Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 481 of 991 (706282)
09-09-2013 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 8:14 AM


Re: Cherry-picked data
...so I feel that if the largest concentration of earliest mammal species is in East Africa
From wiki:
Although no unequivocal fossils are known prior to the early Eocene, the odd-toed ungulates probably arose in what is now Asia, during the Paleocene-Eocene boundary (55 million years ago).
By the start of the Eocene, 55 million years ago (Mya), they had diversified and spread out to occupy several continents. Horses and tapirs both evolved in North America; rhinoceroses appear to have developed in Asia from tapir-like animals and then colonised the Americas during the middle Eocene (about 45 Mya).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 8:14 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 482 of 991 (706284)
09-09-2013 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by bluegenes
09-08-2013 11:29 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
You're correct.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2013 11:29 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 483 of 991 (706288)
09-09-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by mindspawn
09-08-2013 4:21 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
The first cave dwellings are in Turkey.
No they're not.
The first building is found in Turkey.
Nope.
The first towns are found in Turkey.
Iraq.
The bible then describes the first civilization in the plain of Shinar (location Arabia)
From the Wiki;
quote:
Shinar is a biblical geographical locale of uncertain boundaries in Mesopotamia.
So your certainty as to Shinar's location seems unwarranted. But it hardly matters. Shinar is described as being founded by Nimrod, who comes only a few generations after Noah. If your timeline were correct, we would see those cities in the Early Triassic. We don't.
The oldest ziggurat is found in Babel, where the biblical tower of Babel was built.
Babylon (Babel) is in Iraq and not part of the Arabian Plate.
Maybe you are right about incomplete basalt coverage. But the fact that basalt does cover the region and its relative remoteness seem to have slowed research of Permian fauna/flora in the region. Until Siberian fossils of Permian age are studied as much as every other continent, the scientific community will be in the dark as to what extent modern fauna/flora existed in northern Pangea.
Utter nonsense. Until you provide positive evidence that humans existed in the Triassic, your claims will continue to be dismissed and quite rightly.
The fact remains that the Siberian Traps are nothing like your naive imaginings.
For many reasons, John Miller proposes a Permian origin for angiosperms and quotes 3 other studies that propose earlier sub-arctic origins for flowering plants. So I am not the first to believe there was a sub-arctic "cradle" of the modern biome in the Permian.
The articles you cite do not support the existence of modern angiosperms in the Permian, nor do they support your ludicrous notion of a Northern habitable zone.
I have told you this several times; there is no evidence that only the Northern parts of Pangea were habitable. All of Pangea was habitable. The only reason you came up with this rubbish is because you misinterpreted a single sentence from the Hallam/Wignall paper. The reality is that we have plenty of fossils form the Southern latitudes.
In what way would {lystrosaurus} disprove a flood?
Because a Flood would see almost all Lystrosaurs wiped of the face of the Earth in a single clear event. That isn't what we see in the geological record. Instead we see Lystrosaurus already widely distributed at the Early Triassic.
I believe the controversy is simply because it was amphibious and became terrestrial during the Triassic.
This is another example of something that you have made up. You have no evidence for this.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 4:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by mindspawn, posted 09-16-2013 3:49 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 484 of 991 (706289)
09-09-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by mindspawn
09-08-2013 4:48 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
The relevant portion of Turkey described by the bible is the Arabian plate.
No it isn't.
This was not under the ocean, but attached to Africa during the Triassic.
Sure. The Arabian Plate was above water during the Triassic. But Mount Ararat isn't on the Arabian Plate.
Mount Ararat is on the edge of this plate,
Mount Ararat is well North of the Arabian Plate boundary. Also, it didn't exist during the Triassic. You're about 180 million years out.
This is easy to check.
This fits in exactly with what I have been saying.
No it doesn't. The bible demands that birds precede the Flood. You have no pre-Flood bird fossils. To pretend that this fits your argument is absurd.
As predicted by scientists there was a northern latitude biome vaguely resembling our modern biome.
This is a misrepresentation. Scientists predict no such thing.
This is where the birds/angiosperms/mammals/humans would be found.
And where are they hiding before the Flood? Under some lava? In an inland sea? Your excuses are increasingly desperate.
During the early Triassic, none of these fossils would be present except for in Turkey, if you use compressed timeframes.
Can you show me these fossils? No. They must be hiding as well. What's your excuse this time?
Apart from the fact that even in the very earliest Triassic there are fossils of terrestrial life from all over the world. You are quite right to say that this is what we should expect to see, but it is not what we actually see.
