Thoughts concerning the original biblical kinds
Manuel Doria
A common claim of the young-earth creationist literature is that the
original kinds of life forms first brought on Earth had built-in
maximum genetic heterozygosity. Bearing 'great genetic potential',
whatever that means, these life forms allegedly were very plastic as
far as the inter-kind variation YECs accept go ( some 'baraminologists'
go as far as to consider the entire _proboscidea_ order as a single
kind ). Putting the terrestrial 'kinds' in the order of magnitude of
thousands would allegedly make a more feasible Ark story.
But the 'kinds' allegedly brought to the noachian Ark were far from
having maximum genetic heterozygosity; their original ancestors had
around 1650 years to evolve, and speciation rates of the YEC model are
incommensurably faster than real-word speciation rates. Noah and the
righteous family would have to create complex selective breeding
programs between the various existing antediluvian lineages of the
original kinds so that gene flow would increase the heterozygosity of
the offspring which could be used as chosen couples for the Ark.
Another major aspect I believe it's underlooked is the depiction of
animals in ancient art. Consider domestic cats; the earliest engravings
of the goddess Bast according to some googling I've done come from the
second egyptian dinasty, around four centuries before the alleged
worldwide deluge. Cat figurines and drawings continued to be crafted
for the next 2500 years.
But according to AiG, all felines can have their origin traced to an
original discrete and young feline kind. If just a single couple of
felines survived the flood, it would mean not only that the
post-diluvian cats had to appear abruptly to account for its tremendous
participation in egyptian culture but that domestic cats evolved
_twice_ in ancient history! Nice contingency pattern.
Of course the entire scenario is fantasy and bears hundreds of more
severe problems, but I've never seen these two being proposed before.
If that ain't so, what would be the standard YEC responses?
Excuse me for any language-related mistakes.
- M.D.
Geoff
news:1144466224.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Obviously God froze all original kinds into their original "kindness" for
the time between Eden and the Ye Olde Deluge. Afterwards, he allowed the
evolution to accelerate once all the plants and animals got to their chosen
locations via chariots driven by angels.
All sorts of problems associated with the flood simply disappear if thought
about for just a few minutes. After all, God is all-powerful.
The animals were all put into a state of superhibernation by God so they
didn't need to eat or drink, nor did Noah and his crew need to muck the
stalls. Only the doves had to be awakened early.
Evil secularists complain that a ship the size necessary for even just the
original kinds would have had to be enormous. And so it was, the
measurements given right in Genesis. The secularists object that a wooden
boat that large would have never survived the turbulent waters of the flood.
They have no faith. The waters were immense, but Noah would have been
floating on a smooth sea. If Jesus could calm the waters of Galilee, doesn't
it stand to reason that God could have flooded the earth but keep the swells
from being too big?
And what of the construction. Gopherwood. Why is anyone surprised that there
doesn't seem to be any gopherwood about? Does anyone really believe it was
fanciful? Obviously it was wood that was grown by God for Noah for just the
purpose of the ark. It was not a natural kind, but a wood from Heaven.
Gopherwood - pherwoo = God. It's right there in front of our eyes. They have
sight yet they cannot see.
I'm doing some investigation right now to determine if this holy gopherwood
is in fact the wood used for angelic harps. OK, that was easy. I have
determined it to be so.
Manuel Doria
> Obviously God froze all original kinds into their original "kindness" for
> the time between Eden and the Ye Olde Deluge.
That possibility of supernatural stasis is not even supported by their
model because the fossil record shows extensive inter-kind variation;
using the examples given above, the saber-toothed tigers are thought to
be extinct antediluvian lineages of the feline kind and the
Gomphoterium, of the elephant kind.
> All sorts of problems associated with the flood simply disappear if thought
> about for just a few minutes. After all, God is all-powerful.
Not a doubt. But I see that one of the main objectives in the
non-existent research programs of young-earth creationist ministries is
to reduce the amount of _ad hoc_ divine intervention episodes because
only naturalistic explanations give rise to testable predictions. All
predictions derived from their alleged 'baramin' genetics and
evolutionary biology are false, and they are still required to count
ultimately on divine intervention episodes.
