Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
28 online now:
glowby, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,334 Year: 22,370/19,786 Month: 933/1,834 Week: 3/430 Day: 3/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
aiki
Member (Idle past 2637 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 04-28-2010


(1)
Message 61 of 991 (654714)
03-03-2012 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Pollux
03-03-2012 6:30 AM


Re: Clean animals
If 'kind'=species there would be at least 12,000 pairs of ants on board the ark, so the anteaters (four species) might be OK for a while. Of course, they would have to share those ants with all the other myrmecophagous species - armadillos, echidnas, pangolins, assorted birds and reptiles, ant lions, parasitic wasps, parasitic flies...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Pollux, posted 03-03-2012 6:30 AM Pollux has acknowledged this reply

  
Pollux
Member (Idle past 38 days)
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 62 of 991 (654777)
03-04-2012 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dirk
08-20-2010 11:00 PM


Which animals
With the carnivores eating all the herbivores and the insectivores all the insects and then all dying out, what could survive are the fish-eating birds, waders, and similar, provided they could dodge the carnivores and raptors. And maybe we could have the sea iguanas of the Galapagos which eat seaweed. This assumes that the fish have not been killed by salinity alteration during the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dirk, posted 08-20-2010 11:00 PM Dirk has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 63 of 991 (654958)
03-05-2012 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dirk
08-20-2010 11:00 PM


You have made an enormous amount of unwarranted assumptions about the biblical flood story. Most of the animals that came off the ark no longer exist. The animals that exist today were not on the ark. The latter evolved from the former. As far as which ones survived, none of them lasted in their former states; they adapted to new environments and changed from one form into another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dirk, posted 08-20-2010 11:00 PM Dirk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2012 11:51 PM foreveryoung has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 450 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 64 of 991 (654959)
03-05-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by foreveryoung
03-05-2012 11:18 PM


The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
You have made an enormous amount of unwarranted assumptions about the biblical flood story. Most of the animals that came off the ark no longer exist. The animals that exist today were not on the ark. The latter evolved from the former. As far as which ones survived, none of them lasted in their former states; they adapted to new environments and changed from one form into another.

If the date of the "ark" is as biblical scholars agree, about 4,350 years ago your statement is entirely incorrect.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest hyper-evolution since 4,350 years ago, nor is there any evidence to suggest a global flood at that time period.

On hyper-evolution: It is funny that you suggest such a thing. I've seen creationists ("Woodmorappe" and Lubenow) claim that since the flood, and more precisely since the Babel incident, that "Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man–all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel."

There is just one problem with this. "The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!"

http://blog.darwincentral.org/...-at-creation-science-part-i

On a global flood 4,350 years ago: I've been doing archaeology for decades and tested perhaps 100 sites which contained 4,350 year old strata. In not a single one was there evidence of either massive erosion or massive sedimentary deposition. Rather what we see is continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, stratigraphy, and mtDNA. The same has been reported by my colleagues around the world.

Before you claim that folks have "made an enormous amount of unwarranted assumptions about the biblical flood story" you should try to ascertain whether there is any evidence that the flood story is accurate.

All the evidence to date suggests it is an ancient tribal myth.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by foreveryoung, posted 03-05-2012 11:18 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 03-06-2012 12:58 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 69 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:01 PM Coyote has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 65 of 991 (654961)
03-06-2012 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Coyote
03-05-2012 11:51 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Several years ago, I read part of Georges Cuvier's Sur la Theorie de la Terre (as I recall the title from memory). Cuvier (1769-1832) established the technique of reconstructing the entire animal by extrapolating from a few parts (eg, teeth indicating diet, size of individual bones indicating overall size). He was also a staunch anti-evolutionist (obviously Lamarckian instead of Darwinian). The reason he gave in his treatise was that examination of mummies brought by Napoleon from Egypt showed that those animals and humans from thousands of years ago were no different than modern animals and humans, which he believed was shortly after the creation of their lineages.

IOW, this prestigious creationist and "Father of Paleontology" had examined the evidence and nixed modern creationists' attempts to invoke bizarrely hyper-rapid speciation, AKA macro-evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2012 11:51 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 60
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


(1)
Message 66 of 991 (654963)
03-06-2012 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
08-21-2010 5:53 AM


The poor platypuses
Mr Jack writes:

The herbivores die first, unable to feed and unable to escape the predators. The predators die soon after with nothing to feed on.