The rest of the world had only flood survivors of Permian lower latitude fauna/flora. (reptiles and surviving vegetation from floating seeds)
quote:
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Except any animals or plants that mindspawn finds useful for his excuse-making. Those I'll let live.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 4:48 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by mindspawn, posted 09-10-2013 6:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 485 of 991 (706292)
09-09-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 6:34 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I place the flood at the P-T boundary before the later mountain building tectonic events. The subsequent elevation of the "hills of Ararat" occurred later when the Arabian plate crashed into the Eurasian plate.
Yes. Much later. 180 million years later. Even with you're compressed time scale, you're still shafted.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 6:34 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 486 of 991 (706296)
09-09-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by mindspawn
09-08-2013 7:37 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
mindspawn writes:
(except for the penguin which can spend several months at sea).
How long can it spend getting to the sea? Can it live on dead fish on the way? Did it go by way of the Black Sea and the Med or did it take a shortcut to the Persian Gulf?
mindspawn writes:
The answer is....
You're not presenting answers. You're presenting excuses for why there's no evidence to back up your speculations.
mindspawn writes:
... and there has been much speciation since....
There has been a lot of microevolution since the dawn of man but not nearly as much macroevolution as creationists claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 7:37 PM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Theodoric, posted 09-09-2013 12:52 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 487 of 991 (706309)
09-09-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 486 by ringo
09-09-2013 11:56 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
ringo writes:
mindspawn writes:
(except for the penguin which can spend several months at sea).
How long can it spend getting to the sea? Can it live on dead fish on the way? Did it go by way of the Black Sea and the Med or did it take a shortcut to the Persian Gulf?
And why did they need the Ark? What about whales? Have creos presented an answer for that yet?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by ringo, posted 09-09-2013 11:56 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 488 of 991 (706315)
09-09-2013 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 5:41 AM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
A population bottleneck is a sharp reduction in size of a population due to environmental stochastic events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, or droughts) or human activities
It is the same thing. An earlier bottleneck of females is detected (let's call her Eve), followed by a later bottleneck of males (Noah)
More nonsense on your part.
So what was the sharp reduction in the size of the population associated with Eve? Wasn't Eve present at a significant increase in the population?
If you claim no bottleneck, please provide evidence. The first to make a claim must post their evidence.
You participated in a thread in which evidence was provided that the current diversity in humans exceeded that which could result from the humans allegedly present after the flood, even accounting for mutations. That's evidence enough.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 5:41 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 7:21 PM NoNukes has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 489 of 991 (706347)
09-09-2013 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by NoNukes
09-09-2013 2:23 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
So what was the sharp reduction in the size of the population associated with Eve? Wasn't Eve present at a significant increase in the population?
Can you prove from the DNA of mitochrondial Eve, that she had any predecessors? Evolutionists would claim she had predecessors under evolutionist assumptions, but does the DNA show this?
You participated in a thread in which evidence was provided that the current diversity in humans exceeded that which could result from the humans allegedly present after the flood, even accounting for mutations. That's evidence enough.
That evidence did not support your position in that thread, and neither will support your position if you post it into this thread. Large populations, like humans and cattle, have more germline mutations than small populations. At currently measured rates of approximately 18 to 45 (let's say 20) germline mutations per generation, in a population of 7 billion humans, means that current humans have 140 billion new alleles. Divided into 20 000 gene positions, that is 7 million new alleles in each gene position for the current population of earth.
These figures are approximate, I am merely illustrating approximately how many new alleles one would expect in modern times, let alone 4500 years of germline mutations.
The following link supports a germline mutation rate of approximately 1 in 100 million base pairs per generation. This amounts to about 30 per human per generation.
Variation in genome-wide mutation rates within and between human families | Nature Genetics
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2013 2:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2013 7:37 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 492 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-09-2013 9:11 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 494 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2013 4:33 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 507 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2013 12:57 AM mindspawn has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 490 of 991 (706350)
09-09-2013 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 7:21 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
These figures are approximate, I am merely illustrating approximately how many new alleles one would expect in modern times, let alone 4500 years of germline mutations.
4500 years ago there weren't 7 billion people to work with.
And your calculation is foobar anyway. The people on earth are diverse, but they aren't that diverse.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 7:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 817 by mindspawn, posted 10-14-2013 7:21 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 491 of 991 (706356)
09-09-2013 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 6:43 AM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
Fair enough, but all the evidence points to a possible bottleneck.
You should think about that sentence for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 6:43 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 492 of 991 (706357)
09-09-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 7:21 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
Can you prove from the DNA of mitochrondial Eve, that she had any predecessors? Evolutionists would claim she had predecessors under evolutionist assumptions, but does the DNA show this?
