Rapid speciation after the flood

quote:

---

What's wrong with there simply being rich gene pools and speciation via selective loss through natural selction/niche finding?

---

I am wondering how you have a rich gene pool when you start with only two individuals of each kind (whatever the heck that is) for all the unclean Kinds. That would seem to me to be a rather limited gene pool for generating lots of new species by whatever mechanism.

quote:

---

Are you aware that brocolli, cabbage and cauliflower were selectively bred over the last few centuies from a wild mustard populaiton?

---

I wonder about that since it seems to me that these vegetables were known in ancient times. I could be wrong but I think I have seen some really old herbal medicine books that mention them. Didn't Cato recommend eating cabbage in about 200 BCE? I wouldn't be surprised if Galen (2 century AD) referred to them as well. It also seems to me that the ancient Chinese knew these veggies so how could they have been bred in the last few centuries? Perhaps you are thinking of studies showing that they are all related to wild mustard. Anyway, how do you think you can get all these veggies from wild mustard in a few hundred years and yet it would not be possible to get humans and chimps from a common ancestor in a few million years? Seems pretty inconsistent to me.Randy

quote:

---

My wild mustard claims come straight out of mainstream textbooks and it is a claim of recent breeding not simply long term relationship. The flower has been selected for in brocolli, the leaf has been selected for in cabbage.

---

Kale, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and Brussels sprouts are all the same species of plant, Brassica oleracea. They do not represent rapid speciation. Cabbage was developed from kale about 2000 years ago and is specifically mentioned by Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE). Kale was known in ancient Egypt. Cauliflower and broccoli were developed by about 4-500 years ago. Brussels sprouts were developed in the 18th century in Belgium of course.http://www.ag.usask.ca/...nts/hort/hortinfo/veg/cabbage.htmlIt just goes to show how much variation in phenotype you can get with small changes in genotype.Randy

quote:

---

Biogeography? We would explain that the current populaiton of marsupials are where they are becasue this is where they emmigrated after the flood, whether directed by God or not. Since then they have been isolated by geographical factors.

---

This is complete and utter nonsense. You gave up on this one on the flood board as I recall. Fred seems to have given up on it here. You have to accept that all species of marsupials (except possums which went off to America), whether mobile animals or not somehow picked up and went to Australia (where they just happen to have a fossil record), covering thousands of miles of landscape and the deep water between Indonesia and Australia and that they did it without leaving any evidence of their passing or any descendants along the way. Even if you think that a nonexistent land bridge existed it doesn’t help. It is still a LONG ways to go. Further you must claim that no placental mammals traveled along with them or if they did they died out with no evidence that they had ever been in Australia.My last posts on this subject were at
EvC Forum: Evolution vs CreationMaybe you can tell us the route(s) you think that marsupial moles, koalas, platypus, Tasmanian devils, echidna, wombats and flightless birds used to get to Australia and explain why no wolves, lions, tigers, hyena, camels, wildebeest, gazelle, monkeys, deer, buffalo, rabbits or any of the other placental mammals, (except for bats and a couple species of rats) that would seem much better able to travel followed along. Have at it. Maybe you should put it on the biogeography thread on the flood board so these don’t get too scattered out.Randy

quote:

---

So I would not be surprised if God has played a specific role in biogeogrpahy.

---

So I hope you supporters of creation "science" will stop complaining when we accuse you of relying on "God did it" to get around all the impossibilities in your so called "models". The ONLY semi rational explanation I have seen for biogeography was from a YEC who said that God probably "teletransported" the animals off the ark. OK, just don't call it science.

quote:

---

And in our framework, there is very little fossilizaiton going post-flood, aprat from perhaps catastrphic glacial melting. AS you know yourself, ten thousand years is a blink of the eye geologically without catastrophic events.

---

So most of the fossils of existing species (for instance wolves, jackals and foxes) that you now say were formed by post-ark hyperspeciation were flood deposits? Did they just happen to evolve into critters with the same anatomy as other members of their "kinds" that got wiped out in the flood? Curiouser and curioser.
Randy