|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But as you probably know most of the human genome does not lie on a "gene position". Most bases are non-coding DNA --- some of it may still have a function, but it's not genes as such, when scientists say that we have 20,000 genes they're only counting the bits of the DNA that code for proteins. So your introduction of the 20,000 figure is just plain wrong, you're dividing by the wrong thing. That makes perfect sense, and I should have thought about that. Coding DNA is only about 1.5 % of the genome, so my figure should have been 105 000 not 7 million. That is a huge difference, but even so that is a lot of alleles that have been recently introduced into each gene location. So its not possible to use the "number of alleles" argument to refute the Noah story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Then you should be presenting your evidence for that on the dating thread. I've been waiting for days for you to come up with something other than more "what-ifs" over there. I would love to get into that discussion, unfortunately I only have the time for this thread, and bluegene's DNA thread at the moment. As soon as I have the time, I will tackle that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Well of course you don't foresee any problems because as soon as a problem crops up you have a new ad hoc what-if to cover it. That isn't science. It isn't even good fiction. For every "maybe" that you cite, I'd like to see you suggest an experiment to test whether what might be really is. We can't say what animals would have been on the ark. We need complete DNA analysis of prehistoric fossils to even start guessing which were on the ark or which have speciated since. And we have as much chance of getting that DNA as having video footage of the ark. So many aspects of this discussion are in the realm of guesswork. Including all the claims of evolutionists that the predators would have eaten the others, or there was not enough space on the ark. If anyone dares to claim there was not enough space on ark, they should cite some references. Or not even bother to make such remarks on this thread. The first to state their case should back it up. I'm tired of hearing that claim without any evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
We need complete DNA analysis of prehistoric fossils to even start guessing which were on the ark or which have speciated since. lol - if they're pre-historic then they wouldn't be around during the recorded history of the Flood. Its so obvious that you're just making up bullshit off the cuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
This is a science thread. We don't stop at guesswork. So many aspects of this discussion are in the realm of guesswork. As I have suggested more than once, you need to be proposing experiments to test your guesses, not just pretending that one guess is as good as the next. The "evolutionists" have mentioned the experiments that have already been done. Your only counter has been to guess that the experiments are wrong. Gotcha again: You have to propose experiments to show that the other experiments are wrong. Science is an infinite loop. There's no escape.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
you need to be proposing experiments to test your guesses, Well I went, in Message 205, so far as to link him to this grade school level science project that he could even do in his own home. He didn't even reply so I don't have much hope for him actually going out and finding his own experiments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
But all that is just irrelevant until you can show that those critters were on the ARK. You need to show that the rino that would have been on the Ark was a first rino and not the rinos that actually existed only 4500 years ago. Good luck. But there is one other thing you MUST show and that is the genetic bottleneck at 4500 years ago in all existing horses, rinos, marsupials, humans, bears, elephants, giraffes, deer, humans, etc. I am not on this thread to prove the ark story. I am on this thread to refute confident claims of evolutionists that the ark story is impossible. So far statements made concerning the impossibility of the ark story have had no convincing evidence. Whoever makes a claim should back up the claim in a science thread. You are all waiting for evidence from me to prove the flood, when I said I cannot prove it. So I am not making confident claims here, yet many on this thread are, so the onus is on the ones making the claims to back up their claims. If anyone would like to make these claims, then they should be backing it up with evidence or it just sounds like unscientific hot air:1) No vegetation could grow after a seawater flood. 2) The predators would eat most of the others when let out the ark 3) DNA analysis disproves the flood story 4) A flood of biblical proportions is impossible. Referring to point 4, we need evidence of a high water mark at the P-T boundary, or evidence of a site on the planet showing an unbroken continuation of terrestrial geology across the P-T boundary that shows no sign of flooding. Or any other convincing evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2689 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
This is a science thread. We don't stop at guesswork. I agree. Please see the post below. If participants of this thread cannot refute the flood, why make confident claims based on guesswork?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
mindspawn writes: If anyone would like to make these claims, then they should be backing it up with evidence or it just sounds like unscientific hot air: 1) No vegetation could grow after a seawater flood. Here's a little experiment you can perform with your children: Science Project: How Does Salt Affect Seed Germination? Science Project: How Does Salt Affect Seed Germination? - Owlcation But just in case you can't be arsed to do it, here's the results:
Abstract of Experiment and Results The problem was to determine the effect of salt water on germinating radish seeds, and also to determine if there was a maximum concentration that could be tolerated. To do this, coffee filters were wet with 1 tablespoon of salt water from cups that increased in concentration by 1/2 teaspoon of salt in each cup of 8 oz. of water. The filters were then placed in the plastic bags. The 50 seeds were then placed on top of the coffee filters, inside the bag. The seeds that germinated were counted and charted. Tap and distilled water without salt were used as controls. The results were that the germination was 100% with the controls, tap and distilled water. On the groups exposed to salt water the germination decreased as the salt concentration increased, and no germination occurred at amounts of 1.5 tsp. of salt or higher. This supported the hypothesis, which was, "The more salt in the water, the fewer seeds will germinate." This information could help gardeners and farmers to know when saline reaches dangerous levels for radish seeds. Raddish seeds aren't of course ALL seeds. But I'm willing to bet my house that you'd get the same result from grass seeds - grass, as you may know is what cows, camels, deer, rabbits, horses etc eat. But salt is the least of your problems. what would you expect the result to be of covering our grass seeds with several thousand feet of brackish water to be for over a year? Then we have the problem that in order to grow at all the seeds need to be at the correct depth in the soil. Grass seeds must be either on or no more than a few millimetres below the soil if they are to germinate. Now we have the problem that all the top soil has been stripped away and has been replaced by sediments. Very wet sediments. Where are your seeds? Any that floated sank after water logging and rotted along with all other vegetable matter. If any survived this, they're buried below the sediment. Any that aren't buried and/or rotted have to grow in saline conditions. Not only that, they have to grow quick enough and in quantities large enough to feed a quantity of herbivores. No chance.
