Does The Flood Add up?

Oh it can be done. Fiddle with it yourself a little. Maybe I'll get to it later. Start with Noah's immediate descendants as spelled out in Genesis 10:Genesis 10 (KJV) - Now these [are] the generationsEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Shouldn't be. Isn't for me. I just think of the incredible diversity of dogs for starters. I assume dogs retained the kind of genetic richness still that all the kinds on the ark once had, only now most of the other kinds have arrived at near dead ends genetically from many speciation events over many generations caused by reproductive isolation, where they aren't evolving much any more. Because it's built into the Kind and will never produce anything but a variation on that Kind. No matter how bizarre you can get with dog breeds, they are all still dogs.Evolution assumes the process is open-ended, but a creationist assumes that it is self-limiting and there appears to be more evidence on our side of this one as the more speciation events there are, the less genetic diversity and the more hard-wired the species.

Thought you'd want to disprove my assertion.It's not hard to get a very rough number. The sons of Noah had seven and four and five sons of their own. Let's be conservative and give three sons in each generation from then on and of course not count daughters. That's sixteen grandsons of Noah's.
First generation (1) 3,
2) 16,
3)if each has three sons that's 48
4) x 3 = 144
5) x 3 = 432
6) x 3 = 1296
7) x 3 = 3888
8) x 3 = 11664
9) 34992
10) 104976
11) 314928
12) 944784
13) 2,834,352
14) 8,503,056
15) 25,509,168
16) 76,527,504
17) 229,582,512
18) 688,747,536
19) 2,066 --- ---I goofed up and erased the number in the calculator at this point, but you can see that it's possible to get two billion descendants of the sons of Noah in a mere nineteen generations,* and all you need is to multiply that by 3 at that point and voila, the present population of earth probably within a few hundred years. The real average of course between then and now was much lower, but one can adjust the average way down and still account for the whole 6 billion today without much problem.*and that's just the male descendants! And since I'm only counting the actual male births in each generation, the number of people actually living at the time would in fact be a lot higher, as it would include many still living from the previous generations.Not hard at ALL to get six billion from the sons of Noah.Edited by Faith, : added footnoteEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I still insist on this. It is decreasing. Speciation leads to reduced genetic diversity. That's been my argument all along. It is my argument for the built-in limits to speciation, and therefore the definition of the barrier to macroevolution. All that is required is migration, reproductive isolation. It's a form of selection if not strictly Natural Selection. Groups separate from each other and populate different parts of the land, and I would think we could expect a lot of migration away from the point of origin soon off the ark. The mere separation itself is a separation and reduction of genetic possibilities within each daughter group and therefore the development of characteristic features in each group. The more such divergences occur, the more differences between the different groups will show up. Huh? It's perfectly reasonable, nevertheless, that we postulate original kinds although at present there is no way to strictly identify them. How could we? Most varieties have died out. The originals are just about impossible to guess at. It's a handicap we simply have to live with. I don't think in terms of mutations. I think in terms of Mendelian genetics, the selection of built-in genetic factors with each new sexual combination. Well, whatever. It's consistent. It makes sense. It simply contradicts the way evolutionists think. I have no idea what you are saying here. Sorry. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It is. Certainly in any given living "species" it is. The diversity of which I speak is GENETIC diversity WITHIN the genome of each creature. THAT is what reduces with reproductive isolation. Of course the entire complement of genetic diversity within the whole isolated population is also reduced with every such isolation.To have blue eyes an individual must have a b gene and a b gene. You can't have a B and a b, that gets you brown, as does B and B. Well, if only bb's make up a newly isolated population they will only produce blue-eyed offspring and that will characterize that group in distinction to the parent group. This is a reduction in genetic diversity accompanying the hardwiring of a trait. A whole raft of genes goes with any split-off population, however, leaving a whole different raft of genes behind. These groups diverge accordingly, each genetically reduced while with diverging characteristics. This is the basic process of speciation. Not that I can see. Actually it is.The picture given in the Bible of how Noah's descendants spread out and populated various territories is interesting to think about. Japheth's sons went mostly north into the area of Russia and west into Europe. That's the "Caucasians." Certainly they developed characteristics in each new locale as each group inbred. Same with the sons of Ham and Shem. All it takes is isolation of a group to produce distinctive characteristics. No, I simply mean that that's life. Nothing we can do about it. It's all we have to work from. True. Very hard to know which were considered a kind or type to be taken on the ark. Assumption is that there were many more loci for a particular trait in the original kinds, much more variety possible. All kinds of polyploidies if I have that word right. But whenever a population splits, not just one locus or trait is affected anyway, but the whole complement of traits is split, alleles for each going the separate directions. Could be. But it hangs together. I don't see much real evidence for any of that. Or, I don't see BETTER evidence for that than for the YEC scenario.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not at all, I'm talking variety of whatever kind was on the ark; same kind, new variety/species.The time taken for such evolution is highly exaggerated by the ToE. All it takes is reproductive isolation of a small portion of a population over a few generations. Think of the so-called "ring species" which are called species, varieties or species of the same kind as a YEC thinks of them, with their own distinctive characteristics yet all evolved from an original parent type. No need for that to have taken any great time at all. Again, all it takes is isolation of a portion of an original population plus a few generations of inbreeding within the isolated groups and you have new "species," perhaps many, forming the "ring" in a particular locale, yet all of the same original Kind. I have no idea how the insects were taken care of. I'm not addressing this problem here. How anybody could be expected to know is beyond me anyway.

