Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Super Evolution and the Flood
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 38 of 173 (458130)
02-27-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
02-27-2008 9:53 AM


Re: List o' mammals
I'm guessing your goal is to present a scenario as favorable to creationists as possible in order to remove possible objections. In that case you should merge "kinds" as often as seems to make sense.
Percy is obviously what modern taxonomists would like to call a "lumper" (the alternative group being called "splitters"). However, I don't think "lumping" supports the YEC model under the implications of the OP. I would think, in order to make super-evolution feasible, you'd want as many starting kinds as Noah could possibly have fit on the Ark.
Also note that, the more different the things are from us, the more tendency we have to "lump" them into larger and larger groups. Although people would likely call "jellyfish" one kind, jellyfish actually constitute an entire class of organisms (which would be the equivalent of citing a single "mammal" kind).
Squirrels and mice should just be rodents.
I don't like this idea: science currently recognizes something like 2500 species of rodents (out of ~5400 recognized species of mammal).
If you want a single rodent kind, you'd have to include prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, naked mole rats and capybaras within that one kind. I think this is a little too inclusive to swallow, even for someone who believes in a speciation event every breeding season.
Platypus should probably be monotremes, which would include the echidna.
Platypus and echidna are classified as separate families (sometimes orders), which is the equivalent relationship between dogs and cats. I wouldn't group these, basically on the grounds that it would be very difficult to hyper-evolve one into the other without a direct, divine intervention (for which they might as well just hypothesize a new Creation event).
Side note: a baby monotreme is called a "puggle".

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 02-27-2008 9:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 02-27-2008 4:01 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 02-27-2008 7:46 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 40 of 173 (458143)
02-27-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by bluegenes
02-27-2008 1:00 PM


Re: List o' mammals
bluegenes writes:
I'm inclined to agree with you here. The problem with relaxing the interbreeding law is that humans and apes end up in the same kind, and Noah becomes the famed common ancestor.
Ah, so ape-hood could then be seen as an alternative explanation for the Curse of Ham (instead of the darkness of African peoples). You should post this on the "race issue" forum.
Seriously, though, I think humans are allowed their own kind in YEC, on the grounds that we have the Bible and orangutans don't (or something like that). And, most YECists would object to your saying that we're anything like apes at all.
Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by bluegenes, posted 02-27-2008 1:00 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 02-27-2008 4:26 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 45 of 173 (458188)
02-27-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
02-27-2008 4:01 PM


Re: List o' mammals
Percy writes:
I'm not a lumper.
It wasn't meant to be an insult. I don't really think lumpers are bad people.
Percy writes:
...you have to balance the "fitting and maintaining all the kinds on the ark" problem with the "just how fast can evolution go" problem.
If this is the case, perhaps the list should start in as general a form as possible, and expand as the Ark's size permits. So, instead of listing all possible small-scale kinds, we should start with worm, insect, tardigrade (plug), mammal, reptile, maybe turtle, bird, amphibian, etc., then ascertain the space we have left in the Ark to determine how much subdividing we can manage.
The way we're going, we may have to come back and edit the mammal list to make room for dragonflies or parrots or something.
Edited by Bluejay, : Added "small-scale"

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 02-27-2008 4:01 PM Percy has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 47 of 173 (458193)
02-27-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by graft2vine
02-27-2008 3:53 PM


Re: List o' mammals
graft2vine writes:
The biblical definition of kind is anything that decends from the same ancestrial gene pool.
The definition is clear, but the identification isn't, requiring lots of research.
I don't think the Bible actually says anything about gene pools or ancestry or descendancy at all. In fact, the Bible doesn't say much about what "kind" means: it only lists in a few places what a few "kinds" are. Most of these baraminology ideas stem from religious movements realizing that they have to answer to science in some way or another.
There is some indirect (and inconclusive) evidence for Taz's interbreeding requirement in Genesis 1 (verse 12):
quote:
...and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind...
Whether or not this amounts to anything is anybody's guess.

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 3:53 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by graft2vine, posted 02-27-2008 5:03 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 173 (458197)
02-27-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
02-27-2008 4:26 PM


Re: List o' mammals
bluegenes writes:
That exact point occured to me as I was typing the post.
Good. Then the credit goes to you: you can publish it. You be Darwin; I'll be Wallace.
bluegenes writes:
Yes, but remember, YECists are trying to get together a creationist science that has the credibility to eventually be taught in schools.
I think they're trying to get public acceptance, not scientific credibility. Only a minor difference.
bluegenes writes:
Noah as the common ancestor solves some difficult problems in relation to...
Your idea also gives them the convenience of Noah not having to put up with noisy monkeys and silverback gorillas on the Ark. Well, it would if we considered all primates under one "kind."

