Super Evolution and the Flood

We're talking creationists here ... literal bible and all that.Shouldn't there be Satan in the snake kind?And why so many snake kinds? Any creationist worth their pointy little head could see that with super-duper-micro-evolution all snakekind can poof into existance in just a few months after the flud from one pair, yes? One pair, right? Snake (especially Satan) is one of the "unclean," right?So, I think one "snake kind" is all that is necessary. All the others just grow fatter and/or longer and/or both after the flud.

When I was younger, I had a pet iguana. Iggy (yes, he had the most typical iguana name) needed a lamp to bask in everyday or else he'd die. As far as I know, many lizards have this major problem. Without sunlight to bask in for an extended amount of time each day, they'd die. Wouldn't this cause some problems for Noah's pets, considering they were in the Ark for a whole year?

Are we just doing this from their perspective, then? I thought the point was to make it sound as plausible as possible. If we wanted to go for the Purists' version, we could just say God miraculously made the Ark big enough to fit all the animals and even provided enough internal sunlight for Noah to grow a self-sustaining greenhouse to feed all the herbivores, and milk trees, so Noah didn't have to milk the cows.Purists don't need explanations: only the people who want to sound plausible do. So, in order to maximize the plausibility of the entire issue, it's best to let them start with as many kinds as possible to minimize the rate of super-evolution since the Flood (naturally, this must be balanced with the space limitations on the Ark). I don't know. Why would God have allowed Satan on the Ark? Further, I think this is just mocking Creationism: we should try to give them at least a pseudo-legitimate chance, if only to curb the inevitable tides of conspiracy claims that follow. Two things:First, I like your spelling of "flud."Second, this would require snakes to have super-evolved a hundred times faster than mammals. There would have to be a good mechanism to explain how they could and why God would want them to.I propose a compromise--3 snake kinds:1. venomous
2. non-venomous
3. and Satan (if we must)

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

That's one goal, yes. But we also have to keep their rules in place. The entire YEC's argument against evolution rests on the claim that there is a barrier between each species/kind that would not allow them to interbreed or to turn into each other. By claiming 4 kinds in all of reptiles undermine this basis. If we want to go by this route, we'd have to rethink our whole concept of spatial dimension. I still want some inputs from YECs, though. Where the hell are they? We normally have a whole bunch trying to rationalize the flood. Now that we have a thread dealing with the specifics of preserving every animal kind on Earth, they somewho all disappeared. Again, I'd like some input from our local YECs if I can.

Obviously you have no understanding of YEC arguments. I am not a YECer, but clearly you haven't grasped what they are saying. YECers believe that evolution within a kind producing groups or species that can no longer interbreed is entirely possible and likely. Why?Do you think God is limited by our understanding of science?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

You have reading comprehension problem?

Actually, I've never heard it put this way before. Do you have a link to a webpage where this is clearly stated? It would be helpful to read a complete presentation of the idea, especially if it included a definition of "kind".But just to make sure I understand, you're saying that the YEC claim is that there are very few "kinds", that therefore the ark didn't need to carry very many different "kinds" of animals, that after the flood the "kinds" quickly evolved into the many species we see today, and that they also quickly evolved barriers to inter-species fertility. Do I have that right?--Percy

No, I am saying the YEC literature I have read from places like AiG which you are welcome to peruse posits things like there being one or 2 whale kinds, 2 cat kinds, etc,....That's not limiting kinds to "very few" but they do not advocate a kind cannot ever evolve new species within the kind that can no longer mate.Not trying to be offensive but I would think you guys would have read what some of your critics say after all these years.

Oh, is that your point.No one is saying that YECs deny the possibility of "kinds" quickly evolving into mutually infertile species. If anything we're lamenting the YEC lack of scientific specificity of any kind regarding post-flood repopulation. I'm sure that if YECs have been specific about this that we're completely unaware of it, and if you know places where they have been specific then please help us out by providing links.The near term goal in this thread is to frame the problem in a way as favorable to the YEC position as possible, and this means minimizing the amount of evolution necessary, which means grouping species into "kinds" based upon their degree of interfertility.--Percy

Here is a relevant article from AiG for the YEC perspective:http://www.answersingenesis.org/...cen_v19n2_animals_ark.aspIn summary:1. Noah did not bring any sea creatures, plants or insects on the Ark.2. A "kind" today would be classified by scientists in most cases at the genus level and could be as high as family.- horse, zebra, donkey are the same kind.
- dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackels are same kind
- all cattle is of the same kind including bison and water buffalos.
- tigers and lions can interbreed and are therefore the same kind.3. Total of 8,000 genera, so an estimate of 16,000 individuals were on board.4. Dinosaurs were on board, so another 12 to 24 dinosaur genera were included.5. Total volume of ark was 43,500 cubic meters. 16,000 animals were kept in an average size cage of 4,800 cubic inches, so all the animals occuped was a total of 1,200 cubic meters, leaving room for food, water, etc.

Oh, nice, Noah and his family cared for 16,000 animal in a span of a whole year. Nice to know a dozen or so people could perform all those tasks.

This scenario is sufficiently detailed as to be obviously impossible. Let's say on average that each animal cage had to be serviced by cleaning and adding food only once per week, and that it only took 10 minutes for each cage, and each person on the ark worked 16 hours per day at this task. Does that seem reasonable to anyone? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable to me, but even that leaves 10,000 animals per week unfed.Naturally its much worse than that. Anyone who has ever worked on a small family farm knows how long it really takes to feed just the hens, the pigs, the horses, and while cows and goats just graze, this wouldn't have been an option on the ark. And anyone who has ever raised hamsters and gerbils knows how long it really takes to service the cage, even the modern ones with all the accoutrements. Then there's all the time that has to spent going back and forth to the stores for more food and to the deck to dump more waste. There's just no way.--Percy

I'm particularly interested in this bit...

quote:

---

Excretory requirements
It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.

---

Emphasis mine.How would you like living on top of layers and layers of animal feces for a year?

But how many of these would have been considered clean vs unclean?Remember:

quote:

---

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female.

---

Obvious use of advanced SDGM, but that's OK. But:

quote:

---

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

---

There had to be lots of insects. Are you saying no ants? Spiders? Flies?Then:

quote:

---

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

---

So where did all insect-kind come from after the flud? The book doesn't relate any additional creation after the flud. Where did all the bees and wasps and butterflies come from?And while we're at it, as far as bees, hornets, wasps and other "flying hypodermic syringe" kinds, can you take them back? You can leave the butterflies.Edited by AZPaul3, : stil kant spel

So, is the general concensus here that the ability to maintain all these cages is more of a limitation than ark capacity? Does that mean the ark is unreasonably large? Or is it... we can't fill every single void with cages, food or water, there are other things that take up space. You need walking space, you need living space for the people... Can anyone think what else takes up space that they would need? If nothing else, we could give the animals a little more space in their cages, that would certainly be a humane thing to do.The goal here is to determine the maximum number of animals, while keeping it reasonable within the various limitations.Each kind would share a cage with its pair. So we need 8,000 cages rather than 16,000. (There were a small number of clean animals, which also could share space within kind).There were 8 people on the ark. Each one if they worked just 12 hours a day 10 minutes per cage, could maintain 72 cages per day. That is 576 per day between all hands. It would take 13.8 days... basically two weeks to give attention to every cage. If the animals were in hybernation, they would need little food, water, and leave little waste. Given hybernation, would two weeks be reasonable?Is hybernation reasonable? Considering the limited space, nothing to do, it seems hybernation to some extent would come natural. Hybernation would make a big difference, so I think it is one of the first things we need to decide on.