I appreciated the rest :-)
- M.D.
Robert Carnegie
> Greetings, thanks for the answer.
>
> > Obviously God froze all original kinds into their original "kindness" for
> > the time between Eden and the Ye Olde Deluge.
>
> That possibility of supernatural stasis is not even supported by their
> model because the fossil record shows extensive inter-kind variation;
> using the examples given above, the saber-toothed tigers are thought to
> be extinct antediluvian lineages of the feline kind and the
> Gomphoterium, of the elephant kind.
Well, maybe God quietly bred a few pure animals. Or he blessed them
after the Flood with renewed genetic potential. Apparently he can do
that kind of thing, look what happened when Jacob was breeding
livestock in different patterns. God did that. :-)
The problem with the pure line, after all, is that you have to suppose
that God intended to exterminate life on earth, then intended to save
an Ark-ful of survivors, then intended to repent of the thing and
promise never again to do an extinction-level event. (Remember, the
dinosaurs died out in the Flood, except for the ones that Noah saved,
which... actually we don't know what happened. Wait, yes we do. No
Flood.)
> > All sorts of problems associated with the flood simply disappear if thought
> > about for just a few minutes. After all, God is all-powerful.
>
> Not a doubt. But I see that one of the main objectives in the
> non-existent research programs of young-earth creationist ministries is
> to reduce the amount of _ad hoc_ divine intervention episodes because
> only naturalistic explanations give rise to testable predictions. All
> predictions derived from their alleged 'baramin' genetics and
> evolutionary biology are false, and they are still required to count
> ultimately on divine intervention episodes.
If the research is non-existent then it can't be reproached for not
making progress towards what may or may not be its goal ;-) Evidently
God merely worked a miracle for the ark, which is relatively small, as
well as for freshwater and salt water marine life, and of course the
miracle of holding the Flood in the first place and then getting rid of
all the water afterwards. But, y'know, if he doesn't like to do
miracles for an audience, then what better time than when all of
humanity just drowned except for a few survivors in a boat with one
window, which is shuttered!
Having said that, I think the ark story is supposed to be broadly
naturalistic as far as human participation goes. The animals, however,
apparently were commanded by God to go into the ark; Noah didn't go out
and catch them. So they certainly weren't behaving naturally.
Bible characters sometimes succeed and prosper by God's help, sometimes
by their own ingenious or devious efforts, or a bit of both. If God is
against you then being smart won't do you much good - conversely, if
you're smart then you'll try to get onto God's good side - but
sometimes God is content to let you fend for yourself.
Dick C
> Greetings,
>
> A common claim of the young-earth creationist literature is that the
> original kinds of life forms first brought on Earth had built-in
> maximum genetic heterozygosity. Bearing 'great genetic potential',
> whatever that means, these life forms allegedly were very plastic as
> far as the inter-kind variation YECs accept go ( some 'baraminologists'
> go as far as to consider the entire _proboscidea_ order as a single
> kind ). Putting the terrestrial 'kinds' in the order of magnitude of
> thousands would allegedly make a more feasible Ark story.
>
> But the 'kinds' allegedly brought to the noachian Ark were far from
> having maximum genetic heterozygosity; their original ancestors had
> around 1650 years to evolve, and speciation rates of the YEC model are
> incommensurably faster than real-word speciation rates. Noah and the
> righteous family would have to create complex selective breeding
> programs between the various existing antediluvian lineages of the
> original kinds so that gene flow would increase the heterozygosity of
> the offspring which could be used as chosen couples for the Ark.
It seems to me that the idea of kind works for people familiar with only
a relative few plants and animals. Where they are easy to distinguish from
one kind to another. Sheep are obviously different from horses, and both
are different from cows. You run into trouble when you start seeing the
wide variety of organisms there really is. For it is there that the so
called kind starts to lose its' distintiveness.
To a small population that was not familiar with the wide variety of
felines, it is easy to figure that all that is needed is a pair of cats.
Or just a few pairs of birds, a pair of cows, and a pair of pigs. Toss
in a pair of horses, and the ostrich and you're all set.
