Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 217 of 302 (260905)
11-18-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by 8upwidit2
11-18-2005 10:02 AM


Re: Global Flood Issues
According to the book of Genesis, water covered every portion of the high mountains..highest of which is about 6 miles high. This means that there had to be water sufficient to be 6 miles deep over the entire planet. Just where did this amount of EXTRA water come from? And where did it go afterwards? The Noah story is the booger in the oatmeal for fundys.
The common response is that there were no mountains untill after the flood. According to YEC's all the mountains were formed after the flood by supper fast plate tectonics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by 8upwidit2, posted 11-18-2005 10:02 AM 8upwidit2 has not replied

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


Message 231 of 302 (269562)
12-15-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 1:36 AM


Re: Perfect?
Ok, 1. The water came from many sources, such as “The Fountians of the Great Deep Breaking Forth” Which means A: Underground water sources. Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a ”breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences. B: The oceans. In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood (see What about continental drift? At http://www.answersingenesis.org ), Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding”perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the ”fountains of the great deep.’ And C: Volcanoes. There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record”layers that were obviously deposited during Noah's Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.
As for the Mountains, Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9).18, so not only did the water go down, the mountains went up to close to there current level.
No, that's not what that meant. It's part of their cosmology. Babylonian and Sumerian cosmology was similar as well. They believed that our world was kind of like a snow-globe with water below and above separated by a dome called "the firmament". The firmament had windows "windows of heaven". Here is a diagram:
BTW, if you don't want to believe historians or anthropologists who study this stuff go find any self-respecting Hebrew scholar or Rabbi and they will confirm this. The people back then didn't know any better. Not to mention the fact that there is no proof whatsoever of what AIG is saying.
The catastrophic plate tectonics model (What about continental drift?...
Catastrophic plate tectonics is absurd. It's the dumbest idea ever. Not only is there no proof for it, it couldn't have happened without destroying the world. Remember the southasian tsunami? Your talking about that x10000000000. It's idiotic to even propose such an idea.
Have you ever considered how the Chinese, Egyptian, Aztec, Inuit, Aborigine's cultures go back over 10,000 years, and yet they seem COMPLEATLY undisturbed by the flood? Ever wonder how come those people look nothing like middle-eastern folks (well, save for the Egyptians), have completely unrelated languages, and no knowledge of each others existence?
You have to be out of your mind to consider the flood a real event! It's absurd. Really, use some critical thought for once.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-15-2005 02:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 1:36 AM NotSoBlindFaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 3:52 AM Yaro has replied
 Message 233 by Nighttrain, posted 12-15-2005 7:05 AM Yaro has replied

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


Message 234 of 302 (269605)
12-15-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Nighttrain
12-15-2005 7:05 AM


Re: Perfect?
lol. I'm amusing myself with him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Nighttrain, posted 12-15-2005 7:05 AM Nighttrain has not replied

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


Message 235 of 302 (269612)
12-15-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 3:52 AM


Re: Perfect?
Ok, first, when in my post did I say anything about the firmament? In fact, the bible talks about the “Floodgates of heaven” Opening in the same verse, but as something separate from the “Fountains of the Great Deep” Which where what I was talking about.
Yes. Look at the diagram I posted. Look at the bottom, the bellow the earth area. Those are the "fountains of the deep". That's what it is refering to. That's what they belived.
They belived the world was set up on pillars with water bellow and water above. This is common knowledge to anyone who has studied any sort of history of mythology. It's a fact, that's what those ancients belived.
Second, why is it so absurd to believe catastrophic plate tectonics? You give me no facts to oppose it, except when you state its absurd to think that there could be a catastrophe x10000000000 larger then the south Asian tsunami. Also, if the mountains where not paused up over a short period of time during the flood, please explain to me why there are so many fossils of sea life on top of mountains, including Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world.
LOL! Ok. Let me give you a little explanation about plate tectonics. These are gigantic, massive plates of rock "floating" around on the mantle of the earth. They are grinding up against each other, slamming into each other, with amazing force! Enough force to create new continents, pile up rocks into mountains, etc.
When a massive earthquake happens, like the one that caused the tsunami, it's because the plates shift. You know how far they shift in order to cause an earthquake? A few inches. You hear that!!! A few inches can cause a massive Earthquake!
Earthquake - Wikipedia
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/...rce/spring2004/earthquake.html
Now you are talking about INCREDIBLE forces. Enugh to push up Everest all in the span of a year or two! You are out of your mind!!!
Do you realize the level of catastrophe you are talking about?
That level of sizemic energy would boil the damn ocean! I mean, seriously, think a little!
Also, if the mountains where not paused up over a short period of time during the flood, please explain to me why there are so many fossils of sea life on top of mountains, including Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world.
They were pushed up, over millions of years. Everest was part of an ocean untill the indian subcontinent slammed into asia over the course of millenia. Your model has the damn thing zipping around the globe like a steam ship. It's idiotic.
Most of the dating done for the cultures is done under the presupposition that they must go back ten thousand years (Although if one uses the bible, an account of events written by those who where there when it happened, the earth is only about 6,000 years old.) In fact, those cultures written (or drawn, in some cases) histories go back to a point after the flood would have occurred in the biblical time line.
No eveidence for any of this. But I'll give it to you. Let's say the earth is only 6000 years old. The flood happened some 3500-3000 years ago.
History of China - Wikipedia China's written history goes back 3500 years. How the did they survive the flood?
If they are post flood, what the hell happend? Did noahs family get it on like crazy incest and make a bunch of chinese looking people with a distinctive culture, writting, racial characteristics, hiked across desert and mountain into far off, unknown, teritory quickly build cities and aquireing technological advancements all the while forgetting their true ancestry?
Give me a break!
Thirdly, it would be quit easy to get the different appearances and languages from those eight people. With proper genetics and isolated descendant families, the genes for all skin colors, eye shapes, hair color, and height would be present, and would eventually create lines of people who have similar features
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!
Chinese is a member of the Sino-Tibetan_languages. Hebrew/arabic are members of the Afro-Asiatic languages. Linguistis who study these languages will tell you they are compleatly unrelated. These languages are distinctive and bear no resemblance and theire regions of existence are largely defined by geography.
So basically, you are saying, that whoever the individual(s) are that invented chinese, basically did it intentionaly forgetting all his hebrew language and culture. Further, these people must have worked hard to create a language so complex and different. They must have stayd up late making up new myths, building cities, and writting books with the 3000+ ideograms they made up in the back of their notebooks.
Do you see how far fetched your story is???
Afroasiatic languages - Wikipedia Sino-Tibetan languages - Wikipedia
blah blah blah...
Fourth, if I am the one not thinking critically, why are you the one who has reduced themselves to name calling to support there beliefs?
LOL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 3:52 AM NotSoBlindFaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 7:35 PM Yaro has replied