Yes, and yes. For reasons that you yourself know --- why are you even bothering to ask these questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 7:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by mindspawn, posted 09-11-2013 7:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 493 of 991 (706362)
09-10-2013 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by bluegenes
09-08-2013 9:52 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
Your first statement doesn't follow from the second. A Y-chromosome going to fixation does not mean an extreme bottleneck. Characteristics that have originally occurred in one individual are always going to fixation, bottlenecks or no bottlenecks.
It is your Noah story that requires an extreme (and very recent) bottleneck, and makes it necessary that Noah is the Y ancestor.
I agree it does not guarantee a bottleneck, but it certainly makes one possible. Without mtDNA Adam, the bottleneck of the ark story would already be disproved. Modern genetics has discovered we have a single common ancestor in both genders and in the order described by the bible. Do you feel that it a mere co-incidence?
Apart from the evidence that our mutation rate is more than an order of magnitude too low for the Noah story to be true, don't you remember me pointing you to some papers on diversity in elephants/mammoths, and asking you how big a herd you expected there to be on the ark?
Elephant divergence including African speciation.
Highly divergent sub-species in Asia
And it looks like you'll need a whole herd of giraffe on the Ark, as well. It's filling up fast!
I'm getting old, all I remember is a lot of genetic studies, none of which I felt made a convincing case.
Please see my post below regarding mutation rates. None of your links contradicts what we would expect from 20-40 germline mutations per generation for 4500 years. Rather than comparing allele diversity across populations, it would be more accurate to compare diversity between an individual from each population to be able to predict no. of generations separating the two populations from their common ancestors.
For example, the deep divergence time between the forest and savannah elephant does not require that they were separate species on the ark 4500 years ago, because during periods of large populations many new alleles can be introduced through a germline mutation rate of 20 to 40 per generation. When populations diminish, the no. of derived alleles across each population can remain high. This can reflect large historical populations of each species and not necessarily long periods of diversion. But like I said, counting accumulated differences across populations isn't an effective way of predicting the age of a population since diversion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by bluegenes, posted 09-08-2013 9:52 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2013 4:48 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 496 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2013 5:17 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 503 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2013 2:09 PM mindspawn has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 494 of 991 (706363)
09-10-2013 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 7:21 PM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
mindspawn writes:
That evidence did not support your position in that thread, and neither will support your position if you post it into this thread. Large populations, like humans and cattle, have more germline mutations than small populations. At currently measured rates of approximately 18 to 45 (let's say 20) germline mutations per generation, in a population of 7 billion humans, means that current humans have 140 billion new alleles. Divided into 20 000 gene positions, that is 7 million new alleles in each gene position for the current population of earth.
These figures are approximate, I am merely illustrating approximately how many new alleles one would expect in modern times, let alone 4500 years of germline mutations.
Approximate indeed! Firstly, only about 1.5% of the germline mutations will hit on the genes. Feed that in, and you can work out what proportion of the population will mutate on a specific gene. Multiply that by the number of generations back to Adam and Eve, and you get the proportion of the population which will have a variant from the original 4 alleles of Adam and Eve. The answer, with your mutation rate above, is 1/256. So, you can make testable predictions from your model. I vaguely remember asking whether you'd like it to be tested, but I think you disappeared for a while around that time.
Anyway, I've worked out a easier to understand falsification of your model. You need ~30 mutations per. generation transfer on the Y chromosome alone to support the Noah flood story.
So, now that you know with 99% confidence that your model is false, what are you going to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 7:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by mindspawn, posted 09-10-2013 8:18 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 495 of 991 (706364)
09-10-2013 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by mindspawn
09-10-2013 3:51 AM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
mindspawn writes:
I agree it does not guarantee a bottleneck, but it certainly makes one possible. Without mtDNA Adam, the bottleneck of the ark story would already be disproved.
You mean Y Adam. There has to be a Y Adam at some point in history (genetic drift makes it inevitable), so your model couldn't be falsified by a lack of one. Rather, it's a question of when.
mindspawn writes:
Modern genetics has discovered we have a single common ancestor in both genders and in the order described by the bible. Do you feel that it a mere co-incidence?
As I say, it's inevitable, apart from the order which could be either way. In fact, a recent discovery Message 7 shows that the order is the other way around. That discovery also means that I'm being generous in my last post when I say that your model requires ~30 mutations per. generation on the Y chromosome alone. It's really more than double that!
BTW, you've been linking to a number of articles in your recent posts that actually contradict your point of view if you read them carefully.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by mindspawn, posted 09-10-2013 3:51 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 827 by mindspawn, posted 10-14-2013 8:45 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024