Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 226 of 298 (328424)
07-03-2006 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by anglagard
06-20-2006 1:53 AM


Of course there are fossils on mountaintops, the mountaintops used to be seabeds. Right now I'm 2500 feet up standing on limestone all around that is full of 250my fossils, it's called the Permian Basin.
SO cute that all the mountains just HAPPENED to be sea beds and there is all this limestone everywhere but somehow none of that is even remotely possibly evidence for a worldwide flood. So cute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by anglagard, posted 06-20-2006 1:53 AM anglagard has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 227 of 298 (328425)
07-03-2006 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
07-03-2006 3:57 AM


quote:
Yes, there is really no problem with the idea that human populations grew very quickly. A little basic math can show how many in a short time
Great - let's see it - turn 8 people into 4 billion in 4,500 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 3:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:35 AM CK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 228 of 298 (328426)
07-03-2006 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Quetzal
06-26-2006 9:32 AM


Re: What's the density of hay (or how big/heavy is a bale)?
The question arises, besides the animals you mentioned, about what happened to all the lineages/clades of really odd-ball mammals that are completely extinct today. All of the order Pyrotheria - about the size of a mastodon - which have no living descendants. I assume we're supposed to believe that this entire clade wandered off the ark, swam to South America, then promptly died. Maybe our PetVet can explain what Carodnia vieirai (picture a hippo with fangs) ate? And how Noah knew? Then there's the really weird ones like the marsupial carnivore Thylacosmilus (what did it eat, again?). Once more, they apparently got off the ark, swam to South America, then promptly keeled over and died leaving no descendants. The bestiary of "kinds" on the ark doesn't just include dinosaurs, but every one of the now-extinct mammalian orders which left NO descendants. The bible says they were on the ark - what happened to them?
The Bible does NOT say they were on the ark. It says two representatives of each Kind were on the ark. That would mean that many species/varieties of the Kind were not on the ark and died in the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Quetzal, posted 06-26-2006 9:32 AM Quetzal has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 229 of 298 (328427)
07-03-2006 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by CK
07-03-2006 5:31 AM


Oh it can be done. Fiddle with it yourself a little. Maybe I'll get to it later. Start with Noah's immediate descendants as spelled out in Genesis 10:
Genesis 10 (KJV) - Now these [are] the generations
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 5:31 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 5:39 AM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 230 of 298 (328428)
07-03-2006 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:19 AM


So how did a mere two individuals manage produce offspring that "microevolved" into several distinct species ? Even explaining the genetic diversity found in a single species today is a problem for YECs. And why exactly should this amount of evolutionary change be considered "microevolution" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:42 AM PaulK has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4209 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 231 of 298 (328429)
07-03-2006 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:35 AM


quote:
Oh it can be done. Fiddle with it yourself a little. Maybe I'll get to it later.
Why should I answer it ? It just appears to be another in a long line of "it's simple if you just handwave and don't actually answer the question" answers from you.
If you want to suggest it's possible YOU work out the answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:11 AM CK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 232 of 298 (328430)
07-03-2006 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by PaulK
07-03-2006 5:35 AM


So how did a mere two individuals manage produce offspring that "microevolved" into several distinct species ? Even explaining the genetic diversity found in a single species today is a problem for YECs.
Shouldn't be. Isn't for me. I just think of the incredible diversity of dogs for starters. I assume dogs retained the kind of genetic richness still that all the kinds on the ark once had, only now most of the other kinds have arrived at near dead ends genetically from many speciation events over many generations caused by reproductive isolation, where they aren't evolving much any more.
And why exactly should this amount of evolutionary change be considered "microevolution" ?
Because it's built into the Kind and will never produce anything but a variation on that Kind. No matter how bizarre you can get with dog breeds, they are all still dogs.
Evolution assumes the process is open-ended, but a creationist assumes that it is self-limiting and there appears to be more evidence on our side of this one as the more speciation events there are, the less genetic diversity and the more hard-wired the species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2006 5:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2006 6:00 AM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 233 of 298 (328435)
07-03-2006 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:42 AM