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


Message 236 of 302 (269636)
12-15-2005 10:52 AM


A General Question for NotSoBlind
If I told you the flood story, and you had never read it before, would you believe it?
Seriously, would you?
Let me put it to you this way, do you belive in icarus? Why?
I would say: "Well, it's imposible to make wings flapable by a human out of feathers and wax. Not to mention the areodynamic dificulties."
The some dude comes around and says: "No, you see, it was special flying wax he used and feathers were different back then. Also, the air was much thicker so it took less force to flap your wings. And areodynamics didn't work exactly as they do today... etc."
Get the picture? It's an ad hoc explanation of an obvious myth. To do this is to miss the point of the story.

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Nighttrain, posted 12-15-2005 5:14 PM Yaro has not replied

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


Message 242 of 302 (269787)
12-15-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 7:35 PM


Re: Perfect?
Isaiah 40:22 (that book was written many centuries before the time of Christ) talks about the sphericity of the earth. Also, in Job 26:7 ”He suspends the Earth over nothing’. So, you say they believed in a flat earth supported by pillars, yet the account written by “Those Ancients” refutes that theory.
quote:
Isaiah 40:22:
[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Circle? And that says sphere.... how?
If it's a sphere... then how can god spread the heavens out like a tent?
A circle... with a tent on top...
Sounds alot like this:
Job... let's read the whole passage:
quote:
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
Job 26:9 He holdeth back the face of his throne, [and] spreadeth his cloud upon it.
Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Note the bolded verses.... the ocean has bounds in the east and north? Aren't all the oceans interconected? I mean we are a sphere... why would the oceans have bounds unless it was on some sort of ... disc...
Ok, first, please refrain from swearing, it’s not polite. Second, Yes, the cataclysmic forces that were rpesent during the flood are mind boggling to think about. But they are not as far fetched as you would have people believe.
Sorry if I swore. Not trying to. I really find it unbelivable that people go thrugh such great lengths to propose these ad hoc arguments.
This is also why I am not going to address the following paragraphs. Why? Well, because the arguments you are proposing do nothing but attempt to twist evidence to fit a pre-supposed conclusion. I could do the same thing to prove to you that Icarus and Deadalus indeed built wax wings and flew away from their captors at Minos.
I could do the same thing all the AiG boys are doing. I could call it Answers in Ovid.
Fact is, NotSoBlind, is that the evidence simply does not point to a flood. And the ad hoc justifications provided at are at best impossible... at worst stupid, dishonest, outrageous, and embarassing.
I mean they are! Think of the flood story? Would you belive it if it weren't in the bible?
You don't belive Icarus do you? Why not? Why don't you belive Icarus? I can come up with similar tripe as Baumgardner to support Icarus.
All the AiG type folks want to do is create a scenario, no matter how remote, that the flood just MAYBE may have happened. They think if they can do that, it will somehow keep their fantasy alive.
Unfortunetly geology dosn't lie and the flood has been falsified for over 150 years.
...
But I digress....
hey! I got one for you! What's a 'kind'?
I'll give you an example, would moles be a kind?
How about... ummm... dogs?
Lemme know. I got some doozies for ya!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 7:35 PM NotSoBlindFaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2005 8:36 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 247 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 11:15 PM Yaro has replied

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


Message 257 of 302 (269964)
12-16-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 11:15 PM


