Noah's Ark & post-flood speciation

[Caino]

According to Genesis 6:19-20, Noah was instructed to take male and female pairs of every "kind" of animal that walked the face of the earth. Several questions came to my mind about this, and I am wondering how those who take this story at its literal face value can answer them:

1) How many different "kinds" of animals do you estimate were taken aboard Noah's ark?

2) How many different species do scientists estimate to exist today?

3) How many species are believed to have existed throughout the entirety of earth's existence?

Thanks in advance to anyone who offers answers to these questions!

1) Millions

2) 6.5 million species to date discovered on land and 2.2 million (about 25 percent of the total) dwelling in the ocean depths. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/.../110823180459.htm

3) There were 5 major extinction events before the Hebrews wrote Noah's flood story in Babylon. In the real world we have discovered at least 1,000 species of non-avian dinosaurs. But if we assume that every species living today had an ancestor at some time in the past the answer is a whole bunch!

 

[User Name]

Not a problem since God tells us it happened.

Is that how science works?

 

[6days]

Is that how science works?

Science is only possible because of our Creator who created in an orderly manner making discovery possible. In His Word we find absolute truth about Him... His creation... history. We also find absolute truth about ourselves.....our sinful nature... and the plan of redemption.
As said earlier, as Christians, we should always start with the absolute authority of scripture.

 

[Alate_One]

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.

Um no. Having only two individuals drastically *limits* the potential for variation. That's simply the way genetics work. If you have two individuals you can have a maximum of FOUR variants at any particular location in the genome.

Four variants 4000 years ago does not in any way match the incredible variation in animals, plants and even humans alive today.

 

[6days]

Um no. Having only two individuals drastically *limits* the potential for variation. That's simply the way genetics work. If you have two individuals you can have a maximum of FOUR variants at any particular location in the genome.

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.

 

[Stripe]

Having only two individuals drastically *limits* the potential for variation.

Depends.

You should know that yours was not a generally true statement being a biology teacher.

That's simply the way genetics work. If you have two individuals you can have a maximum of FOUR variants at any particular location in the genome.

:darwinsm:

You're an evolutionist.

Four variants 4000 years ago does not in any way match the incredible variation in animals, plants and even humans alive today.

That's because you deny the evidence.

We know that a change in environment can prompt drastic and swift changes in a population that can have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Stripe]

Not too many since I think the flood was local.

:darwinsm:

It was mostly focused on saving domestic animals.

If you want to save animals from a local flood, do nothing.

And then God promised never again to flood the entire Earth send a local flood.

Evolutionists are morons.

About two million [species] have been described by [evolutionists]

Even though they do not know what a "species" is.

God gathered animals by according to their "kind" — a well-defined and rock-solid concept — not according to "species," which is a term so malleable as to be next to useless in a scientific discussion.

 

[Alate_One]

Depends.

You should know this yours was not a generally true statement being a biology teacher.

It is absolutely a true statement. What the ark in a global flood would be is a tremendous bottleneck effect for all land living species on earth.

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

You're an evolutionist.

And?

That's because you deny the evidence.

No, that would be you, in this very post.

We know that a change in environment can prompt drastic and swift changes in a population that can have nothing to do with evolution.

Oh are you positing DNA faeries again? Fun!

I see you didn't watch either video.

 

[CabinetMaker]

God gathered animals by according to their "kind" — a well-defined and rock-solid concept — not according to "species," which is a term so malleable as to be next to useless in a scientific discussion.

And yet you have never been able to provide well defined, rock solid definition of what a kind actually is.

 

[Alate_One]

:darwinsm:
If you want to save animals from a local flood, do nothing.

And then God promised never again to flood the entire Earth send a local flood.

It has to do with the human population in the area - but hey bothering to think would be beyond your capabilities.

Even though they do not know what a "species" is.

God gathered animals by according to their "kind" — a well-defined and rock-solid concept — not according to "species," which is a term so malleable as to be next to useless in a scientific discussion.

Stripe, you don't know what a kind is. You can't tell me which organisms are kinds or not. I can tell you which organisms are species and which are not quite easily.

The smoke blowing about kinds and species got old about three years ago.

Are these all the same kind?

How about these?

Spoiler

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[Stripe]

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? :idunno:

It has to do with the human population in the area.

What has to do with the population in the area? :AMR:

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.

 

[Alate_One]

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.

 

[Stripe]

Saying "nope" doesn't make you right.

Which is why I advanced from that with an explanation of my position. :up:

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. :up:

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. :up:

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. :thumb:

 

[User Name]

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?

 

[Stripe]

Birds are all of one kind, right?

More evidence that you have no idea what the Bible says.

 

[User Name]

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?

 

[Alate_One]

Which is why I advanced from that with an explanation of my position. :up:

That's the problem, you didn't advance

People are all the same kind.

Mhmm. You said:

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? :chuckle:

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. :thumb:

It's not my definition. It's yours. YOU demonstrate it.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

 

[jzeidler]

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?