Insect diversity falsifies the worldwide flood.

Another falsification of the worldwide flood myth is the diversity of insect life on earth. It is totally absurd to claim that all of the approximately 850,000 species of insects on earth are descended from those who survived the flood either on floating mats of vegetation or on the ark as accidental passengers as creationists claim these days.In fact, the vast majority of insect species and in some cases entire families and even orders could not have survived a year of flood on floating vegetation and many, perhaps the majority of species could not have survived the flood either on or off the ark.Consider the 1500 species of the order Ephemeroptera (Mayflys), which only live in fresh water and in which the adult lives only 1 day or less (some only live 90 minutes) during which it must mate and lay eggs. Even if they somehow survived the salty flood water, (which most could not), they will be greatly spread out by the flood. How will they find their mates and where will they lay their eggs? There are many other insect species that only live in fresh water during parts of their life cycle. How will they survive the flood?Then there are the social insects such as bees, ants and wasps,that require a queen and a colony. All those yellow jacket wasps we see flying around here in the fall will die by winter, they are workers, the queen and colonies only survive in holes in the ground. How will they survive a worldwide flood on floating vegetation? In Ohio we have large wasps called sand hornets or more properly cicada killer wasps. They dig their burrows in sand or soft earth and lay their eggs in locusts that they have killed. The adults do not survive over winter. How will their eggs survive a worldwide flood? You can usually wash them out with a garden hose if you want to.The caterpillar of the Monarch butterfly only lives on living milkweed plants, Monarchs go through more than one life cycle a year and the adults only feed on nectar. While many species of lepidoptera eat various plants, many others eat only specific plants, even if the caterpillars survived somehow, how would cocoons survive, and even if they did how would the adults find other adults to mate with and where would they lay their eggs. Generally, all these life cycles are complete in a year or less and in many cases much less. Many of these butterflies and moths are quite fragile. Many other insects require specific living plants or animals for parts of their life cycles. What about all those insects that feed on nectar from living flowers during parts of their life cycles? How would they survive a year on floating vegetation?Consider parasitic wasps known as chalcids.Below is a quote about them fromhttp://res2.agr.ca/ecorc/apss/chalintr.htmStructurally and biologically, chalcids are probably as diverse as the rest of the parasitic Hymenoptera put together. They range in size from the smallest insect known, Dicopomorpha echmepterygis Mockford (1997), at about 130 microns (0.13 mm), to over 25 mm, including bizarre as well as beautiful winged and wingless forms. Special techniques are required to collect and preserve chalcids for study because of their small size and often extreme fragility. (emphasis added)Chalchids don’t sound like they would do too well on floating vegetation for a year.How about desert insects and arachnids that are adapted to live in very dry climates? Do you really think they could all survive for a year in water on floating vegetation?There are also the cicadas, like the so-called 17 year locusts, that live most of their lives in the ground under a tree, then emerge, live for a short while, mate and lay their eggs in the branches of a tree. After a few days or weeks the eggs hatch and the larvae drop to the ground to live under the tree till the next cycle. They need healthy trees that will live until the next cycle. How did they survive a worldwide flood that supposedly rearranged all the world's geology on floating vegetation? What about all the other insects that require mature living trees for their life cycles? How could they have survived after the flood?There are huge numbers of parasitic insects and invertebrates that require specialized animal hosts for at least part of their annual life cycle. Do you think those poor animals on the ark were carrying all the parasites of their respective 'kinds'? Did the humans carry all the fleas and ticks and other insect parasites that plague mankind? What about all the other invertebrate parasites, such as liver flukes and blood flukes, some of which are fatal? Did the animals and people on the ark carry all these parasites?These are only a few examples. I am sure that anyone with knowledge of entomology can think of many, many more.BTW before you give me the Darwin showed that insects could survive on logs and floating vegetation claim here is my reply in advance. Darwin speculated that some snails could survive for some time on floating mats of vegetation or logs going between islands and the mainland. This is not nearly the same as requiring all 'kinds' of insects and invertebrates to survive for more than a year on floating vegetation and then survive after landing on a flood devastated landscape.
Randy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The fact that you have to ask me again what we think is suggestive of the flood is why I will not answer. You tell me what you think we think. Then this is a useful discussion. I can tell you what I think you think. If you can't after 3 months of this then I am talking to a brick wall.

