Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Star nosed moles, and biblical kinds
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 1 of 20 (57551)
09-24-2003 8:13 PM


I have heard it proposed by YEC's that Noah only brought 2 or 7 of each Kind of animal on the ark, and that thrugh a process of micro-evolution these kinds evolved into the variety we see today.
So... if noah took only 2 mole kinds:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/...-countryside/vertebrates/mole.htm
How on earth do you account for the quick development of this kind of mole, native only to the northern USA:
Nature - Not Found
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/10_23_99/fob3.htm
Disregarding the obvious question about how the star nosed mole got to North America in the first place, can any creationist explain how micro, and not macro-evolution, transpired over such a short amount of time to develop such a highly complex and specialized organ on this animal?
If micro-evolution only provides for small changes over time, like size, color, etc. Then how did an entirely new organ, capable of sensing things we aren't even aware of, arise?
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-24-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 09-24-2003 9:21 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 2 of 20 (57587)
09-24-2003 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
09-24-2003 8:13 PM


What? no one things moles are cute?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 09-24-2003 8:13 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 9:29 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 03-11-2004 5:47 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 3 of 20 (57594)
09-24-2003 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Yaro
09-24-2003 9:21 PM


Not as cute as naked mole rats.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Yaro, posted 09-24-2003 9:21 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Asgara, posted 09-24-2003 9:45 PM Rei has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 4 of 20 (57600)
09-24-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rei
09-24-2003 9:29 PM


Naked is always good
but ya gotta admit...the little star noses are cute.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 09-24-2003 9:29 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Yaro, posted 09-25-2003 1:15 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 5 of 20 (57778)
09-25-2003 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Asgara
09-24-2003 9:45 PM


I find it amazing how YEC's readely dismiss the evolutionary model, yet will not take up the opertunity to explain their own micro-evolution model in regards to a presently living mammal.
If Noah's ark was real, how did the star-nosed mole come from the mole "kind"?
Does no one have a hypothesis?
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-25-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Asgara, posted 09-24-2003 9:45 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 09-25-2003 4:40 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 7 by Speel-yi, posted 09-25-2003 5:09 PM Yaro has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 20 (57808)
09-25-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yaro
09-25-2003 1:15 PM


The YEC explanation:
This is my translation of what I have read here and elsewhere. I have yet to see any creationist explanation that has any real clarity at all. They are mostly handwaving.
OK, here goes:
Before the flood there were many fewer species of living things. The exact number is not determined but it was just enough to allow for room in the ark.
Each one had a much more complex genome. They contained the genetic instructions for making all the things that would be in the same genus, family or order (not clear which one of these, varies form day to day).
After the ark landed (this would be about 4500 years ago) the creatures on it dispursed. As they rebuilt their populations the extra genetic material they had "degraded" or rather separated out. Thus allowing individual new species to appear very quickly.
Based on any evidence that is available, pictures, bones etc., all teh new species were around before 2,000 years ago.
At this point the genome had "separated" as much as it could and the rapid evolution suddenly stopped.
The evidence for this scenario is something I have never seen a trace of. I have never seen any hint of an explanation of how the genome could behave this way and this quickly.
I have never seen any attempt to take this an explain the geographic distribution of animals and plants.
No attempt have I read to explain the nature of old DNA samples as they are starting to arise. Nothing to explain the fossil record other then the sorting idea which I think is in disagreement with the scenario above.
That's the best I can do. If someone has a creationist reference that has even that much detail I would like to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yaro, posted 09-25-2003 1:15 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Speel-yi
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 20 (57812)
09-25-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Yaro
09-25-2003 1:15 PM


I'll take a stab at it.
You could have rapid adaptations occur shortly after the ark was opened up and all the critters were let out. Within a few decades, they and their descendents would move into all the empty niches available and then adapt rapidly to the new conditions. An example of this would be peppered moths changing into the dark morphs. We would have many, many chances at sympatric speciation since there would be such relaxed selection and in many cases there would be no predation or parasitism at all.
This would be much like what occured during the end of the Permian. The difference here is that with the Permian, only 95% of the species were extinct while after the flood, 100% of the species were effectively extinct since there were none in any of the niches available. A mere 5% difference between the two seems insignificant, but it is actually a huge difference since none of the species would have to compete and the populations would grow in many cases exponentially and begin to divide into species because of minor differences in temporal and spatial habits. That is animals that were more active at dusk would be more likely to mate with other animals that shared the same habit.
Looks like the biggining of a book to me, maybe I'll write one and hit the lecture circuit. I bet there's a lot of money to be made off of something like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Yaro, posted 09-25-2003 1:15 PM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rei, posted 09-25-2003 5:16 PM Speel-yi has not replied
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 09-25-2003 7:07 PM Speel-yi has not replied
 Message 10 by DC85, posted 09-25-2003 8:15 PM Speel-yi has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 8 of 20 (57815)
09-25-2003 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Speel-yi
09-25-2003 5:09 PM