Diseases are easy to explain as they are the result of mutations or damage to the genes. Part of the legacy of death we inherit from the Fall, original sin, etc., that unfortunately increases with each generation. The original human genome was nothing but healthy.

True, it's normally and rightly applied the population as a whole. But this reduction in the population as a whole reflects the sum of the alleles added up from the individuals. The idea is that there is a change in the proportion of alleles when populations split, some being increased and some decreased, and in some drastic cases some alleles are even altogether missing from a population. Which of course means they are not present in any of the individuals of the population.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It boasts an awfully detailed and specific genealogy for a "myth" but whatever. if you can't accept that, then ponder the numbers in Message 234.

I already answered this somewhere in my posts last night. Original richer genome is the answer. In-breeding problems happen after a lot of selection has reduced the overall genetic diversity of a kind.

Keep in mind that nobody KNOWS anything for sure about anything concerning the past, including you evos. It's all speculative imagination. Geographic isolation of different species is quite common. Odd but true that these odd types end up in this one place. Not implausible to my mind that various of them evolved from various parent types that happened to be on the part of the land mass that became Australia. Why no placental mammals? Who knows? Territoriality of some sort maybe. It is quite possible the little brown bat did not exist in Noah's day but subsequently evolved from whatever bat was saved on the ark. [/qs]Then they were on the ark and didn't evolve. So what? So I've heard. Just because you can't imagine how it could have happened without dire consequences doesn't mean it didn't. Nobody KNOWS anything about any of this. We're all applying our imagination. You have more scientific knowledge which gives you more apparent credibility but nevertheless you are still doing nothing but speculating about a past you can't know a thing about.Randy Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NOW. The past is a different story. Of course with the uniformitarian assumption the whole thing is impossible. But we YECs don't operate by that assumption. We have a completely other model in mind. Again you are assuming uniformitarianism and assuming conditions now, and assuming the whole evolutionist program.What an evfolutionist always has to explain and can't, however, is how you can EVER get MORE genetic diversity when populations are constantly splitting into reproductively isolated groups. Mutation is pretty much IT, and that is full of holes. I don't argue NO diseases, I argue accumulation of diseases over time and they still had relative health compared to us, quite dramatically better health.

The only reason inbreeding is a problem is the accumulation of inherited diseases and according to the YEC understanding, there were no diseases at all until the Fall, and considering the long life spans of at least the God-fearing line of Adam's immediate descendants, they died of old age rather than any kind of disease for many many generations after Adam, Noah's generation included. We assume great vigor and genetic diversity even in those eight on the ark, enough to generate all human beings since, certainly diminished from the original vigor and diversity of Adam and Eve but still considerable. Compared to us, astronomically considerable. Inherited diseases to the extent we now face them are a relatively recent phenomenon.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is all the working out of YEC theory itself, inferences therefrom, and evidence is not available to anybody on either side of this divide. It's all plausibilities and speculations. I am trying to demonstrate the conceptual consistency of the YEC model itself, which actually does amount to evidence in itself, rightly considered.The animals were just as genetically strong as the human beings. ALL creation has been deteriorating health-wise inexorably since the Fall, but in Noah's day their vigor would have been still very very great.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know all the genetics of course, but I think they had lots more variation possible per trait than we do, more loci for a particular trait, for instance, and other ways more genetic diversity can be built into a genome that others have explained in the past, but I'd have to review it all. Because the original (built-in genetic} diversity and health of all living things was astronomically higher than we are capable of imagining at our remove.Other recently bottlenecked animals most likely became extinct however. Somehow the cheetah has held on despite its compromised genetic condition.{By recently I mean much more recently than the ark of course. You think the ark was recent. As a YEC I assume that even through that drastic bottleneck great genetic potential survived in all living things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.