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 02-27-2008 4:26 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 73 of 173 (459382)
03-06-2008 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by AZPaul3
03-05-2008 2:19 PM


Re: List o' mammals
AZPaul3 writes:
To conserve space on the Ark and if Creationists involk super-evolution then we can wittle all reptiles to 4 "kinds":
Lizard, serpant, crock and turtle.
This is what I was talking about when I wrote this (message 38):
Bluejay writes:
Also note that, the more different the things are from us, the more tendency we have to "lump" them into larger and larger groups. Although people would likely call "jellyfish" one kind, jellyfish actually constitute an entire class of organisms (which would be the equivalent of citing a single "mammal" kind).
Tigers and wolves can't be a single kind, but sea turtles and box turtles can, even though they're more different from each other. In order to support the idea that reptiles can be whittled down to 4 kinds, Creationists would have to invoke a lot more super-evolution than even magic-believers could swallow. To get today's ~9000 species of reptiles from 4 would take a full team of sorcerors several hundred years of round-the-clock study and spell-casting.
I would argue that lizards need to be subdivided (on the basis of reproductive isolation, and on the basis of their being more different from one another than wolves and tigers):
monitors
chameleons
Gila monster
geckos
glass lizards
iguanas
skinks
horned lizards
I would submit at least five turtle kinds:
tortoise
sea turtle
terrapins
side-necked turtles
softshell turtles
Crocodilians could be just one (groan)
Snakes need at least these five kinds:
boas
vipers
cobras
blind snakes
garter snakes
Also, tuataras are distinct from any of the groups listed, mandating an additional group.
Edited by Bluejay, : None of anybody's business.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by AZPaul3, posted 03-05-2008 2:19 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AZPaul3, posted 03-06-2008 6:55 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 74 of 173 (459383)
03-06-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Taz
03-06-2008 12:42 AM


Re: List o' mammals
Taz writes:
Who said anything about conserving space?
The dimensions of the Ark are known: they're written in Genesis 6. Any theory Creationists would put forward would have to take this into account if it is to be taken seriously.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Taz, posted 03-06-2008 12:42 AM Taz has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 78 of 173 (459410)
03-06-2008 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by AZPaul3
03-06-2008 6:55 PM


Re: List o' mammals
AZPaul3 writes:
We're talking creationists here ... literal bible and all that.
Are we just doing this from their perspective, then? I thought the point was to make it sound as plausible as possible. If we wanted to go for the Purists' version, we could just say God miraculously made the Ark big enough to fit all the animals and even provided enough internal sunlight for Noah to grow a self-sustaining greenhouse to feed all the herbivores, and milk trees, so Noah didn't have to milk the cows.
Purists don't need explanations: only the people who want to sound plausible do. So, in order to maximize the plausibility of the entire issue, it's best to let them start with as many kinds as possible to minimize the rate of super-evolution since the Flood (naturally, this must be balanced with the space limitations on the Ark).
AZPaul3 writes:
Shouldn't there be Satan in the snake kind?
I don't know. Why would God have allowed Satan on the Ark? Further, I think this is just mocking Creationism: we should try to give them at least a pseudo-legitimate chance, if only to curb the inevitable tides of conspiracy claims that follow.
AZPaul3 writes:
So, I think one "snake kind" is all that is necessary. All the others just grow fatter and/or longer and/or both after the flud.
Two things:
First, I like your spelling of "flud."
Second, this would require snakes to have super-evolved a hundred times faster than mammals. There would have to be a good mechanism to explain how they could and why God would want them to.
I propose a compromise--3 snake kinds:
1. venomous
2. non-venomous
3. and Satan (if we must)

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AZPaul3, posted 03-06-2008 6:55 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taz, posted 03-07-2008 12:12 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 117 of 173 (460126)
03-12-2008 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by graft2vine
03-10-2008 12:28 PM


Creeping Things
Here's a quote from Genesis 11:
quote:
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Note that, in this chapter, insects are called "creeping things." I can't actually say that this is a translation of "remes," or whatever the Hebrew word was, but you should look into it. Furthermore, if, like you say, "creeping thing" can refer to reptiles, you'd better be damn sure that it does do that. Otherwise, you've got millions of insects to account for on the Ark.
Note that the book quoted in AiG's article is almost fifty years old (in which time we've discovered at least one entirely new order, at least a quarter-million species, and I-don't-even-know-how-many genera). In case you couldn't guess, I'm an entomologist.
Also note that God seems to believe in the above-quoted chapter of Leviticus that insects have four legs, when, in fact, they have six (no exceptions). Maybe He meant you have to tear off two legs before you could eat them, but the context doesn't support this idea. At the least, it proves that the Bible was imperfectly transmitted from God to man (i.e. humans changed it either by ignorance or malice). I think this proves pretty well that the Bible isn't infallible in scientific matters. By AiG's logic (not by mine, though), the Bible is therefore invalid in moral and ethical issues.
Anyway, back to more on-topic issues: I would propose that some creation scientists learn AutoCAD or ProE and actually design (or even build) a replica of the Ark that can accomodate all the cages and stuff, with sloped floors, overhead baggage compartments, etc. They've given an "average cage size," but I'm pretty sure the stacking and organizing of cages will change the space requirements very dramatically when the sizes vary (especially with the elephant and brontosaur cages: elephants are not likely to take a too-small cage very well). Keep in mind that "volume" (as cited in AiG's article) is not the only factor. Any architect would know that.
Also, what was Noah using ("gopher wood" is all I know) to build the Ark? Did he know how to purify iron or mix steel? If he didn't, he would have a hard time keeping the elephants and rhinos and buffalos (not to mention dinosaurs, if they were there) in their cages.
Last note: AiG's article talks about bringing dinosaurs on the Ark. I was under the impression that dinosaurs were not on the Ark, and that that was why they are extinct now. A Mormon artist made a painting in which all the toy animals in a kid's room are boarding the kid's toy Ark, while the kid's dinosaur toys are standing around laughing and pointing their dinosaur-fingers at them.
Edited by Bluejay, : Grammar