Re: Perfect?
Moles would be Talpidae (That in includes moles, mole shrews, and others). Dogs of course belong to the Canine family, along with wolves, foxes, dingoes, and African hunting dogs, all of which would come from a single pair of canines on the ark.
Excelent. Ok, here is a little game I like to play. It's called explain to me how the hell your little fantasy accounts for the Star Nosed mole:
Page not found | Natural History Magazine
If all moles came from a generic mole, then somehow 'devolved' into lesser species (after all this is after the fall right?), how the f**k did the star nosed mole come about?
I can only assume it's a later evolution of the species since it is only native to north america. Meaning that it migrated there after the flood
You see, that funny star at the end of it's nose is an incredibly complicated sense organ. Each individual finger is packed with nerves that detect everything from minute movements of prey, movements in air, smells, and more.
Each little finger on the star is independant as well. It can move, feel, sense, on it's own. No other mole has such an advanced structure.
Did this 'new information' come about after the flood from the origional 'kind'? Comeon, ya know it's pretty silly to think so don't you?
As for boundaries of the oceans, that’s right in Genesis 1:6-7
“And God said, ”Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water’ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.” Any guess’s what is being made?
The expanse is between the waters because theare are waters above and below. Remember the snow globe? The empty inside is the expanse beneath the firmament and above the land. Duh.
Come on NotSoBlind, your obvioulsy sunk on this one. The OT has no concept about the shape of the world. It's obvious to anyone reading it. Would you like me to go thrugh the hebrew words used and explain to you their individual meaning?
Also, you say there is no evidence for a worldwide flood. Please then, take your time and explain how, without a worldwide flood, there can be A: Fossil sea life on mountains, some found with fossils of land plants. B: How mass graves of dinosaurs exist all over the world, many of which even evolutionists say drown in a flood. C: How unfossilized dinosaur bones can still exist. If they died 65 million years ago, there bones should be ether completely fossilized or dust by now. D: How so many water carved features exist all over the globe (ex. Devils Tower, Columbia River basin, Grand canyon.) Oh, and be sure to go into detail.
Yes, there is no evidence of a world wide flood. The evidence we do find:
A: Fossil sea life on mountains, some found with fossils of land plants.
Mountains that are formed thrugh continental uplift, formed over millions of years. The mountains, at one point, may have been under the ocean. As they built up, they took their ocean fossils with them. What's hard to understand about that?
B: How mass graves of dinosaurs exist all over the world, many of which even evolutionists say drown in a flood.
Yes, many paleontologysts seek out ancient riverbeds or lakes because they know seasonal flooding makes for great fossil beds. However many MANY fossil beds have nothing to do with a flood. And most fossil beds are direct contradictions to a global flood. (I will get to this in a second).
D: How so many water carved features exist all over the globe (ex. Devils Tower, Columbia River basin, Grand canyon.) Oh, and be sure to go into detail.
Grand Canyon was carved by the clorado river over millions of years.
I'll quote more accurate sources than me on the rest:
Devils Tower - Wikipedia
quote:
Geologists agree that Devils Tower was formed by the intrusion of igneous material. What they cannot agree upon is how, exactly, that process took place. Geologists Carpenter and Russell studied Devils Tower in the late 1800s and came to the conclusion that the Tower was indeed formed by an igneous intrusion. Later geologists searched for further explanations.
In 1907, scientists Darton and O'Hara decided that Devils Tower must be an eroded remnant of a laccolith. A laccolith is a large mass of igneous rock which is intruded through sedimentary rock beds but does not actually reach the surface, producing a rounded bulge in the sedimentary layers above. This theory was quite popular in the early 1900s since numerous studies had earlier been done on a number of laccoliths in the Southwest.
Other theories have suggested that Devils Tower is a volcanic plug or that it is the neck of an extinct volcano. These explanations are unlikely, however, for there is no evidence of volcanic activity (volcanic ash, lava flows, or volcanic debris) anywhere in the surrounding countryside.
No one yet has a definite answer as to how exactly Devils Tower was formed, other than that it was an igneous intrusion into the sedimentary layers above and that the molten rock comprising the Tower did not surface.
In any case, geologists agree that the igneous material intruded and then cooled as phonolite porphyry, a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. As the lava cooled, hexagonal (and sometimes 4-, 5-, and 7-sided) columns formed. As the columns continued to cool, vertical cracks developed as the columns shrank horizontally in volume (see also Devils Postpile National Monument).
Until erosion began its relentless work, Devils Tower was not visible above the overlying sedimentary rocks. But the forces of erosion, particularly that of water, began to wear away the sandstones and shales. The much harder igneous rock survived the onslaught of erosional forces, and the gray columns of Devils Tower began to appear above the surrounding landscape.
As rain and snow continue to erode the sedimentary rocks surrounding the Tower's base, and the Belle Fourche River carries away the debris, more of Devils Tower will be exposed. But at the same time, the Tower itself is slowly being eroded. Rocks are continually breaking off and falling from the steep walls. Seldom do entire columns fall, but on rare occasions they do. Piles of rubble - broken columns, boulders, small rocks, and stones - lie at the base of the Tower, indicating that it was, at some time in the past, larger than it is today.
Recent history
Columbia River drainage basin - Wikipedia
quote:
The Columbia River Plateau lies across parts of the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. During late Miocene and early Pliocene times, one of the largest flood basalts ever to appear on the earth's surface engulfed about 63,000 square miles (160,000 km) of the Pacific Northwest, forming a large igneous province. Over a period of perhaps 10 to 15 million years lava flow after lava flow poured out, eventually accumulating to a thickness of more than 6,000 feet (1.8 km). As the molten rock came to the surface, the earth's crust gradually sank into the space left by the rising lava. The subsidence of the crust produced a large, slightly depressed lava plain now known as the Columbia Basin or Plateau. The ancient Columbia River was forced into its present course by the northwesterly advancing lava. The lava, as it flowed over the area, first filled the stream valleys, forming dams that in turn caused impoundments or lakes. In these ancient lake beds are found fossil leaf impressions, petrified wood, fossil insects, and bones of vertebrate animals.
And, if the story of Noah’s Flood wasn’t in the bible, but I knew the geological information that I do now, I would still believe it. I can’t say I don’t believe in Noah’s Flood after taking geology.
I don't belive you. I can't say I don't belive in Icarus after studying areodynamics.
Hey, why don't you belive in Icarus? I bet I could provide you with some ingenius ad hoc explanations!
Anyway...
As far as fossilbeds... do you know what a Lagersttten is?
It's a place where an entire ecosystem was preserved due to a catastrophic event. Kinda like Pompeii but in the natural world.
Now, according to most Creos.: Dinos, Humans, and Mammals all lived together untill the flood killed them off. If this is the case how come the Ashfall fossil beds in Nebraska, captured not a single dinosaur?
Dinosaur were common in that area, and all over the globe, yet the ashfall beds show no sign of their existance.
Ashfall Fossil Beds - Wikipedia
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0200/frameset_reset.html...
http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/...uides/parksearch/showpark.asp
These beds were created 10 million years ago when an ancient volcano
exploded covering about 500 square miles with ash and debris. Everything in the area died and was burried by the ash. This also preserved a cross section of the entire ecosystem. We have found hundreds upon hundreds of specimens in the area.
Not a single dino. Also, the Mammals in the area are wierd.... ancient species of Rhino and Camel. Horses with toes? WTF? Bunch of wierd stuff.
Anyway, I have another thread on this, and if you want to discuss it further I will bump it for you.
shortened display of url to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-16-2005 09:53 AM
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-16-2005 10:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 11:15 PM NotSoBlindFaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by AdminNosy, posted 12-16-2005 10:16 AM Yaro has not replied
 Message 260 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-17-2005 11:09 PM Yaro has replied

