Introduction of Pest Species

Hello/sorry if this has been mentioned before (and other no0b etc),The point that I would like to raise is a rather convoluted one, so please bear with me.Now, one of the prime flaws in YECism is the factor of antipodean flightless birds - the emu, kiwi, cassowary and (until recently) the moa. The getting of these animals to the ark is a great flaw for creationist theory, and this is usually countered by the assertation that all animals lived everywhere - i.e. these birds were found in the holy land. This elimantes the problem of large, flightless birds somehow traversing thousands of nautical and terrestrial miles to reach the ark. However, from this two problems arise. Not only do the birds then decide to traverse thousands of miles to go from Arafat to the Antipodes, but the problem of introduced pest species.If all animals had possesed a global ditsribution (and thus all came into contact with one another) why is it that when foreign species are introduced they decimate local wildlife? The prime example here is of introduced rats annhilating the Kiwi population, but many more examples exist - cats, rats, bullfrogs, rabbits, foxes - the list goes on. Now, I understand the creationist concept of genetic degradation, but this doesn't account for species losing the ability to deal with what would be their primary competitors in the space of just 4,500 years or so.I've posted this on other sites before, but failed to garner a coherent response. Would any YECists please tell me how their theory accounts for these anomalies.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Interesting new twist. I'll reserve comment until I see whether any of your target audience responds.

Thread moved here from the Biological Evolution II forum.

The answer is simple, and I think you may have answered it yourself in your post. After a group of birds reached a new habitat far far away from Arafat, they became too comfortable with this new habitat and lost their ability to fly. Minute changes in their genetic makeup (I'm talking about other species as well that exist in the same habitat) were enough to make them suceptible to certain foreign species. The fact of the matter is we have only been actively observing micro-evolution for the last 150 years or so. It is entirely possible that genetic degradation occured at a faster rate in the past than nowadays. Based only on what we can observe today, we really cannot make an accurate model to how fast the animal themselves were degrading, say, 3,000 years ago.

But surely you're forgeting that the loss of the ability to fly was not a disadvantage, but rather an advantage to these species - it allowed them to grow larger and be able to become more dominant in their habitats. To then argue that 'this is what degradation lead to' sounds suspiciously like you are accepting 'survival of the fittest'; albeit in a reversed state. Either way, this is surely a form of evolution...In addition, human tribal accounts would include this rapid genetic degradation? Also, if (for example) post-diluvian fossils cannot be formed, surely fossilised Kiwi such as those noted here No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.rsnz.org/publish/jrsnz/1995/43.phpsuggest that flightles birds were antidiluvian?This message has been edited by Sisyphus, 01-10-2005 21:04 AM

Hi,Sis, to me, the Yec theory falls over if they say the Ark only carried 'kinds'. IOW, if a parent species 'kind' was liberated from the Ark wherever-it-landed, there should be a trail of transitional fossils or remains all the way to their new or original niche.Having no defence against predators should mean they ran the gauntlet all the way to N.Z. with the likelihood of few survivors. Unless God was riding shotgun.

Exactly; and as the fossils shown in the link I just added in an edit suggest, the birds were flightless for a loooong time, thus making such transit far harder...

Hi Sisyphus. I'm guessing that your response was for me. No, I did not forget. I never said that genetic degradation was a genetic change that always results in some kind of disadvantage for the organism.In this context, it simply means that the flightless bird suffered a change that made it different than the moment of creation. Whether such change is advantageous or not completely depends on the niche that the bird resides in. It also really depends on who is interpreting it.People these days are generally bigger than people in the past. To us, this is a disadvantage in our society and that a thinner body is prefered over a more bodied body. However, one would say that having more flesh was prefered in the old days when food was not as plentiful. How so? We know for a fact that people from primitive cultures make terrible scientists when it comes to observation and record keeping. You also have to remember that a great majority of primitive cultures depended on oral tradition to pass on knowledge from one generation another. I'm sorry, but you are going to have to explain more. In addition, I have no idea what antidiluvian means. Please enlighten me.

Sisyphus,This is a great argument, but as you already mentioned it is open to ad hoc counter-arguments. Of course, any scientific theory can be argued against with ad hoc theories. The creationists often use The Fall^tm to explain away anything that is a problem, even though they have absolutely no evidence that such a thing occured. Suffice it to say, if creationists have to rely on ad hoc theories you know that you have already won.

When I was in philosophy 101, I loved hearing the words "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Sounds kinda neat if you ask me.Anyway, yes, it does sound like ad hoc. However, it could also be viewed as interpreting the evidence in a different way.I can certainly see why evos have a problem with understanding how creos think. Creos maintain a firm conviction that the bible is the inspired word of God, the unerring and final guide to faith and life.Therefore, when we have a set of evidence, such as genetic variation among a population or the flightless bird example, we can attempt to explain it with "the fall" and go from there, given that this is not the prefered methodology among scientists.

---

Here is something to relieve stress.

