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 3:35 PM
33 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD (6 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,593 Year: 3,630/19,786 Month: 625/1,087 Week: 215/212 Day: 30/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 106 of 991 (655113)
03-07-2012 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 11:54 AM


This is a science thread. Things that are scientifically true are true for everyone. Scientific evidence is replicable and available to anyone, though of course there may be technological requirements to viewing or reproducing the evidence.

Do you have any scientific evidence for your position.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 11:54 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:11 PM Percy has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 107 of 991 (655114)
03-07-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Taq
03-06-2012 6:17 PM


I know what genetic bottlenecks are. I know what conditions bring them about. All I am saying is that you are making two assumptions that keeps you from understanding how it could have been a non issue in the past. #1. You assume that evolution has always occurred by the mechanisms observed in laboratories today. #2. You assume that lack of allelic diversity has always been detrimental.

You can reach today's levels of allelic diversity in 200,000 years. Show me where I am wrong. It doesn't take a genome that is ten times larger than today to generate the vast diversity of species we see from a few common ancestors. My evidence? That would be impossible to gather. My reasoning? You can generate a vast amount of diversity simply by turning genes on and off at different times in the womb and in development. It would not have to take generating new alleles to do this. The different alleles would come about later on after thousand of species had already speciated from their common ancestors.


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 115 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 1:34 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


Message 108 of 991 (655115)
03-07-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 11:54 AM


Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?

The answer is what I outlined for you in Message 96:

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.


If the Biblical flood happened, whether it was 4300 years ago or 200,000 years ago, all of the land animals, birds and almost all living land plants that populate the earth today would show that they went through a genetic bottleneck at the very same time.

If you wish to claim that there was a world-wide flood like either of the stories recounted in the Bible you MUST present a model that explains why that genetic bottleneck signature is not present.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 11:54 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:13 PM jar has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 109 of 991 (655116)
03-07-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
03-07-2012 12:03 PM


Not everything that you consider to be scientifically true are in reality true. Evidence is replicable and available, but is not interpreted the same way universally. I consider the whole world and all the evidence gathered so far by scientists to be evidence for my position.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-07-2012 12:03 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 03-07-2012 1:04 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 116 by Theodoric, posted 03-07-2012 5:25 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 901
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 110 of 991 (655117)
03-07-2012 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jar
03-07-2012 12:11 PM


Re: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
jar writes:

If the Biblical flood happened, whether it was 4300 years ago or 200,000 years ago, all of the land animals, birds and almost all living land plants that populate the earth today would show that they went through a genetic bottleneck at the very same time.

Not necessarily. It would only be true, if your initial assumptions about the past are proven to be true. To my estimation of things, the have not been proven to be true. Feel free to prove me wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 03-07-2012 12:11 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 03-07-2012 12:25 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 12:34 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 111 of 991 (655118)
03-07-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 12:13 PM


Re: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
I did prove you wrong, I am making no assumptions about the past other than what the Bible says.

I also provided evidence in Message 29 and in Message 89 which was a direct reply to you that shows that the genes of living things were not significantly different as far back as the alleged time of Adam, even before the supposed Biblical Flood.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:13 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 112 of 991 (655119)
03-07-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 11:54 AM


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.

So you want to play the part of Rosa Parks without actually getting on the bus.

You won't accept my evidence because you define evidence differently that I do.

IOW, it's not evidence because it isn't evidence. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine beliefs as evidence.

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.

Actually, it is presented as "this supports this conclusion" and I challenge you to show otherwise.

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.

So says the person who feels the need to redefine the word evidence. Bias much?

You have a philosophical commitment that you are blind to.

I am fully aware that I am committed to testable theories that are supported by empirical evidence. That is kind of the whole point.

The trick is to recognize that you have one in order to more rationally analyze the world around you.

I am asking for evidence so that I can rationally analyze your claims. Do you have any or not? Are you just making this up as you go? What evidence led you to the conclusion that life once had "super genomes"? What were these super genomes like? How would they mask a massive decrease in population sizes? Why do you avoid these questions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 11:54 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 113 of 991 (655120)
03-07-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 12:13 PM


Re: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Not necessarily. It would only be true, if your initial assumptions about the past are proven to be true.