I think the herbivores might have been among those with the best chances. Most predators are also scavengers, and their new world would have had plenty of carcasses laying about. They likely would have chosen less strenuous feeding options. Since grasses are very quick to return after floods, fires, etc, herbivores would have had a better chance than most. Goats, sheep, and pigs, for example, have somewhat lower minimum viable populations than many other species. (Although, as I understand it, no vertebrates aboard the ark had a survivable MVP anyway!)

Of course, the predators/scavengers would have had to share that bounty of dead flesh with glorious blooms of insects and worms, and the feast wouldn't have lasted long. This could have allowed their prey more time to get away, and would surely have hastened their predators' extinction.

I think the platypus gives the greatest example of the absurdity of the flood story. They can't survive long without water or huge amounts of aquatic food (about 20% of their body weight each day). They're unequipped to gnaw on or digest carrion. They can't possibly climb mountains or survive freezing temps. There's no similar "kind" that creationists can claim that they super-duper-evolved from. Even with a divine airlift back to Australia, they were certainly doomed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 08-21-2010 5:53 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-06-2012 2:53 AM glowby has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 67 of 991 (654964)
03-06-2012 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by glowby
03-06-2012 2:23 AM


Re: The poor platypuses
Weren't you listening to foreveryoung? Obviously what happened is that after the flood platypuses evolved very very rapidly from ... er ... ducks?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by glowby, posted 03-06-2012 2:23 AM glowby has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by glowby, posted 03-06-2012 1:28 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
glowby
Member
Posts: 60
From: Fox River Grove, IL
Joined: 05-29-2010


Message 68 of 991 (655007)
03-06-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dr Adequate
03-06-2012 2:53 AM


Re: The poor platypuses
Ahhh ... That explains it all: The duck "kind" got all fruitfullish and multiplicative; and a few winged it over to Australia and settled in. They exchanged their feathers for fur but still lay eggs, betraying their ducky ancestry. The eggs must be soft-shelled instead of hard because they lay them too near the water, which makes them soggy and squishy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-06-2012 2:53 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 69 of 991 (655016)
03-06-2012 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Coyote
03-05-2012 11:51 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
coyote writes:

If the date of the "ark" is as biblical scholars agree, about 4,350 years ago your statement is entirely incorrect.

The date biblical scholars give is incorrect, so my statement is not entirely incorrect.

coyote writes:

There is no empirical evidence to suggest hyper-evolution since 4,350 years ago, nor is there any evidence to suggest a global flood at that time period.

It wasn't 4,350 years ago, therefore no need to suggest anything about hyper-evolution.

coyote writes:

On hyper-evolution: It is funny that you suggest such a thing.

I did not suggest hyper-evolution. I suggest they all evolved within a span of about 200,000 years.

coyote writes:

I've seen creationists ("Woodmorappe" and Lubenow) claim that since the flood, and more precisely since the Babel incident, that "Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man–all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel."

I wouldn't agree with that exactly. I would say that ergaster, erectus, heidelbergensis, and neanderthalensis all descended from adam and eve , but adam and even were not modern humans; they were something else that we do no know about right now. Modern man did not evolve until about 40,000 years ago.

coyote writes:

There is just one problem with this. "The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!"

It was opposite of what they are saying as I posted above, but your critique of scale still is valid. You are assuming that evolution occurs by darwinian mechanisms. I believe larger scale evolution of the past occurred by different mechanisms. It occurred by loss of existing information, not by the slow accumulation of information added on top of pre-existing information. Evolution at the scale I am suggesting would indeed be impossible under the mechanisms currently observed in the laboratory for what I call micro-evolution.

coyote writes:

On a global flood 4,350 years ago: I've been doing archaeology for decades and tested perhaps 100 sites which contained 4,350 year old strata. In not a single one was there evidence of either massive erosion or massive sedimentary deposition. Rather what we see is continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, stratigraphy, and mtDNA. The same has been reported by my colleagues around the world.

That is because the flood did not occur 4,350 years ago.

coyote writes:

Before you claim that folks have "made an enormous amount of unwarranted assumptions about the biblical flood story" you should try to ascertain whether there is any evidence that the flood story is accurate.

