Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rapid speciation after the flood
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 31 of 47 (23303)
11-19-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 7:18 PM


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 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 10:06 PM Randy has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 47 (23306)
11-19-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Randy
11-19-2002 9:04 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Randy, posted 11-19-2002 9:04 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Randy, posted 11-19-2002 10:17 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 33 of 47 (23307)
11-19-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 10:06 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 10:31 PM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 47 (23310)
11-19-2002 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Randy
11-19-2002 10:17 PM


^ 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Randy, posted 11-19-2002 10:17 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-19-2002 11:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 47 (23316)
11-19-2002 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 10:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ 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).
So the hyperspeciation occured in what... a few hundred years?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 10:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-20-2002 12:56 AM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 47 (23322)
11-20-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
11-19-2002 11:39 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 11-19-2002 11:39 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-20-2002 9:14 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 37 of 47 (23328)
11-20-2002 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 5:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mammuthus: That 30 is a mainstream estimate (for my number)! I think it is distinct gene families . It's extrapolated from the prelimnary analyeses of the mouse genome given the suppsed relative divergence times.
BTW Quetzal: I knew you knew about alleles - I expanded on it for the spectators.

*******
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 5:52 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 38 of 47 (23341)
11-20-2002 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 7:18 PM


Hi TB:
quote:
My basic answer is that the 2000 or so speciation events per year required are not happening in series but in parallel. This is evoltuion we're talking about! It is a branching thing. It is multiplicative. Naively, but logically, if we branch from 20,000 kinds every 100 years one would quickly get 10 million kinds by 1500 BC.
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:
And there are very good reasons for the branching rate to die down over time. Every system adjusts exponentially to a new environement. This is a mathematical law of equilibrium that would hold almost without exception. These exemplars of each kind, presumably hand picked by God, were suddenly flung into the world to their own devices. It makes a lot of sense for there to be a sudden adjustment to a new equlibrium based on the initial starting point and their new environments.
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:
We really should be looking at land based species since we are talking about post-flood ark-sourced diversifation. There are about 2000 land based families. Anyone know how many (non-insect) land-based species there are?
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:
Your Cambrian explosion analogy works only as far as the species number is concerned. In terms of informaiton content of the genomes there is no comparison. We are not proposing thre origin of a single new gene family after the flood. The Cambrian explosion generted the orgin of probably 50% of our curnet gene families in all of life! please note this oft ignored differnce in what you and what we claim.
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:
If some top fraction of the Cenezoic is catatrophic glacial melting then we actually see a lot of evidence of a multitude of variations of mammals. Think of any mammal and there was a bizaree assortment: e.g. elephant variations.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 11-20-2002 9:41 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 47 (23342)
11-20-2002 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 7:18 PM


[Weird double post deleted]
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 47 (23357)
11-20-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tranquility Base
11-20-2002 12:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-20-2002 12:56 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 41 of 47 (23362)
11-20-2002 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Tranquility Base
11-19-2002 7:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My basic answer is that the 2000 or so speciation events per year required are not happening in series but in parallel. This is evoltuion we're talking about! It is a branching thing. It is multiplicative. Naively, but logically, if we branch from 20,000 kinds every 100 years one would quickly get 10 million kinds by 1500 BC.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-19-2002 7:18 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 7:33 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 42 of 47 (23364)
11-20-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Quetzal
11-20-2002 6:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
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!
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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Quetzal, posted 11-20-2002 6:06 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by John, posted 11-20-2002 9:49 AM derwood has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 47 (23368)
11-20-2002 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by derwood
11-20-2002 9:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
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!
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....

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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by derwood, posted 11-20-2002 9:41 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by derwood, posted 11-20-2002 9:55 AM John has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 44 of 47 (23370)
11-20-2002 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by John
11-20-2002 9:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
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!
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....

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.

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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by John, posted 11-20-2002 9:49 AM John has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 45 of 47 (23559)
11-21-2002 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by derwood
11-20-2002 9:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My basic answer is that the 2000 or so speciation events per year required are not happening in series but in parallel. This is evoltuion we're talking about! It is a branching thing. It is multiplicative. Naively, but logically, if we branch from 20,000 kinds every 100 years one would quickly get 10 million kinds by 1500 BC.
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...

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by derwood, posted 11-20-2002 9:37 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-21-2002 7:54 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 11-21-2002 9:13 PM Fred Williams 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