​

a + b = t
(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b)
a - b = at - bt
a - at = b - bt
a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4
(a - t/2) = (b - t/2)
a - t/2 = b - t/2
a = b
Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.

quote:

---

Anyway, yes, it does sound like ad hoc. However, it could also be viewed as interpreting the evidence in a different way.

---

Well, there is interpreting the evidence and then there is correctly interpreting the evidence. Making up theories, whole cloth, that have no evidence to support them in order to save another theory from falsification is not a correct way of interpreting data. Before "The Fall" can be used as an explanation it must first be evidenced and tested. There must be a detectable genetic history where increased genetic mutation is evident.The best way to detect an ad hoc theory is to ask how the theory in question can be potentially falsified. What evidence would potentially falsify the "Fall Theory"? Until that question is answered, The Fall can not be used as a scientific explanation.

quote:

---

I can certainly see why evos have a problem with understanding how creos think. Creos maintain a firm conviction that the bible is the inspired word of God, the unerring and final guide to faith and life.

---

Scientists start with the evidence, form hypotheses, and then test the hypotheses through the scientific method. From this they are able to construct tentative conclusions. Creationists start with an absolute conclusion, and then fit in the evidence where they see fit. With creationism, the only testing done is to see if the evidence can fit the already agreed upon conclusion. Creationism is, literally, backwards science.From this type of philosophy, creationists have no problem constructing ad hoc theories. After all, special creation and a young earth are TRUE, no matter what. Therefore, any explanation that leads to the conclusion has to be true, no matter if the explanation is testable, falsifiale, or even evidenced. It is this type of backwards science that frustrates, dare I say infuriates, real scientists. Creationism likes to call itself science while ignoring the founding principles that define the practice of science. Kind of like calling yourself a juggler if you can hold more than one ball in your hand.Fundamentally, the easiest way to keep creationism (and ID for that matter) out of public schoolrooms is to reveal the poor scientific practices of those who support creationism. "The Fall" is one of a myriad of examples that point to this insufficiency. Others that I can think of are "Common Designer, Common Design", "It Looks Designed", and "The Fossil Record Shows the Order of Death" (look at the "fossil sorting" threads for priceless examples of this one). However, lay persons on school boards are not that proficient in detecting poor scientific practices which has led to the acceptance of pseudoscience within the science classroom.Getting back to the OP, there are a myriad of other "interpretations" that could explain why exotic species tend to take over new environments:1. Evolution, of course.
2. Local species are altruistic and therefore don't mind making room for new "guests".
3. Space aliens are beaming down gravity rays that slow down endemic species, allowing exotic species to take over.Well, my imagination slowed down after the last one, but you get my drift. Suffice it to say, there are interpretations and there are scientific interpretations. Only the scientific interpretations should be allowed within science and science classes.

I`n sure Yecs overcome the movement of niche species to their new/original homes, passing over oceans, through predator-lands, by saying Noah ran a delivery service. In a un-navigable, un-propelled vessel.

Hey Lam, Diluvian simply means Flood (in latin, IIRC), whilst 'ante' and 'post' diluvian simply mean before and after the flood. However, as I erroneously spelt it 'anti'diluvian, I can understand your confusion.First off,

quote:

---

In this context, it simply means that the flightless bird suffered a change that made it different than the moment of creation. Whether such change is advantageous or not completely depends on the niche that the bird resides in. It also really depends on who is interpreting it.

---

The mechanism that you're proposing here sounds suspiciously like natural selection; do you accept this part of evolution? and, if not, can you tell me how your mechanism differs?

quote:

---

How so? We know for a fact that people from primitive cultures make terrible scientists when it comes to observation and record keeping. You also have to remember that a great majority of primitive cultures depended on oral tradition to pass on knowledge from one generation another.

---

I'm not implying that they are great record keepers, but consider it this way; if a bird suddenly lost its ability to fly and grew to enormous sizes, and was then something that your tribe hunted, it seems unlikely that this sudden change would not be noticed, even by tribesmen.Also, your belief, as Loudmouth pointed out, that rapid genetic degradation occured is completely unsupported. Do you have any genetic evidence to point to this, or can you suggest an environment in which this would occur?What was meant by my comment is that if no post-diluvian fossils can be formed, and that fossils of flightless kiwis can be found, how would rapid genetic degradation account for this? If you believe that fossils can still rapidly form after the flood (i.e. today) please point me to evidence that implies this.

quote:

---

Scientists start with the evidence, form hypotheses, and then test the hypotheses through the scientific method. From this they are able to construct tentative conclusions. Creationists start with an absolute conclusion, and then fit in the evidence where they see fit. With creationism, the only testing done is to see if the evidence can fit the already agreed upon conclusion. Creationism is, literally, backwards science.

---

Finally, as a quick aside, the very reason that Creationism is so popular is perhaps this rigid consistency - minority social influence thrives upon factors such as this to bring about a gradual conversion in the individual (I'd have research posted here, but as it's not the issue, I shan't).

I think Lam is arguing as devil's advocate here rather than espousing his own beliefs. Unless he had a damascene conversion while I wasn't looking.TTFN,WK