But, when you consider the tens of millions of living organisms on the
planet the biblical idea of kinds fall by the wayside, or you are left
with the impossible to intelligently support.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Steven J.
Manuel Doria wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> A common claim of the young-earth creationist literature is that the
> original kinds of life forms first brought on Earth had built-in
> maximum genetic heterozygosity. Bearing 'great genetic potential',
> whatever that means, these life forms allegedly were very plastic as
> far as the inter-kind variation YECs accept go ( some 'baraminologists'
> go as far as to consider the entire _proboscidea_ order as a single
> kind ). Putting the terrestrial 'kinds' in the order of magnitude of
> thousands would allegedly make a more feasible Ark story.
>
> But the 'kinds' allegedly brought to the noachian Ark were far from
> having maximum genetic heterozygosity; their original ancestors had
> around 1650 years to evolve, and speciation rates of the YEC model are
> incommensurably faster than real-word speciation rates. Noah and the
> righteous family would have to create complex selective breeding
> programs between the various existing antediluvian lineages of the
> original kinds so that gene flow would increase the heterozygosity of
> the offspring which could be used as chosen couples for the Ark.
>
> Another major aspect I believe it's underlooked is the depiction of
> animals in ancient art. Consider domestic cats; the earliest engravings
> of the goddess Bast according to some googling I've done come from the
> second egyptian dinasty, around four centuries before the alleged
> worldwide deluge. Cat figurines and drawings continued to be crafted
> for the next 2500 years.
>
Egyptian history predates Noah's Flood. Some fiddle with the date of
the flood and other events in the early chapters of Genesis, moving the
Flood back before 3000 BC. Others hold to a ca. 2400 BC date for the
Flood, and insist (without providing a revised chronology for all of
ancient history) that Egypt was founded ca. 2300 BC. Note that Noah's
grandson Mizraim bears the biblical name for Egypt (and Noah's son --
Mizraim's father -- Ham has a name very similar to the Egyptians' own
name for their country, Kham).
>
> But according to AiG, all felines can have their origin traced to an
> original discrete and young feline kind. If just a single couple of
> felines survived the flood, it would mean not only that the
> post-diluvian cats had to appear abruptly to account for its tremendous
> participation in egyptian culture but that domestic cats evolved
> _twice_ in ancient history! Nice contingency pattern.
>
post-flood in origin (leaving one to wonder where the ruins of
antediluvian civilizations are), cats would only have to evolve once
(although, like every other species depicted in Egyptian art, they'd
have had to evolve fast).
>
> Of course the entire scenario is fantasy and bears hundreds of more
> severe problems, but I've never seen these two being proposed before.
> If that ain't so, what would be the standard YEC responses?
>
> Excuse me for any language-related mistakes.
>
> - M.D.
-- Steven J.
Manuel Doria
> after the Flood with renewed genetic potential. Apparently he can do
> that kind of thing, look what happened when Jacob was breeding
> livestock in different patterns. God did that. :-)
There's no doubt that miracles have the ability to solve any kind of
problem in creationist models. It's among the infinite capabilities of
an omnipotent deity. But these possibilities matters not to scientific
research programs which is why a great deal of creationist literature
is devoted to demonstrating the idea that several of their mythological
stories are naturalistically feasible; miracles allow the accommodation
of every kind of data but scientific models of natural phenomena are
prohibitive on the existence of certain data, which when found is
considered anomalous.
Since many of the auxiliary hypothesis claimed by YECs to explain
anomalous data on their "naturalistic" creation models are theological
in nature ( i.e., miraculous, like the claim that we don't find the
remains of antediluvian people because they were physically destroyed
by divine wrath ) they are not scientifically valid.
> If the research is non-existent then it can't be reproached for not
> making progress towards what may or may not be its goal ;-)
I believe is on my right to reproach because YEC ministries are found
of perpetuating the image that they represent actual educational
institutions which produce valid scientific research. Among the
differences between real fringe scientists and pseudoscientists is that
fringe scientists don't enclosure themselves in alianated institutions
and submit their work only to private journals published by the
institutions themselves ( like the Institute for Historic Revisionism
), following non-orthodox methodologies ( both the ICR and AiG
"technical" journals require _a priori_ belief in biblical literalism;
no alternative conclusions are permitted ).