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


Message 261 of 302 (270433)
12-18-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-17-2005 11:09 PM


Re: Perfect?
It’s really quit simple to explain the how the star nosed mole came to be. At least it is for creationists, evolutionists can’t even show how a mole could have evolved, or even a transitional form. Anyway, the star nosed mole would have come about after leaving the ark. The pair (Or pair and offspring) that left the ark would have all the genetic information to become all the subspecies of moles.
That's great, except, it's not an explanation. It doesn't explain anything. You are simply making unsupported assertions, care to put up some evidence?
As far as mole evolution goes, the article I linked to explaines how the structures came about.
Page not found | Natural History Magazine
They are essentially highly advanced forms of a homologus structure found in other moles. Only thing is, it's incredibly complex and highly specialized.
Over the next several thousand years, the moles bred and spread out, and the ones carrying genes for star noses bred star nosed babys, and the ones for short noses bred short babies and so on and so forth, until you have the mole species that are present today. All moles have very sensitive noses. It’s true, only the star mole has that odd little star on the end of his. However, there are many different kind of noses on moles. Short, long, star, and others are all present in the species.
Great, so that essentially means 52 distinct species of mole.. let's see thats.. roughly... one new mole species every 56 years since the flood....
Why don't we see diversification at this same rate today? You people claim not to belive in macro-evolution... and yet... apparently... a new mole species arises every 56 years!
But... let's have a bit more fun... let's talk about rodents. There are about 3000 distinct rodent species. 1 a year for the last 3k years! Mercy me. How come we ain't seen this in a lab?
Yes, you did tell me the sea life fossils would have gotten on top of the mountains when the mountain’s rose from beneath the sea. What you do not seem to want to tell me is how land plant fossils got into the same level or lower then the sea life fossils. If we take the geological column as accurate (When is fact the layers do not exist anywhere on earth) Then the plants must have been on the mountain before the fish. So, if the mountains built up from under water, where did the plants come from?
Reference please. I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about. And I hope is not poly-strata trees cuz that old saw has been thrugh here a thousand times.
Also, for those who requested information on Unfossilized dinosaur bones, they can be found in the Liscomb Bone Bed in northern Alaska. In fact, when it was first discovered, the people thought they must have been frozen Bison or Mammoth bones. After all, unfossilized dinosaur bones are an impossibility right? But why don’t I let someone who has been there talk about it.
Seen it before, refuted. (please cite your sources, i.e. note the website it's comming from).
Anyway, I'll save you the trouble. The story comes from here:
The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure - ChristianAnswers.Net
Some crank named Bud Davis (a Ron Wyatt in his own right) claimed he dug up some 'unfossilized' dino bones. This is from a post at talkorigins:
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for November 2001
I have noticed a post earlier in your feedback section where someone mentioned "unfossilized dinosaur bones." You answered that you had not heard of this one, and I noticed there are no FAQ's about this subject. I believe I can help you out on this one. I am a theistic evolutionist and have been studying the creation/evolution controversy for about 10 years. The "unfossilized dinosaur bones" argument comes from a group of creationists led by Buddy Davis, a dinosaur sculptor, to Alaska in 1998. I have discovered several problems with the claim, as evidenced by these creationists own admissions in their book. They admit that they dug through several layers of muds, permafrost, coal, and shale to get all of their dinosaur bones out. They also admit that the "unfossilized" dinosaur bones were found in the top layers. If this is true, then they did not find dinosaur bones at all; rather, what they seem to have are either frozen mastodon or mammoth bones. These creationists also admit that they found no dinosaur bones in the coal layer. They also admit that they found completely fossilized dinosaur bones in the underlying shale. This, I discovered, is only because this layer is the well-known Liscomb (Cretaceous) dinosaur bone bed. They did manage to find a near-perfectly preserved hadrosaurine dinosaur lower jaw bone with a full battery of teeth. Just to show how incompetent they were, they also admit that they were fooled into thinking they had a "unfossilized" dinosaur bone which actually turned out to be a piece of driftwood. It seems fishy to me that they also say that they are analyzing these bones themselves. Funny that world-renowned hadrosaur expert John Horner was not consulted to verify the "unfossilzedness" of these bones. I would love to write an FAQ for you guys on this one since you don't already have one. Please let me know if I can. Thanks much.
And indeed, this story pans out.... well... it would. Only, Buddy Davis and crew still have possesion of the bones! They are to be displayed in a new creationist museum in Ohio... and no scientist has gotten a look at them.
None the less, a quick jaunt over to the website of Alaska's Bureau of Land Management will give you some details on the Liscomb fossil beds:
Liscomb fossil beds
Indeed, the fossil beds yield remarkably well preserved dino bones! But are they "fresh"? No.
So far, no DNA has been found in dinosaur bones of the North Slope. When they were first discovered in the 1980s, and before they were studied, the relatively light weight of several bones caused speculation that they might contain a lot of the original bone tissue from the once-living dinosaur. Since then, the result of studies have not supported this idea. Instead, they have shown that the bones are highly mineralized with none yet proven to contain recoverable dinosaur DNA or anything else from the living dinosaur.
That's that for that.
As for your Ashfall fossil beds in Nebraska, the explanation is quit simple, that volcanic eruption happened after the flood (Not 10 millions years ago) and after the Dinosaurs died out.
Unfortunetly you run into a problem here. No humans were caught in the 500 square mile ashfall bed either. We know that this area was repleat with humans for the last few thousand years.
Further, the sheer amount of animals caught in the blast is enormous! I mean, hundreds upon hundreds of specimens with dozens upon dozens of individual species represented. You are out of your mind to suggest they bred to those levels in a few hundred years after Noah.... heck... how did the Rhino swim the Atlantic to end up in Nebraska?
How did the Rihno get there?
Look! There are Rhino skeletons... in Nebraska... How the hell did they get there NotSoBlind? Your looking pretty blind to me.
And if Dinosaurs did not live with humans, or even in a time anywhere near the time humans walked the earth, why does the bible describe a dinosaur like creature, and why have cave paintings of dinosaurs been found?
Oh please, it's called an imagination.
Oh, as for your lovely little math problems, you made a few mistakes. 1. You left in all species that live underwater. They wouldn’t have been on the ark. 2. Insects would not have counted among the kinds of animals that came onto the ark in 2’s or 7’s. The words used in genesis, behemah or remes, does not include insects, so as many of them as had wanted would have come aboard.
So, using wikipedia, I counted all the species of insects, and species that lived underwater. Then I subtracted the lower numbers of the species (When they said the number of species was in between some number and suome number of species) and subtracted it from your 1.7 million species. I was left with 472,000 species. Do the math again.
Don't even go there NotSoBlind. You don't know the first thing about insects or fish but I can tell you, most of them wouldn't have survived the flood. Neither would the coral. Nothing.
And you can choose to believe me or not believe me, the choice is yours. I believe in a worldwide flood because I have seen nothing in my study of geology that disproves it.
See, that's the difference between you and a scientist. Scientists belive things because of the evidence, not just because no evidence seems to disprove their belief.
I can believe that there are invisible pink unicorns dancing in the crab nebula. By your standard I am right, after all, no scientific evidence currently refutes this. Can you?
However, I have seen things that Disprove Icarus, such as a guy on TV that actauly made wings of bird feathers and tried to fly. xD it was pretty funny.
Well, today it doesn't work. Because back in the days of Icarus they had special feathers of geneticaly supperior birds. And the wax that held the wings together was leva-wax from a now extinct geneticaly supperior honey bee. Also, the air was more viscous back then, so it took less effort to flap the wings. And gravity was weaker because the earth spun slower... see it all makes sense! Why don't you belive it?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-18-2005 01:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-17-2005 11:09 PM NotSoBlindFaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-19-2005 3:06 PM Yaro has replied

