Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
375 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ramoss, Theodoric (4 members, 371 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,804 Year: 21,840/19,786 Month: 403/1,834 Week: 403/315 Day: 81/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Dirk
Member (Idle past 2360 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 31 of 991 (575993)
08-22-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
08-21-2010 10:00 PM


Hi Buzsaw,

Thanks for the welcome!

You may have just missed the main point in my OP. I already said that all animals would survive the Ark, so how that happened was not an issue here. My question was, what happened after the flood when Noah opened the doors and released the animals into the wild? Would the predators start killing the other animals? Which ones would get killed first? Would there be any animal that would survive the harsh environment of Mt Ararat (and its foothills are just as unforgiving), especially if it's something like a polar bear? Would anything besides a few ants and other sturdy insects survive?

Obviously, you are now going to say; look around, all the animals survived because they are here now. In that case, please provide a scientific (i.e. at least testable) scenario that led (among other incredible things) to pinguins getting from the Ark to Antarctica; I don't see a pinguin waddling all the way from Mt Ararat across the heat of the Mesopotamian plain to the Persian Gulf to swim thousands of miles to Antarctica, but maybe I am mistaken?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 8:59 PM Dirk has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31753
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 32 of 991 (575994)
08-22-2010 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
08-22-2010 1:51 AM


And if snakes are the descendants of dinosaurs (they're not) post-Ark, then how could there have been a snake at the beginning of Genesis?

IIRC we covered some of the evidence that supports Buz Dino ----> Snake Hypothesis here.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2010 1:51 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3225 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 33 of 991 (576113)
08-22-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dirk
08-22-2010 10:59 AM


Think like one of them
"Hooah, can I borrow that creo-cap of yours? Thanks."

slides said cap on

"You're forgetting the supergenome that was contained in all of the pairs of original animals! They would have been supertanked and able to control their body temerpature perfectly and eat any kind of fish they wanted so they could have easily swum from the Middle East to Antarctica! This fits perfectly with the evidence of superpenguins in Australia!"

shakes cap off. Pours self a vodka to ease the pain

Ugh. Never doin' that again. And holy fuck, yes I was surprised to see my bullshit turned out real.

addendum: oh crap, apparently they could survive in warmer climates, too!

Edited by Nij, : Coding error.

Edited by Nij, : Wow. That's one mighty fine coincidence there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dirk, posted 08-22-2010 10:59 AM Dirk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 9:08 PM Nij has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3225 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 34 of 991 (576117)
08-22-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Nij
08-22-2010 8:59 PM


Re: Think like one of them
"Peru and Australia were part of the same landmass shortly after the flood, which is why we find SuperPingu there!

And all of the gibberish in the rest of article about "evolving in New Zealand and Antarctica" and then "travelling north" is obviously evolutionist lies and propaganda, hijacking an article about evidence that clearly proves The Fludde true, filling it with their nonsense about stuff that they can't show to be true."/sarc


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 8:59 PM Nij has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 08-22-2010 9:12 PM Nij has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 991 (576119)
08-22-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Nij
08-22-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Think like one of them
You have to be careful when you parody fundamentalists.

It is often very hard to tell if such a post is real or a parody.

Google "Poe's Law" for details.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Nij, posted 08-22-2010 9:08 PM Nij has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1728
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 36 of 991 (576199)
08-23-2010 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
08-21-2010 10:34 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
The mouflon population of the Kerguelen islands in the Indian Ocean are all descended from a single pair imported in 1958. By the 1980s, they numbered in the hundreds, and still do today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 08-21-2010 10:34 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 08-23-2010 8:34 AM caffeine has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 37 of 991 (576205)
08-23-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by caffeine
08-23-2010 7:42 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
caffeine writes:

The mouflon population of the Kerguelen islands in the Indian Ocean are all descended from a single pair imported in 1958. By the 1980s, they numbered in the hundreds, and still do today.

What a weird article! It reads like it contains made-up information, or as if someone completely garbled the correct information. For example:

“We expected that the genetic diversity of this population of mouflons would be very homogeneous, and that this genetic diversity would decline over time. Instead, we observed the opposite.”