---

I have read over those threads and you have had all your assertions about features "suggestive" of a worldwide flood refuted over and over and there are many features of the world's geology that could not have been formed by a flood even your magic multiple surging flood so I can see why you don't want to discuss it further. That discussion belongs on other threads anyway. There are several falsifications of the flood myth. The fossil record, biodiversity, biogeography and aspects of geology have all been discussed here recently and there are others. The only support for a worldwide flood is found in your particular interpretation of the book of Genesus. Insect biodiversity is only one aspect of the falsification of the flood by biodiversity but it is one that YEC can't hope to deal with. How many falsifications are required to show that something is false? Usually one is enough. I have a few more flood falsifications that I can post but apparently for YECs no level of falsification will be sufficient. And you say you are talking to a brick wall!Randy

Since this seems to have come up on another thread I thought I would bump it.The "best" answer I ever got to this was from the infamous Karl Crawford who said the flood collected a forest along with its dirt to keep ground dwelling insects alive.Randy

quote:

---

you make your first mistake in the second sentence. you are correct, it sounds abserd to assume that 850,000 species of insects could survive on the ark. the Bible says in Gen 6, that two of every kind, not species were brought onto the ark.

---

I am saying that many families of insects could not have survived on or off the ark. These days most YEC use the "floating vegetation" claim but that is just absurd.

quote:

---

as for the Ephemeroptera, it is only the adult live cycle that lives for only 1 day. also, assuming that the mayflies were not on the ark for some reason, after the rain that had to happen and did happen for forty days and nights, the salt water would not have a very strong consentration of salt.

---

Which of course would have killed many species of salt water marine organisms. Where did all this fresh water come from and where did it go?

quote:

---

Here in AK, we have what is called a Black Spruce Wasp with stingers over an inch long, these rugged insects manage to survive flooding that happens in the winter, a world wide flood would be nothing for them (especially on an ark).

---

And this flooding lasted for how many months?

quote:

---

As for the chalcids,only one of every kind was saved.

---

How? Many of these are fragile and many are parasitic on other specific insect species.

quote:

---

The need to have living plants to survive, does nothing to disprove the flood, the people that lived during Noah's time were very good farmers, that is how the spent their lives. So Noah brought some plants onboard.

---

So you think Noah had some living trees on board so that cicadas could live in the dirt below their roots? Did he have glass windows so that plants could get sunlight without letting in the 40 days and nights of global rain? How would there be sunlight to let in during 40 days and night of global rain?

quote:

---

with the bringing on of a few live plants comes some dirt, no problem for the cicadads.insects that need mature plants to grow, had no problems after the flood, there were five months to grow plants again, and it has been postulated that the O2 level in the air was much greater in the time of the flood plants grow much better in a high O2 environment than they do in the atmosphere that we now have. also the need for vegitationfor the animals shuch as giraffs indicates that Noah brought some trees on board.

---

So you do think Noah brought trees on board. How does that work on a big boat that has to survive 40 days and night of continous rain? Maybe he had giant grow lights.I don't see why plants would grow better in higher O2. Plants take in CO2 and produce O2. If CO2 were a lot higher I don't think animals would do too well.

quote:

---

the parisitic invertabrae were also brought on the ark, but who brought them, it does not matter whether the humans, or the dogs brought them, it is even likely that they hybernated as do most types of human pestalince when they are under a harsh environment

---

And what about those parasites that are fatal to their hosts. Parasite kills host, end of kind and end of parasite.

quote:

---

I dont even buy the these insects survived on a floating mass of vegitation, the ark was huge, so fitting one of every kind of animal on it was not a hard thing to do.