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


Message 265 of 302 (270858)
12-19-2005 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-19-2005 3:06 PM


Re: Perfect?
We are seeing it today, check it out:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Well, first off, AiG is a bunch of tripe. Second, the changes they are mentioning at AiG are a far cry from this:
to this:
Since these are all rodents, we can now assume that the capibara and the mouse basically just came about out of the blue one year.
Now, I will hand it to AiG for pointing out how Natural Selection can work on a population. Because their examples with guppies (verification pending) is a great illustration of it. Imagine those guppies in a few million years (or maybe even a few thousand!) and you could have a new species on your hands.
If you need references for marine fish fossils and fossils of plants on found on land, try here:
Uniformitarian Paleo-Environmental Dilemma at Clarkia, Idaho | Answers in Genesis
I am still unclear as to what your problem with the trees and fishes on mountains is. Please be more specific. Cite the relevant portion of the article if you can.
Actauly, I got it from the book: The Great Alaskan Dinosaur adventure, and http://www.answersingenesis,org, not off the other sites. Also, if all the fossils are ether mamooth/mastodon, or highly mineralized, how come the Journal of Paleontology said this after they tested several positively identified HADROSAURIDAE, ORNITHISCHIA fossils that where found in that same place from the top layers:
"The quality of preservation is remarkable. The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise display little permineralization, crushing, or distortion." - (p.198 Journal of Paleontology, v. 61, no.1, January 1987
Ya, that's Buddys book. As to the first quote, it's from 1987, that's almost 20 years ago and the Alska Bureau of Land Management (which I already quoted) shed's light on the nature of the quote:
So far, no DNA has been found in dinosaur bones of the North Slope. When they were first discovered in the 1980s, and before they were studied, the relatively light weight of several bones caused speculation that they might contain a lot of the original bone tissue from the once-living dinosaur. Since then, the result of studies have not supported this idea. Instead, they have shown that the bones are highly mineralized with none yet proven to contain recoverable dinosaur DNA or anything else from the living dinosaur.
One thing you should watch out for when reading YEC sources is the dates. You will notice that many of the sources cited as well as the quotes are usually (at the least) 10-20 years old. That's ancient history when it comes to science.
That’s simple, the rhino didn’t swim, it walked. Even evolutionists acknowledge that men and animals could once freely cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the Americas.
*blink*
I would like to know how fast the rhino's multiplied and how far did the migrate?
Let's be clear. There is a whole herd of Rhinos in Nebraska. A Herd! That's alot of Rhinos.
two explanations for the lack of fossil humans in the ashfall beds. One: They had an early warning and left. 2: They hadn’t gotten there yet. Noah’s decedents disobeyed Gods commands to spread out over the earth. Instead, they stuck around the general area where they were, and decided to build the tower of babel. They never finished though because God intervened and scrambled there languages. All this may have taken as much as a couple hundred years. So the humans would have gotten to the Americas at least a hundred years after the animals, who started breeding and spreading out right away.
No proof of any of this.
Aslo, there are no bones of predators in the ash beds, even though the bones show signs they must have been there at one point, so not everything that lived in the area died and became fossils.
Oh, please show me some data on that.
*Claps hands* Yay! Insults!
Hey, you were askin for that one
Imagination huh? Well, apparently this guy who lived in White River Canyon Utah a couple thousand years ago had the same imagination. A rather accurate imagination for someone who should never have seen a dinosaur, and yet managed to draw a rather nice sauropod.
Hardly. This is a storybook idea of what a Apatosaurus looked like. It's highly outdated and we know NO sauropod actually walked like this. You would actually have to break it's spinal coard to get it's tail into that possition.
Dinos were built like suspension-bridges note:
or:
As far as your image, I'm not sure where it came from, but it looks remarkably similar to junk done by the hoaxters at Ica.
The insects where on the ark, they just didn’t have a limite on how many of each kind could come aboard. Also, please tell me why fish, coral, and all other forms of sea life wouldn’t have survived a flood. Coral has even adapted to live in dark cold waters of the abyss, so why not a flood?
Coral, like the great barier reef, would have been covered in several hundred feet of silt. We are talking mud mud mud mud mud mud. Tons of it. It wouldn't have survived that. Further, the marine fish that didn't drown in the mud would have died in low salinity and the fresh water fish would have died in the high salinity.
I also happen to belive, not just because there is not evidence to disprove it, but because I have seen plenty of evidence to support it. And in case you haven’t realized this yet, both Creationists and Evolutionists work using the same evidence. Its just a matter of what presuppositions we use to interpret the evidence that results in two different interpretations.
Incorrect. Creationists are twisting facts to fit their presupositions. Scientists are formulating theories based on where the eveidence actually leads. Note what's missing, (hint: presupositions).
Ok then, lets work with your theory. First, show me fossils of your genetically superior bird, and of your genetically superior honey bees.
I can't show you a fossil. They were so supperior that they were incapable of being fossilized.
Although, if they were superior, why are they extinct?
Because most of the bees were hunted to extinctions to get their honey and offer it to the gods. And the birds flew off to the Elyssium fields (so they aren't really extinct, they just live where we can't touch them ).
Oh, and while you are at it, show me remains of animals that were adapted to an environment of more viscous air and weaker gravity.
I don't have the remains, but I have drawings and first hand accounts!
Herroditus for example, describes the gold digging ants in Egypt, and the people with heads in their chests which lived on the islands near Crete. These creatures are a perfect illustration of the strange adaptations necissary to live in a more viscuss atmosphere!
Let's not forget the Harpys, or the Roc. Large, flying creatures that couldn't have existed without thicker air and less gravity!
I also need to see some accounts from other cultures that show the longer days and nights that would have resulted from a slower spinning earth.
That's easy, they didn't notice!
No, the point was to illustrate just a few of the many fossil graveyards that are the result of a flood, the unfossilized bones are in Alaska. And of course there unique to Australia, the animals that where fossilized are unique to Australia, and since fossilization is rare, you would only find the fossils in there habitat, not on there migration routes,
Those bones are NOT unfossilized therefore your point is moot.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-20-2005 04:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-19-2005 3:06 PM NotSoBlindFaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-21-2005 12:13 AM Yaro has replied

