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?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5990 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 241 of 298 (328479)
07-03-2006 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
07-03-2006 7:21 AM


Faith
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.
Your own arguement undoes your position for Noah's family being the only surviving race on earth.Otherwise you must explain how all the genetic diversity in humans like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis or hemophilia could occur unless all these genetic disorders were present in Noah's family since they are about as genetically isolated as it gets eh?. This is just a sampling list of all the genetic disorders in humans.

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 247 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 1:59 PM sidelined has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 5072 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 242 of 298 (328483)
07-03-2006 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
07-03-2006 7:21 AM


Sorry Faith, but my mind boggles at the mental gymnastics you have going on here.
You reject evidence of evolution over billions of years, yet try to posit a super-fast form of "micro" evolution from "kinds" (I do hate this term) without any scientific evidence of a process or any definition of what an initial "kind" is.
By the way, you'd have a chronic in-breeding problem if you attempted to derive all of humanity from Noah.

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 250 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:17 PM RickJB has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6329 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 243 of 298 (328492)
07-03-2006 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:18 AM


Re: A small point
quote:
You don't have to assume great differences among the sons of Noah and their wives, though there could have been, since genetic diversity in any couple would have been much greater in those days, leading to much more variety in offspring. We assume far greater genetic potential so that all those varieties would have been expressed simply in the processes of migration and reproductive/genetic isolation of the different groups.
The point is that there couldn't have been any significant genetic diversity in Noah's sons OR their wives. Noah's line goes back only 9 generations to Adam, his sons only 10. Their wives may have had a few more generations but in the YEC myth they also descend from the same couple, Adam and Eve, that Noah and his sons descend from. There is no diversity to start with and no possibility of "greater genetic potential".
Edited by Randy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:18 AM Faith has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6329 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 244 of 298 (328503)
07-03-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:43 AM


Re: Egyptian Pyramids?
quote:
It took merely Jacob and his family of twelve sons and their families to grow to more than a million Israelites in Egypt in 400 years starting around 1850 BC or so. It is mathematically possible. So we'd assume that the Egyptians had multiplied on a similar scale after the Flood a few hundred years earlier, and that pyramid-building was what the Israelites were doing there. Yes, we just assume different dates.
Except that there is absolutely no independant evidence that the 12 sons of Jacob fathered more than a million Israelites in Egypt. You can't use one myth to try to substantiate another.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 4:43 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:11 PM Randy has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6329 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 245 of 298 (328507)
07-03-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
07-03-2006 4:08 AM


Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
quote:
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. Or maybe both were on the ark and migrated to that portion of the land mass. It's all a guess.
The problem is not just Kangaroos and Kolas. There are 13 families and 180 species of marsupials and 3 monotremes in Australia. Somehow they got there without placental mammals for company. This is a problem that YECs can't really deal with. I have bumped that thread.
quote:
There is no reason to assume that insects were taken on the ark the way the animals were.
Many insect families could not have survived the flood on or off the ark. I shamelessly bumped my thread on that topic. The little brown bat eats about half its weight in insects every night. What did they eat on the ark?
quote:
I would suppose it likely that koalas did not exist at the time of the ark but (micro)evolved from a parent type that was on the ark, becoming reproductively isolated at some point, and specialized as noted.
It is not the least bit likely. How do you explain their fossil record in Australia if the flood supposedly deposited the fossils and they hyperevolved after the flood?
Koala Information
BTW the rapid splitting of the continents you propose would have led to rapid production of new ocean crust and lithosphere and we have already shown on other threads how that would have cooked the earth to death, not that it helps the biogeography problem anyway as I explain on that thread.
Randy

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 251 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:25 PM Randy has replied

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


Message 246 of 298 (328572)
07-03-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by nwr
07-03-2006 8:04 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.
Not at all, I'm talking variety of whatever kind was on the ark; same kind, new variety/species.
The time taken for such evolution is highly exaggerated by the ToE. All it takes is reproductive isolation of a small portion of a population over a few generations. Think of the so-called "ring species" which are called species, varieties or species of the same kind as a YEC thinks of them, with their own distinctive characteristics yet all evolved from an original parent type. No need for that to have taken any great time at all. Again, all it takes is isolation of a portion of an original population plus a few generations of inbreeding within the isolated groups and you have new "species," perhaps many, forming the "ring" in a particular locale, yet all of the same original Kind.
There is no reason to assume that insects were taken on the ark the way the animals were.
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.
I have no idea how the insects were taken care of. I'm not addressing this problem here. How anybody could be expected to know is beyond me anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by nwr, posted 07-03-2006 8:04 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by nwr, posted 07-03-2006 6:34 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 247 of 298 (328573)
07-03-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by sidelined
07-03-2006 8:53 AM