> God merely worked a miracle for the ark, which is relatively small, as
> well as for freshwater and salt water marine life, and of course the
> miracle of holding the Flood in the first place and then getting rid of
> all the water afterwards. But, y'know, if he doesn't like to do
> miracles for an audience, then what better time than when all of
> humanity just drowned except for a few survivors in a boat with one
> window, which is shuttered!
Creationists like John Woodmorappe defend the idea that just a couple
of divine intervention episodes are required for the entire Ark Story (
i.e., the Revelation to Noah, the 'opening of the windows of Heaven'
and the 'fountains of the deep' and as you've mentioned, the pre-flood
migration ).
Thanks for the reply.
- M.D.
Manuel Doria
fit into distinguishable discrete 'kinds'; would the _Ursavus_ be a
member of the bear or the wolf kind? Are the australopithecines part of
the great ape kind ( which according to some baraminologists contain
both chimps and gorillas )?
And there are also examples of organisms which while could be
instintively fit into "kind" categories, would also require very rapid
macroevolutionary processes; was the _Archelon_ part of the 'turtle'
kind?
Manuel Doria
Steven J. escreveu:
> Here it should probably be noted that few, if any, YECs accept that
> Egyptian history predates Noah's Flood. Some fiddle with the date of
> the flood and other events in the early chapters of Genesis, moving the
> Flood back before 3000 BC.
But that is not supported by a literal exegetic analysis. Where do
these extra 600 years come from?
> Others hold to a ca. 2400 BC date for the
> Flood, and insist (without providing a revised chronology for all of
> ancient history) that Egypt was founded ca. 2300 BC. Note that Noah's
> grandson Mizraim bears the biblical name for Egypt (and Noah's son --
> Mizraim's father -- Ham has a name very similar to the Egyptians' own
> name for their country, Kham).
According to them, would that mean that the pre-dynastic period and the
first three dinasties were mythological, recollections of antediluvian
royal dinasties or did they indeed exist and were fantastically
shrinked after 2400 b.C.?
I've read an unsupported article on AiG which claims that the mythical
king-sorcerers of Sumerian mythology had a paralllel to the hebrew
antediluvian patriarchs.
Mizraim is claimed to be which pharaoh?
> Well, since all known civilizations are, according to most YECs,
> post-flood in origin (leaving one to wonder where the ruins of
> antediluvian civilizations are), cats would only have to evolve once
> (although, like every other species depicted in Egyptian art, they'd
> have had to evolve fast).
If it took at maximum one century for cats to evolve from the original
feline couple, I'll assume the members of that couple had a body length
in between the size of a modern tiger and a domestic cat; the average
of the tail's length would be around 52 cm.
That renders around 6500 darwins for the evolution of the cat's tail.
An awful lot of evolution.
- M.D.
Steven J.
Manuel Doria wrote:
> Steven J. escreveu:
>
> > Here it should probably be noted that few, if any, YECs accept that
> > Egyptian history predates Noah's Flood. Some fiddle with the date of
> > the flood and other events in the early chapters of Genesis, moving the
> > Flood back before 3000 BC.
>
> But that is not supported by a literal exegetic analysis. Where do
> these extra 600 years come from?
>
example, that if you add up all the alternating periods of foreign
oppression and judgeship in Judges, they come to more than the 480
years said in I Kings to separate the Exodus from Solomon's Temple.
So, assume that "official" chronologies of Israelite history count only
periods of political independence, and you can move the entire
chronology of Genesis itself back several centuries.
Or, more simply, one can note, by comparing duplicated genealogies in
the Bible, that sometimes names are omitted (there are several
omissions in Jesus's genealogy in Matthew, for example, compared to the
originals in the Old Testament, and Luke's longer genealogy includes a
generation -- Cainan -- between Adam and Noah that is absent from the
extant Hebrew texts of Genesis). So, by assuming that some generations
were omitted between Noah and Abraham, one can move the Flood back by
as many centuries as one feels comfortable with.
