animals on the ark

quote:

---

maybe some enlightened one (the all-faithful creationist) could tell us how many species were on the ark, and explain their reasoning...

---

Actually, the problems listed are the least of the problems of the
Noah tale. You can't have only two of everything and expect to restore these species. The population is so low that the chance that subsequent generations will inbreed is almost 100%, which would lead to most of the offspring having genetic problems and deformities and wouldn't survive. A viable breeding population includes thousands of animals. Imagine trying to fit 5,000 of every animal on the planet on a boat, no matter how loosely you define a kind. And this fact of genetics would pertain to the eight human survivors as well. We wouldn't have made it either.When a population hits a low point and begins to inbreed it is known as a bottleneck. The thing about bottlenecks is that they are seen in the genes. If Noah's story were true we would predict that all animals would have the same bottleneck, but we don't, Pandas have one 34,000 years ago and we have one 70,000 years ago.This is a piece of physical evidence that would be in place if Noah's tale happened, and it isn't there. The other piece of physical evidence is the nonexistant geology. One would think that if such an event occurred that it would leave a major global uniform deposit, yet no such deposit exists. Two pieces of physical evidence that would have to be in place for us to even entertain the idea of this event and neither is there. This event never happened! Period! End of story!

quote:

---

You live in a farming community, ovbiously you don't live on a farm. 2 animals (2 of each kind) is not too much work. feeding/ caring for 2 animals would only take about 10 minutes. x8 people you get 16 animals every 10 minutes.

---

How many animals were on the ark? By the best estimates there are 10 million species on the planet. No ark is that big. Having only two individuals doesn't work because there isn't enough genetic variation within the population, the chances that animals in subsequent generations will be inbreedin is nearly 100%. Most of the offspring would be deformed and have severe genetic problems. Basically, all of the species would inbreed themselves into extinction, and that includes the single human family. The current ecologically-defined minimum of a viable breeding population is several thousand animals, that's really low, even low tens of thousands is generous. Try caring for 5,000 of each animal, no matter how loosely you define a "kind". BTW it is clear from the phrase "after it's kind" that kind means reproductive compatibility which is the definition scientists use for a species. Don't give me any of those exeptions, scientists are well aware of them, it seems that nature doesn't like to fit into clean boundaries we would like to put it in. Anyway, point is, kind and species mean the same thing whether you like it or not, it's the same concept of reproductive compatibility.