Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:16 AM
38 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 91 of 991 (655043)
03-06-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
03-06-2012 3:37 PM


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

Genetic bottlenecks are a fact and an artifact of the event and the time it happened.--jar.

They are a fact today. You don't have the slightest clue as to whether there were genetic bottlenecks during the time of the ark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 03-06-2012 3:37 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 03-06-2012 3:47 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 92 of 991 (655044)
03-06-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:29 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Since you provided nothing but unsubstantiated opinion, I see no need to offer anything in rebuttal.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:29 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:45 PM subbie has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 93 of 991 (655045)
03-06-2012 3:45 PM


Genetic bottlenecks are a relatively modern phenomena. Most of the original genetic information that God originally created all life with has been lost.

Evidence please.---taq

NO. LISTEN CAREFULLY all you people whose minds are closed like a steel trap.

Genetic bottlenecks occur today. YOU need to provide me evidence that they existed millions of years ago.


Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 6:17 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1315 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 94 of 991 (655046)
03-06-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:05 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?

2 of a species, or even 7 pairs, would result in a genetic bottleneck. It is impossible to have a strong, diverse gene pool, when there are only a few members.

You are thinking the last 200,000 years according to a total of 4.56 billion years for the age of the earth.

Yes I am, as the evidence shows.

My idea of 200,000 years ago actually corresponds radiometrically to what you would call the start of the archean eon.

How would it correspond, radiometrically, to a time that radiometrically dates to 2.5 billion years ago and more?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:05 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:51 PM Perdition has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 95 of 991 (655047)
03-06-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by subbie
03-06-2012 3:44 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
It wasn't anything different than anything you said, therefore you are a hypocrite.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by subbie, posted 03-06-2012 3:44 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by subbie, posted 03-06-2012 4:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 96 of 991 (655048)
03-06-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:42 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
You really don't know what a genetic bottleneck is, do you?

Of course I know what the genetic bottleneck would be if either of the stories are real, it is written in the stories.

jar writes:

quote:
In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:

quote:
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:

quote:
2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:

quote:
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

and in Genesis 7:

quote:
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.

If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.

Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).

Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.

We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.

BUT...

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

Talk about a big RED flag.

That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.

So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.

If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.

If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.



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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:42 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 97 of 991 (655049)
03-06-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Perdition
03-06-2012 3:45 PM


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

2 of a species, or even 7 pairs, would result in a genetic bottleneck. It is impossible to have a strong, diverse gene pool, when there are only a few members.

Yes, that is true today. You are assuming that what is true today was also true millions of years ago.

perdition writes:

Yes I am, as the evidence shows.

No, the evidence shows no such thing. It is your biased, philosophically based interpretation of that evidence that leads you to that conclusion.

perdition writes:

How would it correspond, radiometrically, to a time that radiometrically dates to 2.5 billion years ago and more?

Because there was an actual archean eon. It just did not occur 3.9 billion years ago as you measure years by the suns revolutionary period. It was probably about 200,000 actual calendar years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Perdition, posted 03-06-2012 3:45 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Perdition, posted 03-06-2012 5:38 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 98 of 991 (655051)
03-06-2012 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:40 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Since you guys are the ones charging me with ignoring science, the onus is on you to present facts (not theories) that my views are in contradiction with.

You have nothing do you. You also have no idea how science works. You have a claim that is counter to every other person in existence. Therefore it is incumbent on you to present the argument and the evidence.

Shall I quote you?

Message 69

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

That is a scientific claim. Oh and yes it would still be hyper-evolution.

Message 80

I am not ignoring real scientifically determined facts.

Another scientific claim. Which you evidently have no evidence for. So yes you are the one that needs to provide some sort of evidence to back up your assertions.

I didn't say they were scientifically determined facts. Learn to read, you old fart.

Learn to read and please keep the personal attacks out of it. You know nothing about me so if you cant keep it civil hit the road.
I didn't say you said they were scientifically presented facts. Lets see what I said.

Theodoric writes:

Again more "scientifically determined facts"?

You see that thing on the end? It is called a question mark. You made a claim early in the post that you ahd some sort of "scientifically determined facts". SO I was wondering if these other assertions also had "scientifically determined facts". Learn to comprehend.

Oh yeah about those "scientifically determined facts". You ever going to share this mystical knowledge with us? Oh I guess if it is mystical it can't be scientific can it.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:40 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 99 of 991 (655053)
03-06-2012 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:45 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Project much?

I was simply meeting the standard you set; no facts. You are demanding that I present facts where you have none. If there's any hypocracy here, it's yours.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:45 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 100 of 991 (655055)
03-06-2012 4:09 PM


Moderator Warning
I'm going to close this thread for about an hour.

When I reopen it there should be only civil and constructive discussion. I will issue a 24-hour timeout to anyone guilty of incivility, even just mild sarcasm.

This is the second thread this has happened to recently, it just happened to Best Evidence Macro-Evolution. I don't care if someone seems to be arrogant or ignorant or flippant or glib or whatever, you'll be civil and constructive or you'll be taking a vacation.

If you have cogent arguments for your position or against your opponent's, then bring it on. Otherwise, remain silent.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 101 of 991 (655061)
03-06-2012 5:07 PM


Thread Reopened
I will give a 24-hour timeout to anyone I perceive not working hard at making themselves clearly understood and at understanding their opponent's arguments.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1315 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(3)
Message 102 of 991 (655064)
03-06-2012 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:51 PM


Re: The key is "if the ark was real." It isn't.
Yes, that is true today. You are assuming that what is true today was also true millions of years ago.

