Summations Only

There are the issues of fish and vegetation and predators, but given that there's no evidence of any global flood, there's also no evidence of conditions during and immediately after the flood. The lack of evidence makes these questions very difficult to discuss.I think there are much more interesting questions. How did monkeys get to the New World but not apes? How did marsupials get to Australia but not mammals? Why are the fossil records of these continents consistent with evolution rather than radiation?

Once again, you simply misrepresent. I have not been making generalized statements.If the Ark was real then we MUST see the following:All animals and most plants MUST show a genetic bottleneck at approximately 4500 years ago.If even one mammal, reptile, bird, insect, vampire or zombie does not show that genetic bottleneck the the Biblical Flood simply didn't happen.Humans do not show a genetic bottleneck in the last 4500 years.

I'm happy with a link to an abstract, and do not see that as cherry picking at all, I'm finding supporting evidence. Deep ocean fish far from Pangea would not have been affected by the short term flood, but there were massive extinctions through the after effects of the Siberian traps. Whether you believe in the flood, or in P-T boundary extinctions, some did survive. Beans are seeds. When some of them float onto beaches they grow into plants in a salty soil. So this whole "salty soil" point is irrelevant, many plants would have easily survived the flood, through beans floating. The Hebrew word means hills or mountaintops. Due to most mountain building tectonics only occurring after the P-T boundary, these were hills. Other than floating beans, olive trees are also likely to survive a flood. The seeds actually benefit from being soaked, needing the soaking for germination. In addition they only need a little soil or manure to grow in. Its possible that a few olive seeds from highlands washed into crevasses amidst other vegetation, and germinated in the rotting vegetation when the floodwaters receded off the highlands.wikipedia:
Olive trees, Olea europaea, show a marked preference for calcareous soils, flourishing best on limestone slopes and crags, and coastal climate conditions. They grow in any light soil, even on clay if well drained,
The olive is also sometimes grown from seed. To facilitate germination, the oily pericarp is first softened by slight rotting, or soaked in hot water or in an alkaline solution.

You are forgetting about marine animals able to adapt quickly to land after the flood. ie if there was a worldwide flood now, followed by hot low-oxygen conditions, followed by increasing vegetation, the saltwater crocodile could adapt into a major terrestrial predator. The turtle and the marine iguana would probably rapidly adapt into sub-species to handle the various ecological gaps.Also small animals like insects and mice etc could have had more than 14 representatives on the ark. The ark could have been infested with small creatures. There is no reason for plants to show any bottleneck whatsoever , because the ark could have carried thousands of seeds , the bible has no restrictions there.But your argument is fair with regard to the larger mammal species. I never yet seen a study that proves that large terrestrial mammals are just as diverse as these other categories.ie I need evidence

More utter bullshit from you.If the Bible Flood myths were true even the crocodile would have been restricted to what were on teh ARK. And there is no mention that more than 14 of any given species including insects were on teh ARK.And according to the Bible Flood myths if it wasn't on the ARK it got killed. That was the purpose of the game.

This is a fair question (except for the penguin which can spend several months at sea).The answer is that populations were small, and the geographic area of the Arabian plate was small too, and joined to Africa, not Asia. They had nowhere to go except Africa. By the time populations were getting big enough for significant fossilization, the greater portion of mammals was in east Africa. Thus it is in East Africa, that there's a higher proportion of early mammal fossils found than elsewhere. Fossilization isnt a common process, and there has been much speciation since, and so we cannot hope to find all modern species represented in the East Africa fossil record. Just a disproportionately large number.ie the cat is from the Arabian plate
the antelope from Ethiopia.
Giraffes - Kenya
Egypt:Department of Anatomical Sciences | Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University
In collaboration with Duke University and the Egyptian Geological Museum, vertebrate paleontological field research is currently focused on the recovery of late Eocene and early Oligocene mammals and other vertebrates from fossil localities in the Birket Qarun, Qasr el-Sagha, and Jebel Qatrani Formations in the Fayum Depression of northern Egypt (see image below). The continental sediments in this area document at least 8 million years of terrestrial mammalian evolution, and have produced the most complete remains of Eocene-Oligocene anthropoid primates, hystricognathous rodents, hyracoids (hyraxes or dassies), proboscideans (elephants), embrithopods (extinct horned relatives of elephants and sea cows), macroscelideans (sengis or elephant-shrews), tenrecoids, creodonts, and anthracotheriid artiodactyls. A number of other mammalian groups, such as strepsirrhine primates, bats, ptolemaiids, and marsupials have also been recovered from the Fayum localities.

A careful reading of the bible shows us that only land animals were destroyed, and taken on the ark. Not marine. Any adaptable marine animal of amphibian habits could have started a terrestrial lifestyle and become selected for that lifestyle. Dont you find it strange that suddenly dominant fauna of the early Triassic era all have arguably amphibious features? Why mainly amphibious reptiles were rapidly "evolving" into terrestrial habitats during the early Triassic? Even this hints of a flood followed by a low oxygen high temperature environment.