It should be a problem for you especially. It isn't so long ago that you were insisting that genetic diversity was decreasing. The comparison with dogs doesn't work without begging the question - dogs weren't bred from a single pair. Never mind that the difference between dog breeds is maintained by artificial selection - in the wild it wouldn't work like that at all.
The assumption that kinds were "engineered" to have this level of diversity also fails on the same grounds. Worse for you, the failure to find solid evidence of discrete kinds through biological investigation also counts against you and for evolution.
So it appears that the only reason for calling this "microevolution" is the assumption that there are preprogrammed mutations that would produce the diversity we see. It's a nice illustration of the fact that the creationist division between "micro-" and "macro-" is an ad hoc one distinguishing the evolution they are prepared to accept from that they absolutely reject.
quote:
Evolution assumes the process is open-ended, but a creationist assumes that it is self-limiting and there appears to be more evidence on our side of this one as the more speciation events there are, the less genetic diversity and the more hard-wired the species.
Of course this isn't really true. You're really ignoring the issue of timescales and here again the actual evidence supports the mainstream scientific view. What we'd expect to see in the rpesent day is pretty much the same. And as I mentioned above the fact that biological classification points to a single phylogenetic tree rather than the multiple trees of your "kinds" is a major piece of evidence against your view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:31 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 298 (328438)
07-03-2006 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by CK
07-03-2006 5:39 AM


Arriving at 6 billion is easy
Thought you'd want to disprove my assertion.
It's not hard to get a very rough number. The sons of Noah had seven and four and five sons of their own. Let's be conservative and give three sons in each generation from then on and of course not count daughters. That's sixteen grandsons of Noah's.
First generation (1) 3,
2) 16,
3)if each has three sons that's 48
4) x 3 = 144
5) x 3 = 432
6) x 3 = 1296
7) x 3 = 3888
8) x 3 = 11664
9) 34992
10) 104976
11) 314928
12) 944784
13) 2,834,352
14) 8,503,056
15) 25,509,168
16) 76,527,504
17) 229,582,512
18) 688,747,536
19) 2,066 --- ---
I goofed up and erased the number in the calculator at this point, but you can see that it's possible to get two billion descendants of the sons of Noah in a mere nineteen generations,* and all you need is to multiply that by 3 at that point and voila, the present population of earth probably within a few hundred years. The real average of course between then and now was much lower, but one can adjust the average way down and still account for the whole 6 billion today without much problem.
*and that's just the male descendants! And since I'm only counting the actual male births in each generation, the number of people actually living at the time would in fact be a lot higher, as it would include many still living from the previous generations.
Not hard at ALL to get six billion from the sons of Noah.
Edited by Faith, : added footnote
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 5:39 AM CK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 235 of 298 (328443)
07-03-2006 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by PaulK
07-03-2006 6:00 AM


It should be a problem for you especially. It isn't so long ago that you were insisting that genetic diversity was decreasing.
I still insist on this. It is decreasing. Speciation leads to reduced genetic diversity. That's been my argument all along. It is my argument for the built-in limits to speciation, and therefore the definition of the barrier to macroevolution.
The comparison with dogs doesn't work without begging the question - dogs weren't bred from a single pair. Never mind that the difference between dog breeds is maintained by artificial selection - in the wild it wouldn't work like that at all.
All that is required is migration, reproductive isolation. It's a form of selection if not strictly Natural Selection. Groups separate from each other and populate different parts of the land, and I would think we could expect a lot of migration away from the point of origin soon off the ark. The mere separation itself is a separation and reduction of genetic possibilities within each daughter group and therefore the development of characteristic features in each group. The more such divergences occur, the more differences between the different groups will show up.
The assumption that kinds were "engineered" to have this level of diversity also fails on the same grounds.
Huh?
Worse for you, the failure to find solid evidence of discrete kinds through biological investigation also counts against you and for evolution.
It's perfectly reasonable, nevertheless, that we postulate original kinds although at present there is no way to strictly identify them. How could we? Most varieties have died out. The originals are just about impossible to guess at. It's a handicap we simply have to live with.
So it appears that the only reason for calling this "microevolution" is the assumption that there are preprogrammed mutations that would produce the diversity we see.
I don't think in terms of mutations. I think in terms of Mendelian genetics, the selection of built-in genetic factors with each new sexual combination.
It's a nice illustration of the fact that the creationist division between "micro-" and "macro-" is an ad hoc one distinguishing the evolution they are prepared to accept from that they absolutely reject.
Well, whatever. It's consistent. It makes sense. It simply contradicts the way evolutionists think.
Evolution assumes the process is open-ended, but a creationist assumes that it is self-limiting and there appears to be more evidence on our side of this one as the more speciation events there are, the less genetic diversity and the more hard-wired the species.
Of course this isn't really true. You're really ignoring the issue of timescales and here again the actual evidence supports the mainstream scientific view. What we'd expect to see in the rpesent day is pretty much the same. And as I mentioned above the fact that biological classification points to a single phylogenetic tree rather than the multiple trees of your "kinds" is a major piece of evidence against your view.
I have no idea what you are saying here. Sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2006 6:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2006 7:02 AM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 236 of 298 (328452)
07-03-2006 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Faith
07-03-2006 6:31 AM