>
> > Others hold to a ca. 2400 BC date for the
> > Flood, and insist (without providing a revised chronology for all of
> > ancient history) that Egypt was founded ca. 2300 BC. Note that Noah's
> > grandson Mizraim bears the biblical name for Egypt (and Noah's son --
> > Mizraim's father -- Ham has a name very similar to the Egyptians' own
> > name for their country, Kham).
>
> According to them, would that mean that the pre-dynastic period and the
> first three dinasties were mythological, recollections of antediluvian
> royal dinasties or did they indeed exist and were fantastically
> shrinked after 2400 b.C.?
>
Well, as I noted, YECs are better at attacking others' theories than at
developing their own. I haven't noted any attempts to address this
question by actual YECs, even though Answers in Genesis, and Henry M.
Morris in _The Genesis Record_, have stated that Egypt must have
originated after 2350 BC. If I were trying to reconstruct history to
fit YEC presuppositions, I suppose I'd make heavy use of "parallel
reigns" and "coregencies:" the idea that multiple rulers of one dynasty
were pharoah at the same time, and that different dynasties ruled over
different areas of Egypt simultaneously and falsely claimed to rule the
entire kingdom.
Note that this is the usual way of reconciling the dates in Judges to
those in I Kings: rather than ruling over all Israel, each judge ruled
and protected a relatively small part of the country, and, say,
Jephthah and Gideon were contemporaries rather than one being a
successor of the other. Assuming co-regencies (mainly for the Judean
dynasty) is also the favorite way of reconciling the dates of the
Judean and Israelite kings in the divided Kingdom period, with each
other and with secular history.
>
> I've read an unsupported article on AiG which claims that the mythical
> king-sorcerers of Sumerian mythology had a paralllel to the hebrew
> antediluvian patriarchs.
>
> Mizraim is claimed to be which pharaoh?
>
I don't know that Mizraim is claimed to be any Pharoah, though
presumably he would be either the founder of the First Dynasty, or even
one of the pre-dynastic rulers (King Scorpion, anyone?). Rather, his
name is the Hebrew name for the land we call "Egypt." There's a lot of
this in the list of Noah's descendants; "Javan" the son of Japheth is
the name for "Greece," "Canaan" the son of Ham is the name for the land
that the Israelites reputedly conquered after the Exodus. This might
be reason for supposing that the list wasn't originally meant to be
literal history. Again, the important thing to understand is that YECs
aren't much into the fine details.
>
> > Well, since all known civilizations are, according to most YECs,
> > post-flood in origin (leaving one to wonder where the ruins of
> > antediluvian civilizations are), cats would only have to evolve once
> > (although, like every other species depicted in Egyptian art, they'd
> > have had to evolve fast).
>
> If it took at maximum one century for cats to evolve from the original
> feline couple, I'll assume the members of that couple had a body length
> in between the size of a modern tiger and a domestic cat; the average
> of the tail's length would be around 52 cm.
>
> That renders around 6500 darwins for the evolution of the cat's tail.
> An awful lot of evolution.
>
It's not "evolution." It's just "change within kinds." Keep repeating
that until it starts to make sense.
rev.goetz
I have heard some sat that there was a higher mutation rate after the
flood.
Robert Carnegie
Oh, quite.
Certainly science ceases when miracles happen. If you want to
challenge people's belief in that, I suppose you just point out that
plain miracles nowadays are so rare as to be unverifiable. So science
it is, then. A catch there is that thoughtful religious people may
reasonably take a view that if miracles /don't/ happen then their
religion isn't going to give them much of what they were hoping for,
and then take a sentimental decision to cling to the belief in
miracles.
Having said that, if we're keeping count, it might only be one miracle
to alter physical laws throughout the universe. It'd be doubtfully
mischievous of God to do that just to confuse you or me, though.
It's also a bit of a stretch to imagine that all the laws of nature
were different in bible times just so that all of the wonderful things
in the bible could happen.