Your own arguement undoes your position for Noah's family being the only surviving race on earth.Otherwise you must explain how all the genetic diversity in humans like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis or hemophilia could occur unless all these genetic disorders were present in Noah's family since they are about as genetically isolated as it gets eh?. This is just a sampling list of all the genetic disorders in humans.
Diseases are easy to explain as they are the result of mutations or damage to the genes. Part of the legacy of death we inherit from the Fall, original sin, etc., that unfortunately increases with each generation. The original human genome was nothing but healthy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by sidelined, posted 07-03-2006 8:53 AM sidelined has not replied

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


Message 248 of 298 (328575)
07-03-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by nwr
07-03-2006 8:12 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.
True, it's normally and rightly applied the population as a whole. But this reduction in the population as a whole reflects the sum of the alleles added up from the individuals. The idea is that there is a change in the proportion of alleles when populations split, some being increased and some decreased, and in some drastic cases some alleles are even altogether missing from a population. Which of course means they are not present in any of the individuals of the population.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by nwr, posted 07-03-2006 8:12 AM nwr has not replied

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


Message 249 of 298 (328576)
07-03-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Randy
07-03-2006 10:37 AM


Re: Egyptian Pyramids?
Except that there is absolutely no independant evidence that the 12 sons of Jacob fathered more than a million Israelites in Egypt. You can't use one myth to try to substantiate another.
It boasts an awfully detailed and specific genealogy for a "myth" but whatever. if you can't accept that, then ponder the numbers in Message 234.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 10:37 AM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by MangyTiger, posted 07-04-2006 2:41 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 250 of 298 (328578)
07-03-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by RickJB
07-03-2006 9:33 AM


By the way, you'd have a chronic in-breeding problem if you attempted to derive all of humanity from Noah.
I already answered this somewhere in my posts last night. Original richer genome is the answer. In-breeding problems happen after a lot of selection has reduced the overall genetic diversity of a kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by RickJB, posted 07-03-2006 9:33 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 2:35 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 251 of 298 (328579)
07-03-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Randy
07-03-2006 10:53 AM


Re: Biogeography and Insect Diversity don't add up for YEC
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. Or maybe both were on the ark and migrated to that portion of the land mass. It's all a guess.
The problem is not just Kangaroos and Kolas. There are 13 families and 180 species of marsupials and 3 monotremes in Australia. Somehow they got there without placental mammals for company. This is a problem that YECs can't really deal with. I have bumped that thread.
Keep in mind that nobody KNOWS anything for sure about anything concerning the past, including you evos. It's all speculative imagination. Geographic isolation of different species is quite common. Odd but true that these odd types end up in this one place. Not implausible to my mind that various of them evolved from various parent types that happened to be on the part of the land mass that became Australia. Why no placental mammals? Who knows? Territoriality of some sort maybe.
There is no reason to assume that insects were taken on the ark the way the animals were.
Many insect families could not have survived the flood on or off the ark. I shamelessly bumped my thread on that topic. The little brown bat eats about half its weight in insects every night. What did they eat on the ark?
It is quite possible the little brown bat did not exist in Noah's day but subsequently evolved from whatever bat was saved on the ark.
I would suppose it likely that koalas did not exist at the time of the ark but (micro)evolved from a parent type that was on the ark, becoming reproductively isolated at some point, and specialized as noted.
It is not the least bit likely. How do you explain their fossil record in Australia if the flood supposedly deposited the fossils and they hyperevolved after the flood?
[/qs]
Then they were on the ark and didn't evolve. So what?
c Koala Information
BTW the rapid splitting of the continents you propose would have led to rapid production of new ocean crust and lithosphere and we have already shown on other threads how that would have cooked the earth to death, not that it helps the biogeography problem anyway as I explain on that thread.
So I've heard. Just because you can't imagine how it could have happened without dire consequences doesn't mean it didn't. Nobody KNOWS anything about any of this. We're all applying our imagination. You have more scientific knowledge which gives you more apparent credibility but nevertheless you are still doing nothing but speculating about a past you can't know a thing about.
Randy
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 10:53 AM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 4:28 PM Faith has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2974 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 252 of 298 (328580)
07-03-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
07-03-2006 5:18 AM


