|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rapid speciation after the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: 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 atEvC Forum: Evolution vs Creation Maybe 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Elsewhere in this forum I have agree that we probably require God to have directed animals to where he wanted them. There are good Scirputal reasons why. (1) God brought them to Noah amd (2) Acts 17 points out that what we think is random or mechanical is sometimes the hand of God:
Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. So I would not be surprised if God has played a specific role in biogeogrpahy. 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. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ The hyperspeciation either occurred in-between the flood and the iceages (you can call it creationist punctuated equlibrium if you like) or after these events (which would require the iceages to rapidly follow the flood).
I'm really not a expert on this, I'm just letting you know what our expectations would be. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-19-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: So the hyperspeciation occured in what... a few hundred years? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
I'd prefer to have it post-cenozoic and post-iceage but we'll have to wait and see how the flood geologists go identifying the flood boundaries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: ******* Hi TB, I was being ironic Could you provide a citation for the 30 protein family estimate? By the way, I don't know if you saw but I was trying to help TrueCreation arrange a one on one debate challenge with Buddika (that TC suggested) and I proposed that you could moderate from creationist side and Percy or Moose from the evolution side...you interested? cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi TB:
quote: Lol! I'm not trying to be insulting here, TB - I have a lot of respect for you, honestly - but LOL! Think it through, man. You're now postulating that every single kreated kind on the ark spawned a new species every one hundred years. Then each of these species spawned a new species every one hundred years, and so forth. This only works if every newly spawned species remained extant for the entire time AND every single one of them reproduced like rabbits in order to get enough of a basic population going for speciation to occur in the first place over and over for a thousand years, with hypervariation/mutation occurring in each population to generate sufficiently different alleles to develop the reproductive barriers necessary to claim they're new species in the first place. Talk about chickens from lizard's eggs! All the while the poor critters are trying to migrate across a barren, lifeless world and empty seas to the continent or island where they finally end up! I take it all these new species being created at the rate of 200 a year (for the first century, 400/yr the second, 800/yr the third, etc) using your assumption migrated together? Nobody died and nobody tried to eat each other? No deleterious mutations in all that hypermutation? No lineages died out through disease, flood (natural ones, I mean), being struck by lightning, falling down a chasm, etc etc? Man, the place must have looked like a mass lemming migration all over the world!
quote: So no new niches have opened up since the Flood (or rather since 1500 BCE by your reckoning - or am I misunderstanding when this halt was supposed to have occurred)? There are no new ecosystems, new habitats, new lakes/rivers/seas? No new islands? One huge ecological release taking place over the course of a thousand years and then ... nothing else happens? The entire planet is in stasis since then?
quote: How can you say this? I'm no expert on the bible, but doesn't it talk about the death of everything that wasn't on the ark? Even if not, there is no way that you can have a global flood and discount marine organisms. What about all the salt-water species that would die in brackish water? What about all the fresh-water species that die at the faintest whiff of salt? And not just fish - amphibians (or were they on the ark?), molluscs, crustaceans of various flavors, etc - would all suffer and/or die out in a gobal Flood. And why do you exclude insects? Most are terrestrial and extremely closely adapted to particular niches - there's no way the floating mat (evidence for which is found where, exactly?) hypothesis could even approximately account for insect diversity - unless they're even more hypervariable than vertebrates. Finally, what about plants? With a very few exceptions, the vast majority of plant species cannot survive immersion in salt water - or even saline water - since they've never had to develop a capability to eliminate salt from their tissues. Doesn't work, TB.
quote: Sort of a non-sequitor TB. I wasn't talking about complexity - especially not genetic complexity - rather the preternaturally rapid diversification. The Cambrian ain't got nothing on your post-Flood extravaganza.
quote: I'm not entirely clear how this is a response to the lack of transitionals from the hyperradiation after the flood. In addition, you would need to show fossils of one or more of the kreated kinds (I'm not asking for all 18,000), and not only trace their lineage to a given group of modern organisms, but also trace them spatially from an origin in the Middle East 4500 years ago. Where are the transitionals, TB?
quote: Major problems with this statement. I'll concede (for the sake of argument) that the original created "marsupial kinds" migrated to Australia along with the monotremes (although at some point you're going to need to explain exactly HOW they got there), this begs the question of OTHER marsupials such as the extinct South American fauna (like Thylacosmilus among many others). Not to mention now-extinct animals that appear "out of place" geographically, like fossil rhinos and lions in north England, camels in NA, etc. They all get lost and take a wrong turn? Thanks for trying, TB.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
[Weird double post deleted]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Ok. But what I am trying to get at is a time frame. What you consider post-cenozoic is not ~65 mya to the present, but more like 5 kya. This is the answer I am trying to get. When was the flood and when did the hyperspeciation end? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: That is all well and good as far as speculation goes, but wouldn't someone have noticed this going on? Wouldn't those hundreds of children per breeding couple have noticed the emrgence of a new bat kind every 11 years or so (being VERY genrous to the YEC position with that...)? It strains credulity...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Clearly, Noah and his kine made little backpacks for all the pairs of Kinds, complete with canteens of fresh water and Power Bars for their long, lonely treks....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Now its making sense. They must have also been packing little canoes, preferably with outboard motors and several hundred gallons of fuel. Some of them would, of course, be carrying bags of seed to kick start the ecosystems at the various destinations.------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 11-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Yes, "Its all in the bible, son. Its the prankster's bible."- Homer Simpson to Bart, all the while patting a pocket edition of the Bible....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4856 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Quetzel's question was flawed as shown here:http://EvC Forum: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics -->EvC Forum: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics There simply is no problem. Most of the species were not required on the ark. It's a toothless argument.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024