User Tag List

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 266

Thread: Noah's Ark & post-flood speciation

  1. #31
    Over 2000 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,464
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 221 Times in 168 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    93647
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Not if we start with the truth of God's Word. The kinds of animals going on the ark would have had very little genetic burden, and the full compliment of genetic information.
    A full complement means two copies of each location on the genome (one from mom, one from dad). The problem is that means you can have only four total variants. But in the populations of all eukaryotic organisms that aren't suffering from a genetic bottleneck, most loci have far more than four variants.

    Humans have hundreds of variants in some locations - specifically the MHC genes involved in immune function. Having lots of different MHC genes are important because otherwise the population would be able to be wiped out by a single disease. So there's no "perfect" set to be created with.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  2. #32
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,448
    Thanks
    335
    Thanked 10,739 Times in 7,817 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    It is absolutely a true statement.
    Nope.

    Variation across a kind indicates degradation of the genome.

    What the ark in a global flood would be is a tremendous bottleneck effect for all land living species on earth.
    Which of course has nothing to do with the truth value of your statement.

    Every land living species on earth would have low genetic diversity.
    What?

    No, that would be you, in this very post. Oh are you positing DNA faeries again? Fun!
    Nope. Evidence, remember? I described mine; all you have is mockery.

    I see you didn't watch either video.
    What videos?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    It has to do with the human population in the area.
    What has to do with the population in the area?

    Stripe, you don't know what a kind is.
    Liar.

    You can't tell me which organisms are kinds or not.
    Sure, I can. And regardless, I do not need to classify everything to prove that there is a definition.

    I can tell you which organisms are species and which are not quite easily.
    Of course you can. Because there are no rules on the subject. There is no definition of species, so anything can be grouped as an example. Give us a definition and we quickly discover how malleable your groupings are.

    For the umpteenth time: Definitions are not classification systems.

    The smoke blowing about kinds and species got old about three years ago.
    We know you hate discussing things that show your precious religion as unscientific nonsense.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 13th, 2018)

  4. #33
    Over 2000 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,464
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 221 Times in 168 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    93647
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Nope.
    Saying "nope" doesn't make you right. It makes you look like a moron. I am telling you an axiom of genetics.

    Variation across a kind indicates degradation of the genome.
    So who are more "degraded" then? White people, Asian People, or Black people?

    Science states that variation is generally beneficial to species' survival, though some variants can be detrimental in some situations -in Humans light skin in a low latitude environment, dark skin in a high latitude environment. Of course humans have things like sunscreen and vitamin D supplements to deal with the issues.

    But a population without variation is susceptible to attack. See the Irish Potato famine, UG99 wheat rust, Southern corn leaf blight etc.

    Nope. Evidence, remember? I described mine; all you have is mockery.
    I've not seen you describe any evidence in any recent posting.

    Sure, I can. And regardless, I do not need to classify everything to prove that there is a definition.

    For the umpteenth time: Definitions are not classification systems.
    A definition without a classification system is useless.

    Saying "I have a definition" and then utterly failing to apply it to anything is evidence of its futility.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  5. #34
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,448
    Thanks
    335
    Thanked 10,739 Times in 7,817 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    Saying "nope" doesn't make you right.
    Which is why I advanced from that with an explanation of my position.

    I am telling you an axiom of genetics.
    We are looking for axioms of evolution.

    So who are more "degraded" then? White people, Asian People, or Black people?
    People are all the same kind.

    You have to read a lot more carefully.

    Science states that variation is generally beneficial to species' survival
    No. Evolutionists say that.

    We know that when a population adapts to an environment, it generally loses abilities.

    But a population without variation is susceptible to attack. See the Irish Potato famine, UG99 wheat rust, Southern corn leaf blight etc.
    Those populations were not without variation. What you are doing is sneaking in your ideas of "species" into a concept that demands you recognize "kinds."

    I've not seen you describe any evidence in any recent posting.
    Perhaps if you read more carefully.

    Let us know when you find it.