---

Many insects require very specialized living conditions and many would require some care and feeding. A big wooden boat won't have the conditions needed and 8 people couldn't even take care of the all the vertebrate "kinds" without adding thousands of insect kinds. That is why AiG goes for the floating vegetation dodge.Randy

Since insect diversity is another way the flood doesn't add up I thought I would just bump this thread.Randy

Not exactly. I accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution of life from one or a few common ancestors has occured over billions of years of the history of life on earth. That is not quite the same as "believing" in evolution. The type of hyperevolution that YECs now rely on seems absurdly unlikely to me. Think about it. What you are proposing is hyperevolution at least to the level of genus, probably family and in only a few thousand years. This means of course that evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor, which you deny the possibility of, in a few million years is actually a relatively trivial problem. You want to deny macroevolution on the one hand and propose hyper-macroevolution on the other to try to solve this dilemma with the global flood. Poof God did it! Why not do that with all the other species as well? Why go to all the trouble of building that big wooden boat? You show again why "creation science" is an oxymoron.Randy

quote:

---

First, I'm not interested in the term "creation science" and don't use it. Nevertheless creationists do address themselves to scientific questions in scientific terms.

---

They try but usually hash it up pretty badly.

quote:

---

By saying God saved insects some other way I am not implying anything magical.

---

So God saved them somehow but not by magic and this after He said He would destroy every creeping thing not on the ark. Hmm.

quote:

---

No, not "hyper." (Micro)evolution does not take anywhere near the great spans of time assumed. A few generations of separation of a portion of a population from the main population and you'll see distinct changes. Obviously the shorter the generation, as in the case of insects, the faster the evolution.

---

We are not talking about what creationists call microevolution here. What do you think that a kind is? Is it at the genus level? Do you know that there are at least 850,000 species of insects known from thousands of genera and at least hundreds of families. How about mayflies? Would you consider them a kind? There are about 1500 species known. Most live only in fresh water, some only in fresh running water and many have adult life spans of only a few hours. They could not have survived a global flood on or off an ark. It would take hypermacroevolution to get the mayfly "kind" from some "kind" of insect that might have survive the flood.Consider the Cicada "kind". There are about 1000 species of cicada and all spend most of their life cycle living in the ground where they feed on the roots of living trees. If the tree die they die and if the area is flooded they drown. How could they have survived a global flood? What "kind" of insect that might have survived the flood could they have hyperevolved from.

quote:

---

I am convinced that there is a natural built-in barrier to "macro" evolution (evolution beyond the Kind), in the form of the natural reduction in genetic diversity that is the general tendency of all the selection processes that lead to speciation. The greater the change the smaller the genetic diversity. It's a natural process. If it tends to anything in this fallen world, unfortunately it tends to extinction. It is claimed that mutation counters this effect; somehow I doubt it.

---

This doesn't actually make much sense to me but if it did you would have just ruled out hyperevolution to explain the reestablishment of a million or so insect species after the flood since many "kinds" of insects could not have survive the flood on or off the ark.Randy

quote:

---

I don't see anything beyond microevolution required for all those insect species to have developed.

---

In attempt to get back to the topic of my OP I thought I would address this.You don't see it because you refuse to look just as you refuse to look at all the other evidence showing that that global flood is a myth. Consider again cicadas. They all have a life cycle with a nymph stage that spends at least a year underground. Most spend 2 to 17 years underground. During this stage they require the roots of living trees to survive. The longest life cycle is the famous 17 year variety. The adults live a few weeks and mate. The females lay eggs in small brances of living trees where they hatch. After hatching the nymphs drop to the ground and burrow in.An insect that only lives a few weeks above ground and needs to live at least a year in the ground feeding on living trees simply could not survive a global flood on or off the ark.What insect that could have survive a year long global flood, could have hypervolved into cicdas through microevolution in a few thousand years? How could a completely different life cycle in some cases taking up to 17 years (so you don't have thousands of generations} have evolved through microevolution?After you answer this one you can try to 1,500 species of ephemeroptera that also could not have survived the global flood.Randy

quote:

---

It didn't have to live on the ark. It evolved afterward from whatever insect was on the ark.

---

What "kind" of insect that could have lived on the ark could it have "micro" evolved from?

quote:

---

Nemesis Juggernaut's discussion of how beagles weren't on the ark either is my argument, the one I've been making all along. That's merely microevolution from an original member of the kind, demonstrable even within a few centuries. Same thing for insects.

---

Beagles don't have a completely different life cycle from other dogs or even other mammals for that that matter.

quote:

---

Previous greater genetic possibilities (which decrease with each speciation event).

