|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,815 Year: 4,072/9,624 Month: 943/974 Week: 270/286 Day: 31/46 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22498 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 609 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 609 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 609 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22498 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
#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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
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: 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. Science does not deal in truths. Science deals with evidence and facts. Truths are for religion and beliefs. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lotharson  Suspended Member (Idle past 3901 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
Gigantic dragons called dinosaurs! :=)
Lovely greetings from GermanyLiebe Gre aus Deutschland Lothars Sohn - Lothar's sonlotharlorraine | 4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2687 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024