    A definition without a classification system is useless.
    Nope.

    That's just you throwing a tantrum. Of course we know that an idea defined is a necessary prerequisite before we can start classifying anything. A definition is a necessary logical prerequisite for a classification system. So, despite your rabid hatred of everything to do with the Bible, you have to relinquish ground to a properly laid out definition before you can rationally engage in a discussion over these ideas.

    Once you accept the definitions, you will be in a position to use evidence to show how the ideas you hate are most likely not representative of reality.

    That you have spent years denying there is even a definition shows that your commitment is to resisting anything that opposes your precious evolutionism rather than any regard for scientific inquiry.

    Saying "I have a definition" and then utterly failing to apply it to anything is evidence of its futility.
    Liar.

    You know exactly how it can be applied. When you are ready, you can share with us how it is properly applied.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 9th, 2018),Tambora (January 13th, 2018)

  7. #35
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,122
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked 447 Times in 315 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216685
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    Additionally, if the Bible is accurate (and I believe it is), the kinds taken on the Ark had a much greater potential for variation than the diluted versions of today. Technically, one generation is all that is needed to produce a new species.
    Birds are all of one kind, right? If so, how many kinds of birds did Noah need to take onto the ark?

  8. #36
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,448
    Thanks
    335
    Thanked 10,739 Times in 7,817 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by User Name View Post
    Birds are all of one kind, right?
    More evidence that you have no idea what the Bible says.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 13th, 2018)

  10. #37
    Over 2000 post club User Name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,122
    Thanks
    504
    Thanked 447 Times in 315 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216685
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    More evidence that you have no idea what the Bible says.
    I know that there are clean and unclean birds. How many bird "kinds" are there? Two?

  11. #38
    Over 2000 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,464
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 221 Times in 168 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    93647
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Which is why I advanced from that with an explanation of my position.
    That's the problem, you didn't advance

    People are all the same kind.
    Mhmm. You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Variation across a kind indicates degradation of the genome.
    So. People are variable, people are a kind. That means that some skin colors, nose shapes, etc. must be "degradations" of the original that God created right? So tell us which one is the original and which ones are "degradations"?

    We know that when a population adapts to an environment, it generally loses abilities.
    It may lose one thing, but it gains something else.

    Those populations were not without variation. What you are doing is sneaking in your ideas of "species" into a concept that demands you recognize "kinds."
    No the Irish potato famine happened because every potato in Ireland was a CLONE. By definition you have the smallest amount of variation possible.

    That's just you throwing a tantrum.
    Tantrum? Asking that you use your definition is a tantrum?

    Of course we know that an idea defined is a necessary prerequisite before we can start classifying anything. A definition is a necessary logical prerequisite for a classification system.
    Yes, but you can't take the next step. You have yet to classify a thing.

    Let's see if you can admit this, despite your assertion that "species" has no meaning, scientists have come up with a very workable classification system.

    You would agree to that, right?


    The lines between species are sometimes blurry precisely because of evolution, species can evolve into new species or hybridize with closely related species that shared an ancestral species.

    If species (or kind for that matter) were "rock solid" and there were no blurring between them, that would indicate separate creation of each one. But looking at living organisms and their extinct relatives gives us a picture of transitions between even large groups and new species continually appearing.

    That you have spent years denying there is even a definition shows that your commitment is to resisting anything that opposes your precious evolutionism rather than any regard for scientific inquiry.
    Your "definition" is useless. Words on a page that apply to nothing in the real world or an imaginary one for that matter.

    You know exactly how it can be applied. When you are ready, you can share with us how it is properly applied.
    It's not my definition. It's yours. YOU demonstrate it.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Alate_One For Your Post:

    DavisBJ (June 24th, 2016)

  13. #39
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196951
    So basically the gist of this thread is that when you ask creationists specific questions about the details of the story they believe in, you'll get "Doesn't matter, if it's in the Bible it's true, period".