Genetic diversity cannot decline when you start from a single pair. With sexual species, a single pair is as low in diversity as you can get without going extinct. Diversity can only increase through mutation, so since mutational effects are generally minimal over short time periods one would not think that diversity could possibly increase. The article appears to be based upon this technical paper: Unexpected heterozygosity in an island mouflon population founded by a single pair of individuals

What's missing is a clear definition of their use of the word "diversity." When starting from a single pair there cannot be more than 4 alleles per gene. Since they don't believe that mutation or infusion of new genes from the outside are factors, there can still be only 4 alleles per gene. By this measure diversity cannot have increased at all.

But they're not measuring diversity this way. By heterozygosity they mean that alleles of genes and of interdependent groups of genes are combining in increasingly novel ways. It must be these permutational combinations that they're using as their measure of diversity.

What this means for Noah's ark is that single pairs could give rise to viable populations (the individuals should probably be as distantly related as possible), but genetic measures of diversity would still reveal that there were only 4 alleles max per gene. This is not what we see today.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by caffeine, posted 08-23-2010 7:42 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by caffeine, posted 08-24-2010 5:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2010 5:20 AM Percy has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1728
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 38 of 991 (576430)
08-24-2010 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
08-23-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
Genetic diversity cannot decline when you start from a single pair. With sexual species, a single pair is as low in diversity as you can get without going extinct.

I don't see why diversity couldn't decline. A population of two could have up to four alleles for any given gene, so if any of these were lost the population would have less diversity. This wouldn't drive them extinct. It might leave them less able to cope with environmental change, but you could wind up with a population that's totally homozygous for one gene or other that's still producing viable indivduals.

And, if I understood the article correctly, this happened less than expected by theoretical modelling in this population. In such a tiny population all it would take is for a couple of homozygous individuals to be very successful and one allele would become by far the dominant one in the population. Instead, they found the population had maintained many of the different alleles, and they were present in a variety of combinations.

What this means for Noah's ark is that single pairs could give rise to viable populations (the individuals should probably be as distantly related as possible), but genetic measures of diversity would still reveal that there were only 4 alleles max per gene. This is not what we see today.

Four alleles plus any additions through mutation in the last few thousand years. This isn't meant to be supporting evidence for the idea of the Ark, though. Jar had just asked for examples of pregnant individuals giving rise to viable populations. This was the closest I know of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 08-23-2010 8:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 441 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 39 of 991 (576436)
08-24-2010 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Percy
08-23-2010 8:34 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
Genetic diversity cannot decline when you start from a single pair. With sexual species, a single pair is as low in diversity as you can get without going extinct. Diversity can only increase through mutation, so since mutational effects are generally minimal over short time periods one would not think that diversity could possibly increase.

This quite wrong. In fact, a decline is exactly what you'd expect.

To see why, let's consider a single allele, and suppose there's initially maximal genetic variation at this allele - that is, both founders are heterozygotes and don't share any of the variants. Now, either both can pass both of their gene variants onto a least one of their offspring, or one of the variants can be lost. Now, presuming there's a reasonable number of offspring the chance of any particular gene variant being lost is quite low, but there's going to be a few thousands such alleles which meant that even the relatively unlikely will happen a few hundred times.

In the next generation, things get worse, because now the only available mates are brothers and sisters and that means that the chance of the offspring being homozygotes sky-rockets.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 08-23-2010 8:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 08-24-2010 8:10 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 40 of 991 (576468)
08-24-2010 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
08-24-2010 5:20 AM


Re: Viability of small populations
To Caffeine and Mr Jack,

You are both right, of course, and I'm sorry I put you both to the trouble of explaining because I already know that there can be further loss of alleles when beginning from a single pair. I know what I was thinking but can't for the life of me figure out why I expressed it that way. I know I spent a period of puzzlement trying to figure out how they were measuring diversity.

But the main point I was making was that that study could not have been measuring genetic diversity as measured by the number of alleles per gene, a point not clear from a reading of the popular press article. By this measure the genetic diversity of the mouflon population on Kerguelen *must* have decreased, and this is where that article went wrong, because it said the study contradicted this expectation. But the study didn't contradict it at all because heterozygous diversity is measured differently.