If genetic diversity is decreasing it should be far lower than it was at the supposed time of the flood. According to you many "kinds" - which represent multiple species - were reduced to just two individuals. That is not a great deal of diversity to start with - it's less than is observed today. So not only do you have a problem, your own arguments make it much worse.
quote:
All that is required is migration, reproductive isolation.
Which is in itself a problem. Why are they going to migrate far enough to become isolated ? And it's not enough without mutation.
quote:
It's perfectly reasonable, nevertheless, that we postulate original kinds although at present there is no way to strictly identify them.
By which you mean that it is all right with you that all you have is ad hoc assumptions - and that the evidence is against you. There is no mention of this "kind" idea in the ark story - and it does refer to modern species (the dove and the raven).
quote:
I don't think in terms of mutations. I think in terms of Mendelian genetics, the selection of built-in genetic factors with each new sexual combination.
Then your idea can't work. The theoretical limit on the genetic diversity of two individuals (4 alleles per locus) is still too low.
quote:
Well, whatever. It's consistent. It makes sense. It simply contradicts the way evolutionists think.
It contradicts the way evolutionists think - because evolutionists think "implausible ad hoc assumptions are bad". I couldn't even call your view consistent except in the formal sense that it isn't logically contradictory. Essentially you are arbitrarily assuming that evolution works even better than mainstream science allows when it agrees with your views and not at all when it contradicts them. There is definitely a strong tension there - and it is all ad hoc assumptions.
As for the final part.
1) Timescales. The timescales derived by science are far longer than you allow and do not show the rate of change that you require. The evidence supports the scientific timescales. The observed rates of change are consistent with the mainstream scientific view, and not evidence against it. Rather the evidence of timescales and of slower rates of change than your view requires is evidence against your view.
2) The evidence shows one single, massive tree of common descent. Your idea postulates that each "kind" has it's own tree. This evidence, then, supports the view that change beyond your assumed "kinds" has occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 6:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 7:21 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 237 of 298 (328456)
07-03-2006 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by PaulK
07-03-2006 7:02 AM


If genetic diversity is decreasing it should be far lower than it was at the supposed time of the flood.
It is. Certainly in any given living "species" it is.
According to you many "kinds" - which represent multiple species - were reduced to just two individuals. That is not a great deal of diversity to start with - it's less than is observed today.
The diversity of which I speak is GENETIC diversity WITHIN the genome of each creature. THAT is what reduces with reproductive isolation. Of course the entire complement of genetic diversity within the whole isolated population is also reduced with every such isolation.
To have blue eyes an individual must have a b gene and a b gene. You can't have a B and a b, that gets you brown, as does B and B. Well, if only bb's make up a newly isolated population they will only produce blue-eyed offspring and that will characterize that group in distinction to the parent group. This is a reduction in genetic diversity accompanying the hardwiring of a trait. A whole raft of genes goes with any split-off population, however, leaving a whole different raft of genes behind. These groups diverge accordingly, each genetically reduced while with diverging characteristics. This is the basic process of speciation.
So not only do you have a problem, your own arguments make it much worse.
Not that I can see.
All that is required is migration, reproductive isolation.
Which is in itself a problem. Why are they going to migrate far enough to become isolated ? And it's not enough without mutation.
Actually it is.
The picture given in the Bible of how Noah's descendants spread out and populated various territories is interesting to think about. Japheth's sons went mostly north into the area of Russia and west into Europe. That's the "Caucasians." Certainly they developed characteristics in each new locale as each group inbred. Same with the sons of Ham and Shem. All it takes is isolation of a group to produce distinctive characteristics.
It's perfectly reasonable, nevertheless, that we postulate original kinds although at present there is no way to strictly identify them.
By which you mean that it is all right with you that all you have is ad hoc assumptions - and that the evidence is against you.
No, I simply mean that that's life. Nothing we can do about it. It's all we have to work from.
There is no mention of this "kind" idea in the ark story - and it does refer to modern species (the dove and the raven).
True. Very hard to know which were considered a kind or type to be taken on the ark.
I don't think in terms of mutations. I think in terms of Mendelian genetics, the selection of built-in genetic factors with each new sexual combination.
Then your idea can't work. The theoretical limit on the genetic diversity of two individuals (4 alleles per locus) is still too low.
Assumption is that there were many more loci for a particular trait in the original kinds, much more variety possible. All kinds of polyploidies if I have that word right. But whenever a population splits, not just one locus or trait is affected anyway, but the whole complement of traits is split, alleles for each going the separate directions.
Well, whatever. It's consistent. It makes sense. It simply contradicts the way evolutionists think.
It contradicts the way evolutionists think - because evolutionists think "implausible ad hoc assumptions are bad". I couldn't even call your view consistent except in the formal sense that it isn't logically contradictory. Essentially you are arbitrarily assuming that evolution works even better than mainstream science allows when it agrees with your views and not at all when it contradicts them. There is definitely a strong tension there - and it is all ad hoc assumptions.
Could be. But it hangs together.
As for the final part.
1) Timescales. The timescales derived by science are far longer than you allow and do not show the rate of change that you require. The evidence supports the scientific timescales. The observed rates of change are consistent with the mainstream scientific view, and not evidence against it. Rather the evidence of timescales and of slower rates of change than your view requires is evidence against your view.
2) The evidence shows one single, massive tree of common descent. Your idea postulates that each "kind" has it's own tree. This evidence, then, supports the view that change beyond your assumed "kinds" has occurred.
I don't see much real evidence for any of that. Or, I don't see BETTER evidence for that than for the YEC scenario.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2006 7:02 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by nwr, posted 07-03-2006 8:12 AM Faith has replied
 Message 240 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2006 8:15 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 241 by sidelined, posted 07-03-2006 8:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 242 by RickJB, posted 07-03-2006 9:33 AM Faith has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6419
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 238 of 298 (328468)
07-03-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:08 AM