The assumption is that animals were diploid (i.e. two copies of each chromosome) and therefore carry two alleles per gene. Can you tell us why we should not be making this assumption? It seems like a pretty solid one to me.

To my estimation of things, the have not been proven to be true.

So says the person who claims that animals used to have super genomes without offering any evidence whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:13 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(4)
Message 114 of 991 (655121)
03-07-2012 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 12:11 PM


Hi ForEverYoung,

No one on the evolution side is saying they can't be wrong. What we're saying is that we have evidence for our position by which we can argue for our position. When you were asked to present your evidence you instead replied that there was little point since we'd just reject it because it is a "pointless endeavor" and we are "blind" and have a "strong bias".

I'm just trying to encourage you to actually discuss the topic instead of just telling us how our "philosophical commitment" renders us unable to honestly assess your evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:11 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(3)
Message 115 of 991 (655123)
03-07-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 12:09 PM


#1. You assume that evolution has always occurred by the mechanisms observed in laboratories today. #2. You assume that lack of allelic diversity has always been detrimental.

#1: Are you saying that mutations did not occur in any animals in the past, and only do so now in all animals by some fluke of luck?

#2: No one is claiming that a lack of allelic diversity is detrimental. All we are saying is that massive decreases in population size drastically reduce allelic diversity. The only assumption is that animals in the past were diploid so that they carried two alleles per gene. Can you please tell us why we should not be making this assumption?

You can reach today's levels of allelic diversity in 200,000 years. Show me where I am wrong.

Have you heard of this little thing called "burden of proof"? The person making the claim needs to support their own claims. You have now claimed that 200,000 years is enough time to produce the genetic diversity we see today. Now it is up to you to marshal the evidence to support this claim. It is not my job to support your claims. That is your job.

You can generate a vast amount of diversity simply by turning genes on and off at different times in the womb and in development.

That is not how genetic diversity is measured. Genetic diversity is measured by the differences in DNA sequence which are not affected by gene regulation. When a gene is turned on it does not change the DNA sequence of the gene. Your reasoning is way off.

The different alleles would come about later on after thousand of species had already speciated from their common ancestors.

I think we all agree with this. What we are saying is that there is not enough time for mutations to build up in order to produce the genetic diversity we see today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:09 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

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


(3)
Message 116 of 991 (655130)
03-07-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 12:11 PM


Not everything that you consider to be scientifically true are in reality true. Evidence is replicable and available, but is not interpreted the same way universally. I consider the whole world and all the evidence gathered so far by scientists to be evidence for my position.

I agree and that is why I feel all scientific evidence proves the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If you disagree you need to prove me wrong.

Now my comments seem totally ridiculous to you don't they. Wouldn't you be curious how I interpreted evidence to be proof for the IPU?

That is how I feel about you. You are making these grandiose statements with nothing to back them. Your contributions here seem to just be some narcissistic backslapping with no substance.

Explain why you think the scientific evidence is evidence for your position. Hell, we don't even know what your position is.

Admin,

This is not meant to be snark. I am just trying to get him to understand why there is so much frustration with his comments that science supports him but he refuses to explain the reasoning.

ABE

Not everything that you consider to be scientifically true are in reality true.

I think this comment speaks volumes. You obviously have no feel for science and the scientific method. Science does not deal in truths. Science deals with evidence and facts. Truths are for religion and beliefs.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 12:11 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12172
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(3)
Message 117 of 991 (655306)
03-09-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 11:54 AM


Cutting To The Chase
foreveryoung writes:

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.

Lets cut to the chase, shall we?

All of us have a "philosophical commitments" yet only some of us believe that God is real, alive, interactive and creative. We of course feel that this is an important revelation and that for some reason there will always be scoffers as to our beliefs and conclusions concerning creation and evolution(creation through time, in effect) of all biological/geological/cosmological reality.

As has been pointed out, the scientific method deals with the content of reality rather than the source. Beliefs deal more with God as source.

We must ask ourselves if any conclusions that dont conform to our bias nor our belief in any way threaten the acceptance of such belief. Once we overcome this fear, we can relax in knowing that its ok to have questions and not answers.