Hopefully I've got it right this time...

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2010 5:20 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 991 (577462)
08-28-2010 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2010 2:17 AM


Re: Landing Site
Dr Adequate writes:

The text says that "the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat", and that "in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

Which can only mean that the Ark grounded on the mountains of Ararat while they were still submerged. The draft of the Ark can't have been more than 30 cubits (that being its height) so it can't have grounded more than 30 cubits below the highest point of the mountains.

It certainly couldn't have run aground on the foothills while the tops of the mountains were still underwater.

You raise some valid points here, Dr Adequate. I checked my Hebrew Interlinear and the nearest English equivalent says "came to rest on the heights of Ararat."

The specific details are unknown but according to context, the tops of the mountains were still not visible when the ark came to rest on the heights of Ararat. One possible explanation for this seeming discrepancy would be that the ark, which had been moving about in currents etc became still/rested over the heights/mountains of Ararat. Admittedly, it's a bit of a stretch to take on as meaning over, but the context appears to bear that out.

According to the context, a raven was sent out after the tops of the mountains were seen and came back, finding no place to rest in the region where the ark had come to rest, indicative that the region in which the ark was resting over was too distant from the tops of the mountains for the raven non-stop flight nor were they a suitable place for it to stay, likely very high and cold for raven habitat.

Consider also that God was surely watching over this all along, he being the one who caused the animals to come and who closed the door before he rain commenced. Most likely Jehovah determined the resting place for the ark, most suitable for the departure of the animals, etc.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 2:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 8:32 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19062
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 42 of 991 (577494)
08-29-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
08-28-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Landing Site
Buzsaw writes:

Consider also that God was surely watching over this all along, he being the one who caused the animals to come and who closed the door before he rain commenced. Most likely Jehovah determined the resting place for the ark, most suitable for the departure of the animals, etc.

I think one premise of this thread about how the animals would have repopulated the Earth is that only natural processes be invoked.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 08-28-2010 10:38 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dirk, posted 09-02-2010 2:43 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 2655 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 43 of 991 (578762)
09-02-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
08-22-2010 1:41 AM


I agree
Not only were there teeth suited for certain situations, carnivores have a completely different digestive tract than that of herbivores. One thing many people take for granted is that humans are omnivores and can switch between a carnivorous diet and that of a vegetarian diet with relative ease. On the other hand, getting a cheetah to switch over to greens or a cow to eating hunting rabbits and deer is impossible without a lot of underlying changes.

Edited by menes777, : No reason given.

Edited by menes777, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 08-22-2010 1:41 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dirk
Member (Idle past 2360 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 44 of 991 (578766)
09-02-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
08-29-2010 8:32 AM


Re: Landing Site
quote:
I think one premise of this thread about how the animals would have repopulated the Earth is that only natural processes be invoked.

That was the idea, yes. Of course, Buzsaw has so far not even addressed the main point of this thread. He writes about where the ark landed etc., but what I would like to hear from him is - among other things - how and why penguins exist in the first place, because if I release two pinguins on Mt Ararat today, I am pretty sure they will die a horrible death, as will probably at least 90% of all other animals that are supposed to have been on the ark (given that their current ecological niches are not those of Mt Ararat or its immediate surroundings). If he needs supernatural processes to explain that, be my guest, but of course he should still present the evidence to back it up.

Edited by Dirk, : clarify


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 8:32 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 09-02-2010 3:41 PM Dirk has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 991 (578783)
09-02-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dirk
09-02-2010 2:43 PM


Re: Landing Site
He writes about where the ark landed etc., but what I would like to hear from him is - among other things - how and why penguins exist in the first place, because if I release two pinguins on Mt Ararat today, I am pretty sure they will die a horrible death, as will probably at least 90% of all other animals that are supposed to have been on the ark (given that their current ecological niches are not those of Mt Ararat or its immediate surroundings).

It's worse than that.

Surrounding the ark you have a massive salt-brine mud deposit everywhere the oceans and seas don't cover.

No food for quite a while.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dirk, posted 09-02-2010 2:43 PM Dirk has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019