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


Message 276 of 302 (271303)
12-21-2005 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-21-2005 12:13 AM


Re: Perfect?
First, since you insist on calling AIG names I guess I’ll make this post using other sources. (Although, why is it the worst you can do about AIG is call them liars? You think if they were that bad you could post come contradictory information.)
Hey NotSoBlind, AiG gets brought up a lot around here, and this is not the first time I have encountered them. In any case, their articles have been refuted time and time again in countless threads. From their track record I can honestly say that at best they are wrong at worst they are lying.
As far as the article you posted, I found it to be an interesting illustration about how things adapt to different environments, but not the sort of 1 new rodent species a year we would see if the Flood story happened. The proposition is absurd, and there is no evidence for it.
First, the original “Kind” Noah brought on the ark was nether mouse nor capybara, it would most likely resemble a squirrel.(In fact, if you look up rodents on wikipedia, it will tell you the earliest rodents were squirrel like.)
Ok. So essentially we bread 1 new rodent species a year for the last 3000 years from squirels? Doesn't this seem a bit far fetched to you?
(In fact, if you look up rodents on wikipedia, it will tell you the earliest rodents were squirrel like.) And capybara’s are very similar to other rodent species, such as cavies and beavers, and have many biological similarities to those mice, they simply have a few larger differences from them then from others, such as lack of tail, longer legs, and a larger size.
Let's not forget a herding mentality, nostrils that close to keep water out, slight webbing on their feet, a semi-aquatic lifestyle. Ya know, it's making so much sense now! Capybaras came from squirels. It took 3 years.
Also, you posting a picture of mice and a capybara and asking me to explain how one became the other is like me posting a picture of a Great Dane and a Cairn Terrier and asking you how one evolved into the other. One didn’t become the other, they just had the same ancestors.
Agreed, about the ancestor bit, I meant that. I am sorry if it was unclear. The proposed squirrel-like ancestor would have spawned off the capybera, the guinea pig, the hamster, and the mouse. But you have one problem with your dog analogy, a Great Dane and a Cairn Terrier are different breeds of the same species. A capybera and a Guinea Pig are different species all together!
Let me put it to you this way, if we got one rodent species a year for the last 3000 years, why aren't we getting new rodent species every year today?
You are talking about evolution on a grand scale NotSoBlind. Rodents are not all breeds of squirrel and they possess far more differences than you give them credit for. Note the following:
Naked Mole-Rat:
Beaver:
Squirrel:
Guniea Pig:
All of these species would have come about from a Squirrel like ancestor in only 3000 years.
Also, your 3,000 rodent species is the highest end of the species spectrum I found. The numbers I found said there where between 1500-3000 rodent species. With 2000 being the median. Also, how that many species got her in 4000 years is quit easy to explain. Rodents breed like crazy, and the more offspring an animal produces, the more chances there are for genetic variation to create a new subspecies/species. (Such as dwarf hamsters and Syrian Hamsters.)
Yes, but as creationists are fond of saying, they are still Hamsters! Hehehe.. That felt good
No, seriously. There are 2000 species. And Rodents still breed like crazy... and guess what? We ain't getting new species every year. It's an absurd proposition that they ever did. If you wanna say 2000 species fine. 1.5 rodent species a year. Happy? Why don't we see it today?
Well, my problem is that if the mountains were underwater before the where raised up, how did land plant fossils get under and with fish fossils? And the article I posted before have tree leaf fossils, fish fossils, and sea life fossils all in the same place. If you want links to places with seas and freshwater fish, land plants, and other species all on mountains/hills, try these:
You ever been to a marsh or a swamp? Even the amazon rainforest where a river floods? Well, i can tell you, the trees grow in several feet of water. There is one explanation right off the top of my head.
But, I'll do a bit more research on it and get back to you.
Now this is what I love about Evolution. Ever ten or twenty years, you throw all evidence that doesn’t agree with your new theories out the window and come up with new evidence.
Nope. The theories are modified and improved. And this is not exclusive to evolution BTW, this is science. It happens in medicine, physics, astronomy, etc. We think one thing, as more evidence accrues we modify what we think.
Science works by creating theories based on current evidence. You then test those theories and modify them as new evidence comes to light. This is how ALL science operates and it works. So if you don't like it, stop going to your doctor because he uses the same methodology.
So, tested fossils of dinosaur that show that it wasn’t highly mineralized are wrong because there old, but new tests on different bones (Found at lower levels then the originals, which the site for the fossil beds admit.) are right because there newer? (And of course don’t upset evolutionary theories.) Here are more links about unfossilized dinosaur bones:
Back in the 80's it was thought the bones may not be highly mineralized. Further testing showed that they were. Buddies bones were dug up in the same area yet he has not submitted his findings to any journal, or allowed any other scientists to take a look at what he has. So all we end up with is a guy with a claim.
If someone did find 'unfossilized' dino bones it would be big news. I mean, it would be all over the scientific world. Noble prizes for everyone. And, quite frankly, I hope someone finds some.
Here are two sites you need to see. The first is a news article about a “Stone Age” Tribe
That survived the tsunami. So, if “Stone Age” Tribes now days can avoid tsunami’s, why couldn’t ancient tribes with the same level of technology avoid a volcanic eruption?
Not that they couldn't, but this site has some pictures of a highly advanced society that couldn't avoid a volcanic eruption. In the end, this is all speculation, fact is you have no proof for your theory. Just saying “it might have, maybe, coulda, sorta, happened.” is not enough. You need to show hard evidence that such a thing occurred and so far you haven't been able too.