    That's why creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for at least a century.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Jose Fly For Your Post:

    User Name (September 18th, 2017)

  15. #40
    Over 500 post club jzeidler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    596
    Thanks
    65
    Thanked 98 Times in 68 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    75466
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    Not too many since I think the flood was local. It was mostly focused on saving domestic animals as evidenced by taking seven of each.

    If it was local why didn't God instruct Noah to build a wagon rather than a huge arc?

  16. #41
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196951
    Quote Originally Posted by jzeidler View Post
    If it was local why didn't God instruct Noah to build a wagon rather than a huge arc?
    Doesn't make for a good story.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  17. #42
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,448
    Thanks
    335
    Thanked 10,739 Times in 7,817 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147828
    Quote Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
    You didn't advance.
    Liar.

    So. People are variable, people are a kind. That means that some skin colors, nose shapes, etc. must be "degradations" of the original that God created right? So tell us which one is the original and which ones are "degradations"?
    You're a biologist, right? Tell us: What is the definition of the word "genome"?

    No the Irish potato famine happened because every potato in Ireland was a CLONE. By definition you have the smallest amount of variation possible.
    And again, we are talking about kinds, not a subset of a kind.

    Tantrum? Asking that you use your definition is a tantrum?
    Yip. You will do anything to avoid the fact that kind has a rock-solid and clear definition while "species" is vague and malleable.

    Yes, but you can't take the next step. You have yet to classify a thing.
    Liar. How about you tell us some of the animals we have grouped into kinds?

    The lines between species are sometimes blurry precisely because of evolution, species can evolve into new species or hybridize with closely related species that shared an ancestral species.
    Irrelevant. There are about 14 definitions of species that apply in various situations. The word is useless in a scientific context.

    Your "definition" is useless. Words on a page that apply to nothing in the real world or an imaginary one for that matter.
    Liar.

    It's not my definition. It's yours. YOU demonstrate it.
    Already done. Let us know when you're willing to engage honestly.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 13th, 2018)

  19. #43
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196951
    As Alate One pointed out, if you reduce a population to low numbers, it obviously reduces their genetic diversity. If you reduce them enough, diversity is reduced to the point where inbreeding depression becomes a factor. We've seen this in real time with the Florida Panther, where the population was reduced to fewer than 50 breeding adults. That loss of genetic diversity led to negative effects like sterility in males, congenital heart defects, and immune deficiencies. Basically, the population was spiraling towards extinction.

    It was only when panthers from other populations were brought in that the inbreeding effects started to wane.

    Now extend that to a population that's been reduced to nothing more than one breeding pair. Obviously the offspring would be forced to mate with each other and/or their parents, thereby creating inbreeding depression of the most extreme variety. Simply put, that's just not tenable.

    And even if we were to assume that every population that was reduced to a single breeding pair (or 7 individuals, depending on which of the two flood stories you believe) somehow managed to survive and persist to today, the effect of this genetic bottleneck would still be present in the genomes of the surviving populations.

    So, if this story were true, then we would expect to see the indicators of a genetic bottleneck in every population on earth, at the same time.

    Yet we don't see that at all.

    There's a good reason why no scientific organization, university, or industry uses young-earth creationism as their framework. Not only does it not align with the data, it is directly contradicted by the data.

    It's a story. Believe it if you like, but don't expect science to take it seriously.
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Jose Fly For Your Post:

    DavisBJ (June 24th, 2016)

  21. #44
    Over 2000 post club Alate_One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,464
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 221 Times in 168 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    93647
    Quote Originally Posted by jzeidler View Post
    If it was local why didn't God instruct Noah to build a wagon rather than a huge arc?
    A lot harder to build to support the weight of a lot of people/creatures.
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

    Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

    The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    What Darwin Never Knew

  22. #45
    Over 500 post club everready's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    591
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 68 Times in 49 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    22175
    According to the UN Environment Programme, the Earth is in the midst of a mass extinction of life. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_684562.html

    This has been going on for quite some time, in smaller numbers until recently, i don't see evolution replacing any of them.

    everready
    Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

    6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to everready For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 9th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us