I have a few common sense questions of my own to add.
1: How did the two koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia after the flood, and why were they not noticed in the middle east?
An absence of mention does not prove they didn't exist and weren't noticed. However, why is this such a problem? It is possible they (micro)evolved from an earlier parent type that was on the ark, after locating themselves in a particular geographic environment that then split from the original unified land mass and became Australia.
That would require an extraordinarily high rate of macro-evolution.
There is no reason to assume that insects were taken on the ark the way the animals were.
quote:
gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
What do you take to be the meaning of "every creeping thing of the earth" in that text?
If you exclude insect types on the ark, you still have not solved the problem of how to feed the echidnas or other insectivorous species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 1:56 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6419
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 239 of 298 (328472)
07-03-2006 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
07-03-2006 7:21 AM


The diversity of which I speak is GENETIC diversity WITHIN the genome of each creature.
What is normally meant by "genetic diversity" is the range of genes present in the population as a whole. The expression "genetic diversity" doesn't mean anything if applied to "each creature", at least with the normal meaning of the terminology. If you are going to use non-standard meanings, then you need to define your terminology.
THAT is what reduces with reproductive isolation.
What reduces with reproductive isolation, is the genetic diversity of the population as a whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 7:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:04 PM nwr has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 240 of 298 (328474)
07-03-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
07-03-2006 7:21 AM


Genetic diversity is decreasing in all living species ? Any evidence of that?
quote:
The diversity of which I speak is GENETIC diversity WITHIN the genome of each creature. THAT is what reduces with reproductive isolation
You're not making much sense. Reproductive isolation in itself can't reduce genetic diversity in any sense.
quote:
To have blue eyes an individual must have a b gene and a b gene. You can't have a B and a b, that gets you brown, as does B and B. Well, if only bb's make up a newly isolated population they will only produce blue-eyed offspring and that will characterize that group in distinction to the parent group.
But there will still be plenty of 'B' alleles in the remaining population so genetic diversity hasn't decreased overall.
quote:
Not that I can see.
There is too much genetic diversity around to be reasonably explained assuing the Ark story. Assuming that genetic diversity has DECREASED since the Flood makes that problem worse. Why can't you see that ?
quote:
The picture given in the Bible of how Noah's descendants spread out and populated various territories is interesting to think about
Yes, it only covers people relatively near to the Middle East. That's interesting. But that's about the only interesting part of it. But your picture of isolation doesn't work. Relatively few human populations have been completely isolated for any length of time.
quote:
No, I simply mean that that's life. Nothing we can do about it. It's all we have to work from.
But that's not true. We can go with the evidence from biology instead of the opinions of creationists. There's no good reason from biology to consider your "original kinds" and they aren't even implied - in the sense you mean - by the Bible.
quote:
Assumption is that there were many more loci for a particular trait in the original kinds, much more variety possible
That really doesn't make much sense as it stands. Perhaps you could explain what you mean in more detail.
quote:
I don't see much real evidence for any of that. Or, I don't see BETTER evidence for that than for the YEC scenario.
To use just one example (and there's cerainly more) there are many transitional fossils. If discrete kinds exist then we shouldn't find fossils which happen to neatly fill the "gaps" between "kinds". So there's certainly decent evidence for common descent. So where's the "as good" evidence for creationist "kinds" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 7:21 AM Faith 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