eHarcourtSchool.com has been retired
Further, volcanoes and tsunamis are very different. A massive volcanic explosion of the magnitude that produced the Ashfall beds is equivalent to several nuclear bombs. I don't think people could easely outrun those.
And, if you started with just one pair of rhinos, and every female gave birth to a female calf at least every fourth year, you could have two to the twenty-fifth power (33,554,432) females, not counting males, in only 100 years. As for the evidence for no fossils of predators being found in the ashfall fossil beds, just look at your own link:
Yes, in la la land where every child survives to maturity with no disease. Where every female produces the perfect amount of offspring in her lifetime. Where every individual manages to migrate thousands of miles over rugged terrain and hostile environments without a trace. You know Rhinos are endangered right? Do you know how difficult it is to breed them? Seriously, breeding programs are having a had time getting their numbers up and thats WITH the several thousand Rhinos we have. Imagine from 7 specimens.
Some have argued that fish would have died due to the imbalance of salt caused by such a flood. But the fact is, we do not know how salty the sea was before the flood. It is likely that it contained less salt than it does presently. If the fountains of the great deep (which broke open at the time of the flood, Genesis 7:11) were under water volcanoes they would have emitted large amounts of steam and hot water. This combination would have killed many fish and other sea creatures. Ninety-five percent of the fossil record consists of marine creatures. Such numbers testify that many of these creatures perished in the flood as well.
Many species of fish are able to tolerate wide changes in salinity (How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood? by Don Batten and Jonathan Sarfati). There are even species of fish that migrate between fresh and salt water. Keep in mind there has been a lot of new species (not new "Kinds") of fish since the time of the flood. These result in a loss of genetic information from the original "Kind". Tolerance to such things as changes in salinity may be one such loss
Genesis 6-9 Commentary Noah‘s Ark Noah's Ark Fact or Fairy Tale?
That my friend, is a perfect example of an ad hoc explanation. No worse than my “In the days of Icarus the air was thicker”. There is no evidence for any of this and its intent is solely to make excuses for the flood. “Special pleading” also comes to mind.
Further, the mud! All those torrential rains and raging flood waters would have wipped up tons and tons of mud and built up layers and layers of sediment. The fish would have drowned. And I am glad that many species of fish could withstand some shifts in salinity, but you are out of your mind if you are saying All fish!
As a person who has actually maintained a salt watter tank will tell you, you have to check the pH and salinity every other day and adjust the levels constantly because if you don't everything will die. That's a fact.
odd, that’s the answer I always seem to get when arguing with evolutionists, “Creationists lie, the bible contradicts itself, your wrong, your brainwashed.” Yet, I never get them to say where they lied, twisted facts, or where the bible contradicts itself.
I'll avoid the others as they are not necessarily on topic. I will simply point out the dishonesty of creationist literature:
1)Creationists Lie: Animals all came from unique 'kinds'. Why is it a lie? No proof, or definition, of what a kind is yet it is constantly put forward.
2)Creationists Lie: Where did the water go? Common answer: The world was surrounded by a vapor canopy. No proof of any such thing yet still put forward. A lie.
3)Creationists Lie: You believe we all evolved from a bannana! A lie. No one belives that.
4)Creationists Lie: There are no transitional forms! A lie. There is an embarassment of riches when it comes to transitional forms.
As for evolutionists twisting facts . .. Well, I won’t get into that. *Cough* Piltdown Man *Cough*
Bravo! Got anything over 100 years old? Further, who exposed the hoax? Give you a hint: Scientists. Give you another hint: Evolutionary scientists.
Now THAT’S the difference between Noah’s ark and the Icarus myth. I have shown you fossilized animals that drowned in the flood.
You have done no such thing! You have showed animals that may have drowned in A flood, not THE flood. Retract that immediately or post some evidence.
I showed you other accounts of a worldwide flood. And I showed you geological evidence for the flood. That’s what makes it different, evidence. And that’s why I believe in Noah’s Flood, and why I don’t believe in the myth of Icarus, or evolution.
Again, you have done no such thing! There is no Geological evidence for THE flood. Not one iota.
Because there entire theory uses transitions from one species (Such as canines) to another (Such as dolphins) that is based without fossil evidence of the transition. And “Biblical transitional fossils” would be (and are) put down under “Extinct fossil species” As they would have only small bits of variation between individuals (such as slightly longer or shorter extremities), and wouldn’t suddenly gain genetic information, which is what evolution needs to happen.
Your not answering me here. But I will address the broader point. We have many threads on transitional forms, please discuss it there, let this thread focus on the flood.
I know, I ask for insults whenever I debate evolutionists.
Sorry if I ribbed you to hard. I debate for sport Seriously, I'm sorry. I wasn't meaning to be overly insulting I meant it more playfully. I will refrain from any more insults in jest or otherwise.
Its quit fascinating really, usually when your debating people, they start insulting you and your theories when you make them angry and hit a nerve, challenge something they don’t want challenged, make them squirm and doubt what they say. Yet I haven’t called anyone names, gotten angry, or sworn, yet you ask me how I can believe what I do. Makes you wonder don’t it?
Yep, sure does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-21-2005 12:13 AM NotSoBlindFaith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 10:38 AM Yaro has replied
 Message 287 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-30-2005 7:56 PM Yaro has replied