You just made more unwarranted assumptions. That is all you guys know how to do. You have "brain lock" . It is freezed into position. Another word for it is "closed minded". You have assumed that the flood occurred as biblical scholars said it did. There is no reason to assume they are correct. I can guarantee that your idea of the flood is a crude cariacature of the real thing.

coyote writes:

All the evidence to date suggests it is an ancient tribal myth.

All the evidence suggests that what you believe is the global flood is totally false. Since you have no idea what the real flood was, you have no ground to stand upon and declare it is an ancient tribal myth.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2012 11:51 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-06-2012 2:25 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 72 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2012 2:54 PM foreveryoung has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31794
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 70 of 991 (655018)
03-06-2012 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 2:01 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
I'm sorry but the same genetic bottleneck evidence that absolutely refutes the Biblical flood myths refutes a world-wide flood in the last 200,000 years.

It has nothing to with Biblical scholars; it has to do with what was written in the Biblical flood stories that were included in the various Bibles.

Sorry but they are simply myth.

It really is that simple.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:01 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:52 PM jar has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 71 of 991 (655022)
03-06-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
03-06-2012 2:25 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
jar writes:

I'm sorry but the same genetic bottleneck evidence that absolutely refutes the Biblical flood myths refutes a world-wide flood in the last 200,000 years

What are you sorry about? What biblical flood myths? What genetic bottleneck evidence? What refutes a world wide flood in the last 200,000 years?

jar writes:

It has nothing to with Biblical scholars

What doesn't have anything to do with biblical scholars?

jar writes:

it has to do with what was written in the Biblical flood stories that were included in the various Bibles.

That doesn't make any sense. What else beside biblical stories would be in a biblical book?

jar writes:

Sorry but they are simply myth.

Again, why are you sorry?

What is a myth? Biblical stories? So the bible is a myth? Just declare yourself an atheist. Why do you call yourself a christian if the bible is a myth?

jar writes:

It really is that simple.

That's great, except I have no idea what you mean by "it". What exactly is that simple?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-06-2012 2:25 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Perdition, posted 03-06-2012 2:55 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2012 3:08 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 78 by jar, posted 03-06-2012 3:14 PM foreveryoung has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 450 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 72 of 991 (655023)
03-06-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 2:01 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
It seems that you are ignoring the opinions of biblical scholars, in addition to science in general.

It would be good for you then to specify the date you see for the flood, and the evidence supporting that date.

This would seem to be a critical point which would need to be resolved in order to address the topic of "Which animals would populate the earth."


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:01 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:17 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 73 of 991 (655024)
03-06-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 2:52 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
What are you sorry about? What biblical flood myths? What genetic bottleneck evidence? What refutes a world wide flood in the last 200,000 years?

The fact that there was no genetic bottleneck for every species on the planet at the same time within the last 200,000 years is the genetic bottleneck evidence and what refutes a world wide flood in the last 200,000 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:52 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:05 PM Perdition has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 74 of 991 (655025)
03-06-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Perdition
03-06-2012 2:55 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Why does there have to be a genetic bottleneck to begin with?

Here is another problem with your thinking: You are thinking the last 200,000 years according to a total of 4.56 billion years for the age of the earth. So, you are thinking about the animals that evolved since 200,000 years ago according to that timescale. My idea of 200,000 years ago actually corresponds radiometrically to what you would call the start of the archean eon.

Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Perdition, posted 03-06-2012 2:55 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 3:12 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 94 by Perdition, posted 03-06-2012 3:45 PM foreveryoung has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6897
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 75 of 991 (655026)
03-06-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 2:52 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
What is a myth? Biblical stories? So the bible is a myth? Just declare yourself an atheist. Why do you call yourself a christian if the bible is a myth?

Well then why don't you call yourself an atheist as you seem to think the bible is myth also? Why do you call yourself a christian if the bible is myth? The timing of the biblical flood can be roughly ascertained by reading the bible(have you read it, I have many times). You can put it roughly 4000 to 6000 years ago. Or maybe you can explain how you get to the 200,000 year ago figure?

You are treating the bible as myth if you have some 200,000 year ago figure. There is also plenty of evidence proving there was no worldwide flood in the last 200,000 years, or ever. But please if you have evidence by all means show it. Could be some big money in it for you if you have the evidence.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 2:52 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:11 PM Theodoric has 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