Theodoric writes:

Science does not deal in truths. Science deals with evidence and facts. Truths are for religion and beliefs.

And this is ok with me. I dont feel that my belief is threatened. Perhaps some Biblical Creationists are puzzled as to why scientists don't let belief interfere with their work.

I suppose one question for believers in God and in Jesus Christ to ask themselves is whether a literal Bible and a factual ark story are important for our faith?

Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 11:54 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Lotharson 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1952 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 08-18-2013


Message 118 of 991 (704845)
08-19-2013 1:49 AM


Gigantic dragons called dinosaurs! :=)

Lovely greetings from Germany
Liebe Grüße aus Deutschland

Lothars Sohn - Lothar's son
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com


    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 119 of 991 (705022)
08-22-2013 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dirk
08-20-2010 11:00 PM


Hi all,
For my first post, I hope to have come up with an intriguing question: which animals would populate the earth today if the flood really happened?

Let's assume that the ark was indeed large enough to contain all land animals (which, according to most YECs includes the dinosaurs, if I'm not mistaken) and that there was enough food. So, after the flood the ark sits 4000m high on Mt Ararat and Noah opens the doors to release them all. What happens? Who gets killed first and who survives? Who freezes to death and who makes it off the mountain?

And did Noah release the chickens and cows and pigs and sheep as well, or did he keep them in the ark so that he didn't have to catch them later if he wanted eggs & bacon for breakfast?

And what would we find on Mt Ararat, except for the ark, of course? Would there be evidence of a massive slaughtering of slow, fat animals by tigers, velociraptors, and so on?

Hi, I believe the best I can do is a speculative answer due to the fact that I haven't yet had a chance to dig up Mt Ararat yet for fossils. As soon as I am able to literally sift through the whole mountain of evidence I will supply my evidence , until then I can only speculate.

I believe there are so many possible scenarios that it is impossible to say outright which would have been most logical. It could have been survival of the fittest, or even survival of the luckiest. Maybe the chickens just escaped the tiger's clutches, but some other creature became extinct right there and then, as a reptile hunted it down. Maybe Noah released them in a logical order, allowing the predators to eat carcasses from the receding sea, and as they wandered off following the ocean's regression, he then released the herbivores when the carnivores had wandered off , and after vegetation regained a foothold on the planet.

I believe a likely scenario is that the mammals stayed on the Armenian plateau or traveled to colder northern regions, being most easily adapted to cold low oxygen (elevated) regions. Many types of reptiles would likely have flourished in the hotter dryer conditions of the post-flood world, which were perfectly suited to them and they likely began to dominate the planet. Amphibians would have battled to regain their dominance in the dry silted up deserts, those able to adapt to salt water (crocodiles) or to live in small new freshwater ponds (frogs) being best able to survive.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


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 120 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2013 10:15 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 08-22-2013 1:57 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2013 2:49 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 120 of 991 (705025)
08-22-2013 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by mindspawn
08-22-2013 8:36 AM


Hi, I believe the best I can do is a speculative answer due to the fact that I haven't yet had a chance to dig up Mt Ararat yet for fossils.

Well, there are people and Bronze Age artifacts buried under the pyroclastic flows, is that any help to you?

But I don't quite see the relevance of the fossils on Mount Ararat, can you explain how this would help?

Maybe Noah released them in a logical order, allowing the predators to eat carcasses from the receding sea.

It's remarkable how little people know about the dietary needs of animals. (This is not particularly a crack at you, it seems to be generally true.) They seem to think that whatever is unfit for human consumption must be good enough for animals. Have you ever read any of Gerald Durrell's excellent books? Tradesmen kept turning up at his zoo with what they considered bountiful offers of spoiled meat and mildewed fruit, and got quite indignant when he pointed out that this would kill all his animals, they'd all die of dysentery. Very very few carnivorous species would be able to survive a diet of meat that had had over a year to go bad. So you might want to rethink that.

Amphibians would have battled to regain their dominance in the dry silted up deserts, those able to adapt to salt water (crocodiles) ...

Crocodiles may be amphibious, but they are not amphibians.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by mindspawn, posted 08-22-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by mindspawn, posted 08-23-2013 2:46 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
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