2) The predators would eat most of the others when let out the ark Do you really need proof that carnivores eat other animals? (Reminder: this is the guy that claims that mountains are hills and that the flood didn't require a miracle. Possibly a double standard here?)Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But all of you points you try to make are irrelevant and frankly, not really honest.
The topic of the thread is "Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?" The answer to that is really simple. Every animal alive today must show that it went through a bottleneck 4500 years ago. If even one species of animal does not show that bottleneck signature then the Ark story is refuted. Humans do not show a bottleneck 4500 years ago. Goats do not show a bottleneck signature at 4500 years ago. Chimpanzees do not show a bottleneck signature at 4500 years ago. That means that the Biblical Flood Stories are false and impossible. It does not matter if you want to pretend that the Flood happened at the PT boundary or the KT boundary or any other time. The Biblical Flood stories are myth. The Ark story is impossible. And that is not just confident, it is fact.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I don't claim impossible co-incidence, but its just interesting that nothing contradicts the bible. (except for dating assumptions You mean there is nothing other than evidence for dating that contradicts the Bible that you cannot ignore or make excuses for. As long as you accept high rates of macroevolution and then claim that there is no time for evolution at normal rates, you can pretend to have made a case. Are you going to explain how "adapted" traits are passed to the next generation without genes?
If you can fault my logic and come up with completely different figures you are welcome to point it out Your logic is pretty well trashed in the thread. You don't need me doing more of it.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
You mean there is nothing other than evidence for dating that contradicts the Bible that you cannot ignore or make excuses for.
He's already stated that he can deny or make excuses for the results of radiometric dating. I'd sure like to see him try!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
So I am not making confident claims here, yet many on this thread are, so the onus is on the ones making the claims to back up their claims. But you are making a positive claim, i.e. you are making the claim that the Flood was a real event and that it took place at the PT boundary. To which we naturally respond "Oh yeah? Prove it!". Now I realise that you are not claiming that you can absolutely prove that the Flood happened. I understand that you are not stating your case that strongly. The problem is that in order to make such a case at all, you need to have some decent evidence. It's not up to others to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove yourself right. Where I do agree with you is in the notion that anyone who claims to have evidence that falsifies your claim ought to produce that evidence. That's only fair. But the fact remains that if you want to claim that the Flood really happened, you need to start with soem compelling evidence in favour. That still applies no matter how tentatively you make your claim. Just to show you that I'm not singling you out here, take a look at this wiki article on the Burden of Proof; quote: In a science thread that means you need to show empirical evidence for any claim, no matter how tentatively held. That burden of proof is on you. To shift that burden to your critics is unreasonable. Having said all that...
If anyone would like to make these claims, then they should be backing it up with evidence or it just sounds like unscientific hot air: 1) No vegetation could grow after a seawater flood. 2) The predators would eat most of the others when let out the ark 3) DNA analysis disproves the flood story 4) A flood of biblical proportions is impossible. Referring to point 4, we need evidence of a high water mark at the P-T boundary, or evidence of a site on the planet showing an unbroken continuation of terrestrial geology across the P-T boundary that shows no sign of flooding. Or any other convincing evidence. Jeez, is that all? Here ya go;
quote: Full Text So there you go; the Xuanwei Formation is a terrestrial layer that spans the PTB. No big flood. A sharp drop off in plant life, yes, but no corresponding flood layer. Took about a minute find and that only because I type slow. So case closed right? Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
He's already stated that he can deny or make excuses for the results of radiometric dating. I'd sure like to see him try! You underestimate the power and ease of denial as a strategy. If three monkeys can do it, surely mindspawn can too. And stir in a healthy heaping handful of making stuff up and denying even the words in Genesis and you've got a posting strategy that can survive thread after thread of convincing evidence.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But you are making a positive claim, i.e. you are making the claim that the Flood was a real event and that it took place at the PT boundary. I disagree somewhat. Plenty of people are claiming that the possibility that the Flood happened has been conclusively ruled out. All that should necessary to debate such a claim is a plausible sequence of events that is not countered by the evidence. In my opinion, mindspawn has been successful at challenging at least some of the assumptions people have made. He has scored some points. But he only needs to lose on a single issue in order to lose the argument, and he's made some pretty weak arguments on a number of issues.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024