---

When in doubt make up an ad-hoc non explanation.Since cicadas appear in the supposedly flood deposited fossil record in the Cretaceous I guess you have to postulate that something hypemicroevolved back to cicadas after the flood.This whole hyperevolution nonsense is just totally silly and shows how desperate YECs are in the face of overwhelming scientfic evidence against their Bronze Age mythology. You invoke hyper-evolution of a totally different life cycle over a few thousand years when you think your myth requires it and deny evolution at a much lower level over a few million when you think it contradicts your mythology.Randy

quote:

---

I have given you an empiracle example of a global flood with marine organisms found all over the world. How do you explain that? And when you do explain it, isn't that an ad hoc explanation?

---

As pointed out by the admin marine fossils in mountain sediments are not on topic here but Leonardo Divinci first realized that they are not evidence of a global flood. They are easily explained by modern geology while you have no chance of explaining insect diversity if the global flood is not a myth. I am sure there is at least one topic on this board on the multiple ways the fossil record falsifies the global flood so why don't you either post there or open an new thread. There are many people here quite capable of refuting that particular nonsense but it is not appropriate to respond to it further on this thread. The topic here is insect diversity and the inability of entire families of insects to survive a global flood on or off of the mythical ark.

quote:

---

You do realize that we are thousands of times removed from an original copy right? The very first specimen was concievably in prime, genetic disposition, far more pure genetically than what we see now.

---

Actually 4,000 years is only 235 generations of 17 year cicadas not thousands. The claims about insects diversity arising over a few hundred years because the "original genome was more pure" is just nonsense and only shows that you don't understand genetics. How did cicadas just happen to evolve after the flood and also exist in the flood deposited fossil record?Randy

quote:

---

What? First of all, I assume your argument stems from whether or not there was enough room on the Ark to house that many animals. Cicadas, I assume you would realize, are tiny creatures. So, even if there were mulitple Cicadidae, how would it present a problem?

---

Then you didn't read the OP at all did you? It has nothing to do with room on the ark. Do you think there was room for a forest with living trees for the nymph stages of the cicadas to live in?

quote:

---

I assume you are also aware that cicadas have far more generations than mammals. I don't know where you are getting 235 generations, as if it presents the notion that Cicadidae only mate once in their lifetime.

---

Cicadas do mate only once in their lifetimes. The 17 year periodical cicadas only mate once every 17 years. I suggest you actually try to read the posts you are responding to.

quote:

---

You also forget that there was no predation in the beginning.

---

You are using one myth to try to justify another but it doesn't help.

quote:

---

Aside from which, you seem to forget that a supernatural event precipitated all of the animals to come to Noah in the first place.

---

Poof God did it doesn't really explain anything here. You might as well say God poofed world into existence last Tuesday with all the evidence of long ages intact.

quote:

---

You're telling me that God would some how be stiffled by this asinine but specious plea to begin with? I guess I'm not at all seeing where this presents a problem?

---

It was God's supposed plan to flood the earth to get rid of evil and somehow keep all species alive on a big wooden boat that would have been asinine if it had actually occured but it didn't and that is also off topic here.What we see is that young earth creationists have no way to explain insect diversity if there really were a global flood a few thousand years ago.Randy

quote:

---

First of all, most cicadas don't have a lifecycle where they are in their nymph stages for 17 years. Most are within 2-6 years.

---

And how could animals that live 2 to 4 years underground feeding on the roots of living trees have survived a global flood? Of course they couldn't have.

quote:

---

I see that you conveniently left that out.

---

I have discussed that on other posts but it doesn't matter. None of them could have survived the global flood.

quote:

---

Secondly, this underground hibernation is to protect them from predators. In the antediluvian world there was no predation, hence, there was no fear of being eaten.

---

You are using one myth to try to justify another here but they don't just live underground to escape predators. In fact there is underground predation of cicada nymphs which is why I had so much trouble with moles before the last big hatch of 17 year cicadas. They live underground to feed on the roots of living trees while they develop.

quote:

---

Lastly, you seem to forget that Almighty God is in control here and that He couldn't have forgot about the disposition of the little 'ol Cicada.