> > God merely worked a miracle for the ark, which is relatively small, as
> > well as for freshwater and salt water marine life, and of course the
> > miracle of holding the Flood in the first place and then getting rid of
> > all the water afterwards. But, y'know, if he doesn't like to do
> > miracles for an audience, then what better time than when all of
> > humanity just drowned except for a few survivors in a boat with one
> > window, which is shuttered!
>
> Creationists like John Woodmorappe defend the idea that just a couple
> of divine intervention episodes are required for the entire Ark Story (
> i.e., the Revelation to Noah, the 'opening of the windows of Heaven'
> and the 'fountains of the deep' and as you've mentioned, the pre-flood
> migration ).
I suppose the animals may as well be miraclised as far as behaviour
goes throughout the voyage. Someone recently mentioned an alleged
creationist claim (I just mean I haven't checked it) that the animals
all hibernated. There are some, aren't there, whose natural life span
is shorter than the trip took. So were they breeding? Or did they get
pricked by the needle of an enchanted spinning wheel and sleep for a
hundred days, or however long it is...
Danniel Soares
kind would be able to evolve into all the present day and recently
extinct species, while 8 human individuals evolved only in the present
day races. Maybe also in neanderthalensis, which was even considered a
subspecies, and I think it is just a paleospecies anyway. However, I
don´t know which were the specific "meetings" between these people,
and it could decrease the "genetic potential" a little bit... but even
so, would be fairer if we evolved into more species too...
Peter Barber
Manuel Doria wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> A common claim of the young-earth creationist literature is that the
> original kinds of life forms first brought on Earth had built-in
> maximum genetic heterozygosity. Bearing 'great genetic potential',
> whatever that means, these life forms allegedly were very plastic as
> far as the inter-kind variation YECs accept go ( some 'baraminologists'
> go as far as to consider the entire _proboscidea_ order as a single
> kind ). Putting the terrestrial 'kinds' in the order of magnitude of
> thousands would allegedly make a more feasible Ark story.
>
> But the 'kinds' allegedly brought to the noachian Ark were far from
> having maximum genetic heterozygosity; their original ancestors had
> around 1650 years to evolve, and speciation rates of the YEC model are
> incommensurably faster than real-word speciation rates. Noah and the
> righteous family would have to create complex selective breeding
> programs between the various existing antediluvian lineages of the
> original kinds so that gene flow would increase the heterozygosity of
> the offspring which could be used as chosen couples for the Ark.
Goodness! you don't need to apologise for language-related mistakes.
Look at some of the contributions from the creationists!
Anyway... There is no plausible explanation for how such incredible
speciation could have occurred in the time between the alleged Noachian
flood (using 3402 BCE, the earliest date accepted by Biblical
literalists, to be charitable) and the present without a huge potential
for genetic variation within the genomes of the pair of ancestor
animals of each so-called 'kind'. And such variability would have meant
either:
(a) such poor error checking within their genome that deleterious
mutations in their germ cells would have got out of hand within the
next generation, or
(b) massive polyploidy to the extent that their cells would be stuffed
with DNA.
And of course, whatever the mechanism was: why don't we see it in
organisms living today, and why aren't creationists taking advantage of
the results of whole-genome mapping projects to find traces of it in
present-day organisms? (OK, the second question is rhetorical!)
Peter
Ron O
Manuel Doria wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> A common claim of the young-earth creationist literature is that the
> original kinds of life forms first brought on Earth had built-in
> maximum genetic heterozygosity. Bearing 'great genetic potential',
> whatever that means, these life forms allegedly were very plastic as
> far as the inter-kind variation YECs accept go ( some 'baraminologists'
> go as far as to consider the entire _proboscidea_ order as a single
> kind ). Putting the terrestrial 'kinds' in the order of magnitude of
> thousands would allegedly make a more feasible Ark story.
>
It is just an allegorical story. It doesn't matter how much
heterozygousity the animals on the Ark had you can't account for the
genetic diversity found in most species let alone in the whole genera
or family. Species are the base unit of an interbreeding sexually
isolated group of organisms. Genera is a group of closely related
species and Family designates a group of closely related genera. The
creationists claim that some Kinds were represented by a pair of
organisms from a single member of a family. Look at the genetic
diversity just among humans, realize that humans are thought to have
suffered through a population bottle neck of possibly as few as a
thousand individuals around a hundred thousand years ago, and that the
human population has around 1/5 the genetic variation of most of the
species out there (most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
8 individuals). Then imagine the genetic diversity within an average
family of genera.