Re: A small point
You don't have to assume great differences among the sons of Noah and their wives, though there could have been, since genetic diversity in any couple would have been much greater in those days, leading to much more variety in offspring. We assume far greater genetic potential so that all those varieties would have been expressed simply in the processes of migration and reproductive/genetic isolation of the different groups.
Along with the geology book I would recommend a good book on population genetics and maybe one on epidemiology. This statement is nonsense. One individual can have only so much genetic diversity. If you have only 8 individuals you have an extreme bottleneck, even if all of the individuals are completely heterozygous, which they are not likely to be, given that they lived in an ancient society where there was not a great deal of mobility - there would have been a fairly high rate of inbreeding/genetic load. The longer a population is around and the larger the population, the more genetic diversity, as mutations accumulate and there are many suitable mates available. A bottleneck of the human population down to eight people all from the same general region - and crowded into an Ark with a bunch of animals from all over the world - would in all probability have caused the extinction of the species. All it would have taken would have been a virus or bacterium carried by an animal for which the humans had no resistance. This is another good argument against a worldwide flood. And you can't argue "no diseases" because this is after the Fall, remember?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 5:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:33 PM deerbreh has replied

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


Message 253 of 298 (328581)
07-03-2006 2:32 PM


Have I left anything out
Let's see how much of this I get -
about 4,500 years ago Noah built an ark. He then collected all of the kinds that needed to go on the ark. Some of those kinds (20,000 or so is the number generally given) were dinosaurs but it was thought those were eggs. He also was able to pack all the food needed for all the kinds and also he wasn't worried about the vastly different climates and habits of those animals as they were far more hardy than modern animals. Then over the course of about a year Noah and 7 others were able to care for all 20,000 of those animals. Noah wasn't that worried about waste as he had a pump that he managed to construct 1000s of years before it was invented. (He also wasn't bothered about breathing steam or the fact that the oceans would have boiled off but I disgress) Then all the animals got off the ark and we had hyper-evolution for the next 4000 years to leave us with the wildlife we see today. At the same time the 8 people on the ark over a period of 4000 or so years turned into 4 billion people.
THEN the continents separated......
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

Six Pack writes:
An' I say "equate THIS, Master of Apokolips".. an' I smash him inna the face with a bottle've tequila! Sixpack encounters Darkseid

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Randy, posted 07-03-2006 2:52 PM CK has not replied
 Message 284 by MangyTiger, posted 07-04-2006 2:57 PM CK has not replied

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


Message 254 of 298 (328582)
07-03-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by deerbreh
07-03-2006 2:27 PM


Re: A small point
Along with the geology book I would recommend a good book on population genetics and maybe one on epidemiology. This statement is nonsense. One individual can have only so much genetic diversity.
NOW. The past is a different story. Of course with the uniformitarian assumption the whole thing is impossible. But we YECs don't operate by that assumption. We have a completely other model in mind.
If you have only 8 individuals you have an extreme bottleneck, even if all of the individuals are completely heterozygous, which they are not likely to be, given that they lived in an ancient society where there was not a great deal of mobility - there would have been a fairly high rate of inbreeding/genetic load.
Again you are assuming uniformitarianism and assuming conditions now, and assuming the whole evolutionist program.
What an evfolutionist always has to explain and can't, however, is how you can EVER get MORE genetic diversity when populations are constantly splitting into reproductively isolated groups. Mutation is pretty much IT, and that is full of holes.
The longer a population is around and the larger the population, the more genetic diversity, as mutations accumulate and there are many suitable mates available. A bottleneck of the human population down to eight people all from the same general region - and crowded into an Ark with a bunch of animals from all over the world - would in all probability have caused the extinction of the species. All it would have taken would have been a virus or bacterium carried by an animal for which the humans had no resistance. This is another good argument against a worldwide flood. And you can't argue "no diseases" because this is after the Fall, remember?
I don't argue NO diseases, I argue accumulation of diseases over time and they still had relative health compared to us, quite dramatically better health.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 2:27 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by CK, posted 07-03-2006 2:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 258 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 3:09 PM Faith has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2974 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 255 of 298 (328583)
07-03-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
07-03-2006 2:17 PM


I already answered this somewhere in my posts last night. Original richer genome is the answer. In-breeding problems happen after a lot of selection has reduced the overall genetic diversity of a kind.
No. In-breeding problems are a result of inbreeding, which you would have in spades in Noah's grandchildren.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 2:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-03-2006 3:21 PM deerbreh 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