---

But the Bible says that all creeping and flying things that weren't on the ark died. Cicadas and many other families of insects couldn't have survived on or off the ark. It doesn't say that God poofed some animals that couldn't have survived on or off the ark into a hyperspace warp to protect them during the flood. It said everything not on the ark died.Do you think there was a forest on the ark to preserve the cicadas. Do you think there was a flowing stream to preserve the many mayfly species that only live in moving fresh water? Do you think there was a lake on board for the hundreds of species of ephemeroptera that only live in fresh water lakes? Do you think there was sand or loose soil for the cicada killer wasps to bury cicadas they had killed with their eggs? Do you think there were living plants for all the species of insects that require specific living plants for potions of their life cycles? Who took care of all the tens of thousands of "kinds" of insects on the ark? There are estimated to be up to a million species of insects in existence. To think they are all descendants of survivors of an global flood a few thousand years ago is purely ridiculous.

quote:

---

I'll bet after you saw this article on a fundyatheist website you were elated.

---

you would loose your bet. I came up with this because I know something about insects and read some total nonsense in a fundy YEC book about insects surviving the flood on floating vegetation.

quote:

---

If this is the best argument against the Flood then that's just sad.

---

Actually it is only one of dozens of irrefutable arguments showing that the global flood is a myth. There are many others as topics on this board. What is really sad is that anyone still takes Bronze Age mythology seriously in this day and age.

quote:

---

Aside from which, there is far more tangible evidence to support the Flood than there is pure speculation against it.

---

There is absolutely no evidence for a global flood and massive evidence against it. If you think there is evidence for a global flood start a new thread but be prepared to be demolished.

quote:

---

Seriously, this is an argument based on mere conjecture.

---

No it is an argument based on knowledge of insect physiology and diversity which you clearly don't have and don't want to have as ignorance of nearly all of science is required to sustain belief in the global flood myth.RandyEdited by Randy, : Extra words crept in

quote:

---

As far as vegetation, seeds can remain on the surface and begin to germinate once in good soil after the waters recede.

---

I didn't respond to this before because it is off topic, but is also false regarding many seeds and there would be little if any "good soil" after a flood the supposedly rearranged all the earth's geology. Why don't you try putting a wide variety of seeds in water for a year, then throw them on top of land with the top soil washed away by year long flood and see how may germinate? There is reason the YECs have never done this experiment.What is a bit more on topic here is that all those plants that require insects for pollination of their seeds would be in big trouble since few if any of the required pollinators could have survived the global flood. Even if Noah had a beehive on the ark it would take a long time to reestablish bees all over the earth.Randy

quote:

---

I don't even think it would be possible to reestablish pollinators. Bees require pollen to produce honey and 'jelly.' The plants that reseeded the world would have taken months to flower. How would the bees have survived such a significent length of time with no food source?

---

Good point. One would assume that all honeybee hives as well as the hives of bees like bumble bees that live in holes in the ground would have been destroyed along with all other ground dwelling insects by a flood that supposedly deposited a significant fraction of the earth geology. Then even if there were a few survivors there would be nothing for most of them to eat with no plant life.

quote:

---

Plus I don't understand how species such as lady bugs could have survived when their primary food source requires a plant that couldn't reproduce in sufficent numbers in sufficent time.

---

This is true of many other species as well. Monarch butterflies for example need living milkweed plants to survive. No living milkweed no monarchs. Do you suppose Noah was cultivating some milkweed on the ark for the monarchs. He would also have to have been cultivating a few hundred (Added in edit: or maybe several thousand
) other plant species for other insects that live on specific plants. Maybe he had them all growing in the forest on the ark that sustained the cicadas. Maybe the forest on the ark had a little stream and some ponds for the many insect species that only survive in fresh water or fresh running water but somehow I doubt it.RandyEdited by Randy, : Added thousands above.

quote:

---

Randy, you have not even addressed how the monarchs get transplanted from Mt Ararat to North America. Even for monarchs that is a bit far to migrate. Not to mention the literally millions of other species found on continents completely seperated from Turkey. It is not just insect species diversity, but their distribution that makes the flood story disagree with observable evidence.

---

I consider that off topic here. I have another thread on this forum on Biogeography but I didn't mention Butterflies.Randy