Creationists have to go to the family level to fit all the animals on
the Ark. We don't even know all the families that have ever existed.
We keep finding new ones in the fossil record. You have to remember
that the guys at the AIG claim that extinct species like Dinos were
also on the Ark, so how many mammal like reptiles were there on the
Ark. Certainly a kid favorite like dimetrodon was on the Ark or at
least a species that was similar, right? How many extinct early
synapsids and anapsids were on the Ark? Was archeoptryx on the Ark?
What about other extinct funny looking feathered reptiles? What about
the mammalian mega fauna that evolved after the demise of the dinos?
Some of these guys reached 32 feet high. They were higher at the
shoulder than giraffes are tall. Since they were mammals if adults
were not taken, weanlings would have to be taken because babies would
need milk for a year or so. What about mammoths, mastadons and rhinos
that came later? How many of them were on the Ark? Remember that all
the animals had to survive 40 days of the roughest weather the planet
has ever known and then drift around on the Ark for around a year
before getting off.
It is mythology. What gets to me is that YEC creationists spend a lot
of time trying to make Noah make sense, but why don't they put as much
effort into explaining things like the half gods that were the heros of
old mentioned in the Bible? These heros of old were such common
knowledge that the authors of the Bible didn't even bother to write
down their exploits or even who their god parents were.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
[snip]
> (most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
> found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
> 8 individuals)
5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
be quite sure.
[snip]
Robert J. Kolker
>
> 5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
> Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
> be quite sure.
Noah and Mrs. Noah. Shem and Mrs. Shem. Ham and Mrs. Ham Japeth and Mrs.
Japeth. That makes 8. That would not account for human diversity in a
period of 4 to 5 thousand years. Even if Ham were a schwvatze.
I want four volunteers. A Protestant, a Catholic, a Jew and a Negro.
Bob Kolker
Ron O
The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
"Noah's" sons is not known. If you go by the number of MHC alleles to
try and do historical paternity testing you end up with a lot more than
8, so maybe these guys were decaploid or something. Sexual
reproduction may have been something really spectacular in those days.
Ron Okimoto
Windy
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >
> > 5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
> > Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
> > be quite sure.
>
> Noah and Mrs. Noah. Shem and Mrs. Shem. Ham and Mrs. Ham Japeth and Mrs.
> Japeth. That makes 8.
S, H and J don't bring any new genetic material to the fold, unless
it's the mailman's.
> That would not account for human diversity in a
> period of 4 to 5 thousand years. Even if Ham were a schwvatze.
That would be rather difficult to accomplish. To account for present
human diversity, shouldn't everyone in the family have been 'schwvatze'
except Noah's mailman and milkman?
-- w.
Windy
Ron O wrote:
> > > (most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
> > > found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
> > > 8 individuals)
> >
> > 5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
> > Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
> > be quite sure.
>
> "Noah's" sons is not known.
IIRC Noah and Mrs. Noah didn't have any more kids after the flood, so
the maximum is down to 6, and three of those are related, at least
through Mrs. Noah.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
>>Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
>>be quite sure.
>
>
> Noah and Mrs. Noah. Shem and Mrs. Shem. Ham and Mrs. Ham Japeth and Mrs.
> Japeth. That makes 8.
Try again. Where did Shem, Ham, and Japheth get all their genetic
material? (Barring the mailman theory for now.)
> That would not account for human diversity in a
> period of 4 to 5 thousand years. Even if Ham were a schwvatze.
He didn't start out that way anyhow.
Ron O
Windy wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > > > (most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
> > > > found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
> > > > 8 individuals)
> > >
> > > 5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
> > > Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
> > > be quite sure.
> >
> > The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
> > "Noah's" sons is not known.
>
> IIRC Noah and Mrs. Noah didn't have any more kids after the flood, so
> the maximum is down to 6, and three of those are related, at least
> through Mrs. Noah.
