PM
|
|
Re: New species?
What imediatly comes to my mind is simply why don't we see it happening before our eyes? Surely we could attempt, thrugh succesive generations, to breed an aquatic rodent from mice in the labs. Yet hundreds of generations of lab mice go by with out any significant diference. Not only could we attempt it, it should be happeneing anyway. At the rate genetic drift is manifesting itself in rodents, you could expect isolated populations (such as lab mice) to be morphing into all sorts of new kinds of rodents. Yet we don't see that. If we can't do it in the lab, why should we expect that to be happening in the wild?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 12-31-2005 5:15 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2748 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
|
|
Message 8 of 31 (274483)
12-31-2005 6:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
12-31-2005 5:15 PM
|
|
Newly Discover by White People!
The idea that this newly discovered rodent species (family actually, it's a pretty big find) didn't exist until it was "discovered" by the scientific community is so frankly Euro-centric that it borders on being racist. The fact that the animal was "discovered" in a meat market kind of implies that someone local found it first and brought it there. This is a lot like Columbus "discovering" a land populated by 90 million people. I understand that in the discover magazine article it's talking about an animal which has not been described in modern science. And I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone here on the board. Just the idea that the species don't exist until white people find them makes me a little nuts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 12-31-2005 5:15 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 9 of 31 (274485)
12-31-2005 6:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
12-31-2005 5:14 PM
|
|
Re: Where to put it?
Faith writes: Just a point of fact: It's been 4500 years, not 3000, since the Flood. That's correct. That's a 33 1/3% mess up. Add to that the way these critters move in, out, around and about and how prolific they be, do we have a refute? Do'no. I've not done any research, so this;..... just off the top of me head. Edit: Clarification of last sentence. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-31-2005 06:41 PM
From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Faith, posted 12-31-2005 5:14 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by Nuggin, posted 12-31-2005 8:13 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 990 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 10 of 31 (274488)
12-31-2005 7:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
12-31-2005 4:59 PM
|
|
And let's have a peek at those mice: Mus musculus domesticus, the house mouse, and Mus spretus, the Algerian mouse, make sterile hybrids if they're bred. But, as far as their genes indicate, they are more closely related than humans and chimps are. Does that raise any problems for the ante-Flood hyperspeciation? If these two aren't interfertile, how do we get beavers from mice in a couple thousand generations? novel mouse chromosome 17 hybrid sterility locus: implications for the origin of t haplotypes. | Genetics | Oxford AcademicEnard, et al., Science 12 April 2002 296: 340-343
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 4:59 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2748 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
|
|
Message 11 of 31 (274502)
12-31-2005 8:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Buzsaw
12-31-2005 6:33 PM
|
|
Re: Where to put it?
Buz, Let me ask you this - do you believe that there was a Black Plague in or around 1350 in Europe? Do you believe that it was primarily transmited by fleas and rats? Why haven't the rats changed in 700 years? Did they some how stabalize after the Flood? Are these the same rats that the Chinese have in their calendar (ie the year of the rat)? That dates to 2500+ years ago. That means that Noah's son or grandson had to start the Chinese calendar. Are rats already rats at that point? Give us some sort of time line for when each of the different rodent types emerged and split off from the other groups.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2005 6:33 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2005 9:05 PM | | Nuggin has replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2748 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
|
|
Message 12 of 31 (274504)
12-31-2005 8:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
12-31-2005 4:59 PM
|
|
How many rats on the Ark?
Is the premise of this theory that there we just 2 "genetically flexable" rodents on the Ark? So instead of 2 beavers and 2 muskrats and 2 gerbils and 2 field mice... there were just 2 "rats"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Yaro, posted 12-31-2005 4:59 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 12-31-2005 8:19 PM | | Nuggin has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 990 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 13 of 31 (274506)
12-31-2005 8:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by Nuggin
12-31-2005 8:16 PM
|
|
Re: How many rats on the Ark?
there were just 2 "rats"? Not just rats. Hexadecaploid rats totin' vials of spare DNA.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 12-31-2005 8:16 PM | | Nuggin has not replied |
|
Buzsaw
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 14 of 31 (274514)
12-31-2005 9:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Nuggin
12-31-2005 8:13 PM
|
|
Re: Where to put it?
Hi Nuggin. First off, did you read this statement of mine in my post? Buz: ".......do we have a refute? Do'no. I've not done any research, so this;..... just off the top of me head."
Nuggin writes:
Why haven't the rats changed in 700 years? Did they some how stabalize after the Flood? Again, having done no research and off the top of my head, logically speaking, how far could speciation go at this pace? Rapid speciation......rapid burnout of speciation, effecting relatively sudden stabelization. Again.....do'no.....talking logically off top of head.....why am I here in this thead when I do'no? Bye. 
From "THE MONKEY'S VIEWPOINT: Man descended, the ornery cuss, but he surely did not descend from us!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Nuggin, posted 12-31-2005 8:13 PM | | Nuggin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 12-31-2005 10:05 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2748 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
|
|
Message 15 of 31 (274518)
12-31-2005 10:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
12-31-2005 9:05 PM
|
|
Re: Where to put it?
So, is it your position that your hypothesis is on equal standing with Evolution? Better than evolution? Less than evolution? Are we to teach your hypothesis in schools? Do you have a better explaination about the Flood?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2005 9:05 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2005 10:32 PM | | Nuggin has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2