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


Message 278 of 302 (271333)
12-21-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by custard
12-21-2005 10:38 AM


Re: Perfect?
HAHAHHAHAHAHA!
OMG! What the hell is that first picture? Seriously! That is one scary freakin dog. What happened to him?
ABE: Awww... that's sweet .. Kinda makes me sad the little fella' passed away. http://www.samugliestdog.com/
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-21-2005 10:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 10:38 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:10 AM Yaro has not replied

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


Message 279 of 302 (271342)
12-21-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by custard
12-21-2005 10:38 AM


Re: Perfect?
As to the larger point:
Is that really so hard to believe?
Breeds and species are a very different distinction. The genetic variation between most dog breeds is no very much. A beaver and a squierrel however have very distinct lives, genetics, behaviors, and adaptations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 10:38 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:07 AM Yaro has replied

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


Message 282 of 302 (271362)
12-21-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by custard
12-21-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Perfect?
Don't get me started on the pseudo-science of 'species.'
It's a fuzzy line, but it's there.
But it would be interesting to see a chart of showing how genetically similar your four rodents are and how similar mine are if you were to replace the sheepdog and pug with a coyote and a fox.
Let me put it to you this way, the level of difference between a beaver and a squirrel, is huge. You can't present dog variety as a prior precedant.
A squirrel doesn't cut down trees, use it's tail like a paddle, have webbed feet, have double layerd water proofed fur, nostrils that close, build ancestral dams, tie up rivers, etc.
To have dog variety as a prior precedent, you would have to show me a dog that... oh... I dunno, lived in lagoons and only ate seaweed. It's just too much a leap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:07 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:33 AM Yaro has replied

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


Message 284 of 302 (271392)
12-21-2005 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by custard
12-21-2005 11:33 AM


Re: Perfect?
That's what I'm asking: how huge? How 'huge' is the genetic difference between squirrel v. beaver and wolf v. pug?
I'll get back to you on that. I'm spending way too much time at the EvC
A cursorry glance thrugh google turns up some recent studies that suggest less than 1% diffrence between dog breeds. Most of the genes that change from breed to breed have wide morphological implications but little else.
Also, wild dog popluations exhibit more genetic variety than captive dogs. Go figure.
According to this site: http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatsMice.htm
Rats and mice have about a 10% difference in their genetic code. And that's rats and mice!
So hopefully that clears up some stuff.
ABE: Incedentaly, Rats are about as far away from mice (genetically) as they are from humans.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-21-2005 11:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by custard, posted 12-21-2005 11:33 AM custard has not replied

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


Message 289 of 302 (274298)
12-30-2005 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-30-2005 7:56 PM


Re: Perfect?
It’s about a new species rodent species found in a meat market. Heres a line I found interesting:
Discoverey != speciation.
We discover new insects all the damn time, but it's a gigantic group of animals. Rodents are a huge group of mammals, simple. Are you suggesting that rodents are popping up all the time and that accounts for their discovery? That's a silly assertion.
I said Squirrel-like, not squirrels. There is a difference, and I got that from an evolutionary source.
Yes, and that's over millions of years, not 3,000. Time is the big factor.
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.
Your talking out your hat here. Because they don't. Mice don't have the same sort of pelt as beavers, don't have webbed feet, don't have nostrils that close to keep the water out etc.
These are specific adaptations to aquatic rodents like beavers and capybaras.
Also, the order rodentia has less natural variability then what has been isolated by dog breeders.
'natural variability'? I'm not sure what that term means.
Morphological variation, like we see in dogs, does not equal genetic difference. As I pointed out to custard Rats and Mice are 10% different geneticaly. Rats are also 10% different from humans. Rats are just as distant from mice as they are from humans. You see how morphology can be deceptive?
Dogs vary in a little under 1% of their genome. Infact, what geneticists are learning is that morphological charactaristics are dependant on much smaller changes in the genome than you would expect. For example, I belive your arms are dependant on one gene. Turn it off, you are born without arms.
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.
Again, morphological differences are deceptive. You look at the genes and actually guage the distance, you find that these creatures aren't very similar at all. Your comon mouse, and comon rat share a 10% difference. That's the same amount they share with us.
How do you figure that happened?
I'll leave you with that to chew on. I'll get to the rest of the laundry list after you address this.
ABE: Just to point out how "under the hood" alot of these physical and genetic differences are, I'll post this link:
Not Found
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.
Notice that it's lungs, lips, heart, feet, eyes, etc. are all highly specialized for life in the water. If it came from a 'squirel-like' kind some 3,000 years ago, you have alot of explaining to do.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-30-2005 10:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-30-2005 7:56 PM NotSoBlindFaith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024