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by graft2vine, posted 03-10-2008 12:28 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taz, posted 03-12-2008 10:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 119 by bluegenes, posted 03-12-2008 10:33 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2008 11:45 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 121 by graft2vine, posted 03-13-2008 3:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 137 of 173 (460311)
03-14-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by graft2vine
03-13-2008 3:14 PM


Re: Creeping Things
Hi, graft2vine (and other readers):
graft2vine writes:
I am not YEC, but believe the flood was local, so millions of insects are not a concern to me.
This is what I believe, too. I was told by a marine biology professor that there is actually plenty of evidence to support the existence of a local flood (he didn't provide this evidence, though).
graft2vine writes:
"flying creeping thing" can refer to insects that fly (and can also creep of course).
But, it still says "creeping thing." The fact that it's qualified here in Leviticus indicates that a qualifier is necessary to distinguish which specific kind of creeping thing. Otherwise, you're referring to all of them.
graft2vine writes:
"creeping things that creep" then refers to reptiles because they don't fly but creep upon the earth.
In Genesis 6 (quoted below), "creeping thing" is not qualified as "creeping things that creep" (therefore, not restricted to reptiles by this line of reasoning):
quote:
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.
I need autumnman or somebody who can tell me what the word translated as "creeping thing" is and if it's the same word used in Leviticus 11.
graft2vine writes:
Grasshoppers fly (in a sense) as the jump through the air.
Grasshopppers have functional wings: they fly in every sense that the birds and bats fly. About ninety percent (my own, non-scientific guess) of insects can fly: grasshoppers, beetles, ants and termites (alates, or reproductive castes), stink bugs, aphids, mantises, cockroaches, stoneflies, caddisflies, moths, true flies, twisted-winged parasites, fairyflies, wasps, bees, mayflies, butterflies...
graft2vine writes:
As for the four legs: It does not say that they only have four legs, but "go upon all fours" when they creep.
Here is the last verse of the quote I provided in my last post:
quote:
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. (emphasis added)
graft2vine writes:
With the grasshopper, the four front legs are used for just creeping, while the primary purpose of their hind legs is leaping.
This is untrue: grasshoppers "creep" with all six legs, as do locusts and beetles (the other "clean" insects listed in Leviticus). I’m not sure what a "bald locust" is, but I would guess it "creeps" with all six legs, because I can't think of a single insect that creeps on only four.
Also note that you quoted verse 21. I'll add 22 to that:
quote:
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
Note that beetles don't "leap upon the earth" (at least, none that I'm aware of), yet they are included under the category of "flying creeping things that creep on four feet and leep upon the earth."
Note also that, if these things are edible (i.e. "clean"), shouldn't there have been seven of each on the Ark?
graft2vine writes:
So I think there is a plausable case that insects do not have to be on the ark, or at the very least they didn't have to be maintained in cages (Noah would have to leave very little space between the bars). Did they have glass back then?
I would agree with you: insects can be extremely hard to rear, and most probably wouldn't have lived long enough to complete the voyage of the Ark (as adults, at least). But, the problem for YECists persists that insects would have to have survived the Flood somehow, and in much bigger numbers and diversity than anything else. The "mats of vegetation" hypothesis is bad, because it suggests that things could have survived without the Ark, which means the Ark was essentially superfluous.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by graft2vine, posted 03-13-2008 3:14 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2008 1:43 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 139 by graft2vine, posted 03-14-2008 3:05 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 141 by ramoss, posted 03-14-2008 9:15 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 151 of 173 (460395)
03-14-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ICANT
03-14-2008 1:43 AM


Re: Creeping Things
ICANT writes:
They are different words
Thank you, ICANT: that answers that question. Can you also confirm this for Genesis 7:14, 21 and 23? And for Leviticus 11:23? Are these words ("remes" and "sheket") used interchangeably, or are they distinctly-defined?

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2008 1:43 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2008 6:09 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 169 of 173 (460919)
03-20-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
03-12-2008 11:45 PM


Re: Creeping Things
Nevermind
Edited by Bluejay, : I decided not to bring this stuff back up.

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2008 11:45 PM ICANT 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