Again, more bullshit.The purpose of the Biblical Floods was kill everything God created except what was on the ARK. It was as pointless as the Exodus comedy if it didn't kill everything not on the ARK.But as has been pointed out to you, even if your point had any merit it is irrelevant.Humans were on the ARK and do not show a genetic bottleneck 4500 years in the past and all it takes is one example to refute the idea of the Biblical Flood or ARK.If the Biblical Flood myths were true and there had been an ARK, then there must be a genetic bottleneck signature at 4500 years ago in EVERY critter descended from the critters on the ARK.Now that would be a really big red flag, so big that even blind geneticists would see it.The animals we see today are NOT what we would see if the ARK had been real.

Good questions. I believe it relates to travelling and breeding before the continents split. Monkeys are very rapid travellers and shorter lifespans induce faster generations and greater population growth and therefore greater need to expand their habitat compared to apes.Marsupials handle deserts better and were better able to traverse deserts in the dry Triassic environment. When isolated , they speciated to fill all required ecological gaps.ie inherent adaptability with rapid changes to allele frequencies and minor deleting mutations can explain marsupial diversity over a short period without the need for any major DNA evolution.

Humans show an absolute and extreme bottleneck. It is scientific fact that all humans come from one man. The timeframes are extremely debatable. Exactly. So why cant you show evidence for the lack thereof? Kindly post your evidence and see what DNA analysis you are confidently basing your claims on. This is your chance to prove your point. I would exclude mice and rats though. Those sneaky creatures could have bred all over the ark while it was being built.

Hi Mindspawn,What the thread needs is evidence of what happened, not speculations of what might have happened. I'm trying to get the thread focused on evidence.

What?There is no human bottleneck that would have been 4500 years ago in humans. But wait, it gets worse. If the ARK myth were true then that genetic bottleneck must appear in both the paternal and maternal genetic lines and at the same place.And it don't.It would also have to show in cattle and pigs and goats and dogs and vampires and zombies and it ain't there.Even a blind geneticist could see that.

Coming from one man and bottlenecking is not the same thing.roughly 8% of all men in a larg region in asia 0.5% of world total are descendants of Genghis Kahn. At least thats what genetics say. Now there was no lack of men or lack of people it was just that Genghis Kahn screwed alot of women who had alot of children who screwed loads more because of their power provided by their status...Bottlenecking can be seen in a species like the Wison (european bison) it almost went extinct all of the bison living today came from 12 individuals and you can see their low genetic variation, and they are having problems to reproduce.On the other hand humans show a long bottleneck where for a long period of time there where only 2000-10 000 individuals for possibly as long as 100 000 years.

Except that you are kinda stuck with a very limited time frame. Humans simply do not show anything like an ark compliant lack of diversity.Does the human race show more or less diversity than would be expected if they were descended from the eight people on the ark, 4500 years ago? Let's also recall that three of those 8 were descended from two others of the 8 and thus add very little diversity if any. Recall that every species ought to show such a signature. Only a single example that you cannot explain is necessary (and I'll spot you the mice), while finding individual bottlenecks shows nothing.Maybe not in this thread, but I've certainly seen people providing pointers to evidence of cattle that have more alleles than could have been produced by just a few ark animals.

mindspawn keeps cherry-picking data, but has talked himself into a corner.He insists that the flood was at the P-T boundary, as that's probably the only place he can find a global flood massive flood transgression (i.e., rising water levels).

--This puts him in opposition to the biblical scholars who place the flood some 4,350 years ago.

​

--It also puts him in opposition to all of geology and paleontology, as at that time the fauna was absolutely different from the fauna at the time when modern humans had developed civilization. Modern humans developed some 250 million years later, and are not found in the same strata as the P-T boundary fauna. Not even close!

​

--And this puts him in opposition to all of the dating sciences, which place civilization and writing some 250+ million years later.

​

--He is also in direct opposition to genetics, which clearly show none of the things we would have to see if the flood actually happened, either 250 mya or 4,350 ya.

​

--And, returning to the topic of this thread, this puts him in opposition to zoology and ethology, as well as most of biology and other life sciences.

Focusing just on zoology and ethology, we are asked to believe that humans and fully modern fauna were kicking around 250 million years ago (in spite of there being no evidence supporting this); we are asked to believe that, upon leaving the ark these critters could survive even though they are all below the minimum numbers for a viable population; we are asked to believe that there was something appropriate there for them to eat besides each other; we are asked to believe that some of these critters, such as the koala, journeyed around the globe to Australia while lacking a suitable food supply for the entire trip; we are asked to believe that all of this and much more happened in spite of the contradictory evidence from the fossil record.Now, even the Queen in Alice could only believe up to six impossible things before breakfast. You would have us believe dozens to hundreds of impossible things.It is far easier to believe that if the non-existent ark landed at the P-T boundary Noah and all the rest of the non-existent critters would have starved to death, eaten each other, or been dinosaur dinner within the week. (Whoops, dinosaurs hadn't even been invented 250 million years ago! They came some 20 million years after the P-T boundary).