You can't just speed up the rate of mutation. Because most mutations are harmful, there's a balance point - beyond this point, you simply weaken the species. Thus, organisms are designed to mutate at specified speeds (which may or may not have variations on the mutation rates of different genes), which are their optimal mutation rates.
The Permian explosion took, what, 50 million years? You're talking about 50 million years vs. 50 years - a million-fold difference in the number of generations. In "a few decades", you'd get what, 2 generations of elephants.
Of course, most creationists don't think about things like that, so your book would probably sell quite well.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Speel-yi, posted 09-25-2003 5:09 PM Speel-yi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Saviourmachine, posted 03-11-2004 4:58 PM Rei has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 20 (57849)
09-25-2003 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Speel-yi
09-25-2003 5:09 PM


Speel-yi writes:
quote:
You could have rapid adaptations occur shortly after the ark was opened up and all the critters were let out.
That would require an evolutionary rate so fast that literally every single individual born would be its own species, incapable of breeding with anything else, and the entire biome would perish after the first generation.
You're going from two individuals (or seven, depending on whether or not it was clean or unclean) of a single species to literally millions of species in certain instances...all in the space of a few decades, and without anybody noticing the huge variation between parent and child.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Speel-yi, posted 09-25-2003 5:09 PM Speel-yi has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 10 of 20 (57863)
09-25-2003 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Speel-yi
09-25-2003 5:09 PM


A book isn't a Bad Idea(explaining faults in creation explanations)....... anyway you never see anything new on creation sites the same old junk that contradicts themselves alot of times sigh....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Speel-yi, posted 09-25-2003 5:09 PM Speel-yi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Speel-yi, posted 09-26-2003 1:46 AM DC85 has not replied

  
Speel-yi
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 20 (57919)
09-26-2003 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by DC85
09-25-2003 8:15 PM


The answer is 42!
Elephants would not have to evolve, we have only 3 species and that would make 6 individuals.
Also, I could prove that most species are in fact not species at all since the differences are so small. I'll use some muddled logic about prokaryots not being a species until they share 80% of the same genetic information and thus I could prove that mice are not mice, but only unrecognizable moles! Those darn biologists have been fibbing to us all this time.
I was also thinking that the lack of genetic diversity found in cheetahs could be easily explained by this ark thingy. It would support the idea that this species in particular would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Earth is in fact only 6,000 years old. Yeah yeah, that's the ticket!
I'll even put in a chapter about how the genetic clock will show that the Earth will end in exactly 42 years from now. Can't figure an angle on this one yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DC85, posted 09-25-2003 8:15 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 09-26-2003 6:47 PM Speel-yi has not replied
 Message 13 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-27-2003 6:05 AM Speel-yi has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 12 of 20 (58075)
09-26-2003 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Speel-yi
09-26-2003 1:46 AM


Re: The answer is 42!
Speel-yi responds to me...I think:
quote:
Elephants would not have to evolve, we have only 3 species and that would make 6 individuals.
But elephants are unclean. Thus, there would have been only two.
And who said anything about elephants? Do you understand that there are literally millions of species of insect?
quote:
Also, I could prove that most species are in fact not species at all since the differences are so small.
No, you couldn't. That's the point of the biological species concept. I know, I know...when do creationists ever care about reality?
By the way...is this an admission that a "kind" is a species? It'd be nice to see some tract on the flood actually indicate what a "kind" is.
[oh, and lest MrHambre not get it...I do get the sarcasm involved.]
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
[This message has been edited by Rrhain, 09-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Speel-yi, posted 09-26-2003 1:46 AM Speel-yi has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 20 (58143)
09-27-2003 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Speel-yi
09-26-2003 1:46 AM


quote:
Also, I could prove that most species are in fact not species at all since the differences are so small. I'll use some muddled logic about prokaryots not being a species until they share 80% of the same genetic information and thus I could prove that mice are not mice, but only unrecognizable moles! Those darn biologists have been fibbing to us all this time.
Then, I can prove that chimps and us are the same species. You actually think mice (Order Rodentia, family Muridae) and moles (Order Insectivora, family Talpidae[?]) are one 'kind'?
Those darn biologists have been fibbing to us all this time. Chimps are not people, they say, while the fact is that they really are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Speel-yi, posted 09-26-2003 1:46 AM Speel-yi has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 20 (91576)
03-10-2004 12:32 PM


YEC's seem to evade these II....
I decided to *BUMP* this topic, as it was thuroughly avoided by the YEC's. Aparantly they don't like arguing about specifics.

  
Saviourmachine
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 113
From: Holland
Joined: 01-16-2004


Message 15 of 20 (91796)
03-11-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rei
09-25-2003 5:16 PM


Most mutation are not harmful
Rei writes:
Because most mutations are harmful
Most mutations are neutral! The arc-organisms had a lot of additional information on their genomes. There were different paths to lose information, without dying directly. It goes on until the genetic material becomes irreducable; a left-hand wall.
Thus, organisms are designed to mutate at specified speeds (which may or may not have variations on the mutation rates of different genes), which are their optimal mutation rates.
Yes, it depends of the type of genome of a particular specie. That's why the scenario isn't that inappropriate.
The Permian explosion took, what, 50 million years? You're talking about 50 million years vs. 50 years - a million-fold difference in the number of generations. In "a few decades", you'd get what, 2 generations of elephants.
Degeneration can not go on infinitely / in eternity, the species are now more or less in equilibrium. So, you don't have to assume that there will appear 2 new kinds of elephants in the next 50 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rei, posted 09-25-2003 5:16 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 03-11-2004 5:07 PM Saviourmachine has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024