Very true. Is there any reason to believe it was not? All the evidence points to things being the same now as it was then, what you need to posit the opposite idea is evidence that contradicts the mainstream viewpoint.

Besides, we know how DNA works. Even if we posit that there was a supergenome in the past, there's only so much that could account for. For example, you have the classic example of blue or brown eyes. (I know that eye color is influenced by a handful of genes, leading to "blends" but the simplified version will illustrate the issue.)

When you have a drastic reduction in populations, you have a couple of things, one of which is called the "Founder Effect." For example, if the two proto-cheetahs that were on the ark had homozygous, brown eyes, then they could not have had blue-eyed offspring. This would lead to a greater than expected occurence of brown-eyed cheetahs. This is a simplified version, but you can see that some "super-genome" wouldn't be able to erase that situation. You either have brown eyes or you don't.

The same could be said for coloring, limb length, bone structure, etc. With only a few individuals, unless this genome somehow had the genes for both long limbs and short limbs, without killing the individual, there is no reason to expect it to solve the problem.

If you feel that genetics would have been so drastically different in the past that an individual could have had conflicting sets of genes, but still survive without some sort of malformity, then you'd have to back that up with evidence. Otherwise, you're left saying "This could have happened", and we say, "but it might not have," and nothing gets solved.

No, the evidence shows no such thing. It is your biased, philosophically based interpretation of that evidence that leads you to that conclusion.

We can look at things that are light years away in the cosmos, and doing so means we are looking thousands, millions, or nillions of years into the past. All evidence suggests that the laws of physics have remained unchanged. Since chemistry is just specialized physics, and biology is just specialized chemistry, there is ample evidence that things work the same now as they did then.

Also, it is inductively valid. If you assume that things will change, and the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, I'm fairly confident you'll be disappointed. Now, apply that backwards, if the sun rose in the east this morning, isn't it likely it rose in the east yesterday? The day before that? If you want to posit that things have changed, you need a couple of things before it becomes a valid claim. One is a mechanism that would change things so drastically. Two is evidence for that mechanism, or at least evidence that things were different.

Because there was an actual archean eon. It just did not occur 3.9 billion years ago as you measure years by the suns revolutionary period. It was probably about 200,000 actual calendar years ago.

What is your evidence for this? Radiometric dating has been shown to be accurate based on many different measuring types that all agree. What you need to figure out is why everything agrees with an estimate of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, despite that not being true. Everythying would have had to be modified differently, but adjusted to come to the same, erroneous conclusion, and that doesn't make much sense without a mechanism in evidence.

I gues what it all comes down to is, if you want to posit that things were different than it appears they were, you have to have evieence that they actually were different, or evidence for a mechanism that would change how things appear.

I hope this isn't considered "snarky", but it is just as valid to say that everything was created 10 minutes ago, including us and our memories. But without evidence to support this view, there is no reason for anyone to believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:51 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 103 of 991 (655065)
03-06-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by foreveryoung
03-06-2012 3:45 PM


Genetic bottlenecks are a relatively modern phenomena.

Evidence please.

Most of the original genetic information that God originally created all life with has been lost.

Evidence please.

NO. LISTEN CAREFULLY all you people whose minds are closed like a steel trap.

My mind is very open to evidence. Do you have any? Do you really expect me to just accept bare assertions as true just because you say they are true? Surely, asking for evidence is the sign of an open mind. If my mind was closed then I wouldn't be asking for evidence. I would just say it is untrue and ignore it.

Genetic bottlenecks occur today. YOU need to provide me evidence that they existed millions of years ago.

Genetic bottlenecks occur anytime a population is limited to just a few individuals. It reduces the number of alleles. Unless you are claiming that species used to have genomes 10x the size of current genomes, then genetic bottlenecks should have occurred universally if the Noah myth is true, and those bottlenecks should be detectable in modern species. They are not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by foreveryoung, posted 03-06-2012 3:45 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 11:54 AM Taq has responded
 Message 107 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:09 PM Taq has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 104 of 991 (655066)
03-06-2012 6:23 PM


Lots of assertions
Foreveryoung

You have made a lot of claims and assertions. This could be a very interesting conversation but as of yet you have not given any support for your assertions. Please provide reasoning for your assertions and beliefs.

Many of us would be very interested to find out how you ahve come to the conclusions you have. Yes we are not going to agree with your conclusions and will probably be able to provide ample evidence to counter your beliefs.

You say you want us to provide evidence that you are wrong, but we have no idea what you are basing your conclusions on so we have no idea where to start countering.

If you are not interested in debating but preaching your beliefs this is not the place for you. But if you are interested in debating you will find many that are more than willing.

This was not meant to be snarky at all so I hope Admin does not interpret it as snark.


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

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 160 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 105 of 991 (655111)
03-07-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Taq
03-06-2012 6:17 PM


The problem here is that what I will give you as evidence, you will reject as non evidence. No matter what I say, you will say that I have given no evidence. You won't accept my evidence because you define evidence differently that I do. It is a pointless endeavor unless we are defining the word the same way. There is a second problem here. When you post your evidence, you post it in a way that says "this evidence can only support my conclusion and nothing else". That is a non starter right there. You and most others on this site and in the majority of the scientific community are blind to the fact that you have a strong bias when interpreting the evidence. You have a philosophical commitment that you are blind to. Everyone has philosophical commitments, it is an inevitable part of being human. The trick is to recognize that you have one in order to more rationally analyze the world around you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 03-06-2012 6:17 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-07-2012 12:03 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 108 by jar, posted 03-07-2012 12:11 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 112 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 12:31 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 03-09-2012 9:46 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
67NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019