It would be a neat trick if you could demonstrate that Noah didn't have
any more children. It would be a neat trick to demonstrate that Noah
ever existed to even have children.
There was some guy that estimated that it took Noah a hundred years to
build the Ark. He used the biblical story to plot out his timeline.
The Bible doesn't mention any more kids in that time and his sons
weren't reproductive either. It kind of looks like the human race
should have gone extinct with that kind of reproductive rate.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Ron O wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>(most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
>>>found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
>>>8 individuals)
>>
>>5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
>>Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
>>be quite sure.
>>
>>[snip]
>
>
> The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
> "Noah's" sons is not known.
Half of it is. If we assume all different fathers, we should count them
as half an invididual each. And since Noah had no further children after
the flood, we can't count him either. So we end up with 6 and a half
(four women and half each of three men).
> If you go by the number of MHC alleles to
> try and do historical paternity testing you end up with a lot more than
> 8, so maybe these guys were decaploid or something. Sexual
> reproduction may have been something really spectacular in those days.
I consider it spectacular today, but never mind. You forget
recombination. Two individuals can, in theory, account for all autosomal
variation today, given recombination among sites. For the X you need 3
individuals, and for the Y you need 4. That covers all possibilities at
any given site.
However, note that we have a maximum of 3 distinct Y chromosomes (or 1
if Mrs. Noah doesn't fool around), which is insufficient to account for
variation there.
Indels, inversions, and such are extra, but I bet you could do it.
Mind you, there would have been some amazing genetic diseases collected
into those folks.
John Harshman
> Windy wrote:
>
>>Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>>>(most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
>>>>>found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
>>>>>8 individuals)
>>>>
>>>>5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
>>>>Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
>>>>be quite sure.
>>>
>>>The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
>>>"Noah's" sons is not known.
>>
>>IIRC Noah and Mrs. Noah didn't have any more kids after the flood, so
>>the maximum is down to 6, and three of those are related, at least
>>through Mrs. Noah.
>
>
> It would be a neat trick if you could demonstrate that Noah didn't have
> any more children. It would be a neat trick to demonstrate that Noah
> ever existed to even have children.
I'm sorry, but are you doubting the literal truth of Genesis? What sort
of heretic are you? If Noah had had any more children, they would have
been listed among the begats.
> There was some guy that estimated that it took Noah a hundred years to
> build the Ark. He used the biblical story to plot out his timeline.
> The Bible doesn't mention any more kids in that time and his sons
> weren't reproductive either. It kind of looks like the human race
> should have gone extinct with that kind of reproductive rate.
No, they were very long-lived. It's a slow rate of increase, perhaps.
But in fact the generation time seems to have been extremely variable.
TomS
<1146326800....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron O stated..."
[...snip...]
>There was some guy that estimated that it took Noah a hundred years to
>build the Ark. He used the biblical story to plot out his timeline.
>The Bible doesn't mention any more kids in that time and his sons
>weren't reproductive either. It kind of looks like the human race
>should have gone extinct with that kind of reproductive rate.
There is an ancient tradition that takes Genesis 6:3 "... his
days shall be an hundred and twenty years" to mean that the Lord
gave a warning of 120 years to Noah.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
TomS
<%bM4g.77491$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, John Harshman stated..."
To keep it simple, in terms that everyone can understand, what
would be the distribution of ABO+- blood types among these 8 people?
John Harshman
If any one person was AO and another was BO, it wouldn't matter what
anyone else was. If one of them was AB, the rest could be O. Or any
combination of at least one A, one B, and one O allele.
The Last Conformist
Manuel Doria wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> A common claim of the young-earth creationist literature is that the
> original kinds of life forms first brought on Earth had built-in
> maximum genetic heterozygosity. Bearing 'great genetic potential',
> whatever that means, these life forms allegedly were very plastic as
> far as the inter-kind variation YECs accept go ( some 'baraminologists'
> go as far as to consider the entire _proboscidea_ order as a single
> kind ). Putting the terrestrial 'kinds' in the order of magnitude of
> thousands would allegedly make a more feasible Ark story.
I've run into a cretinist who asserted that the dinosaurs (presumably
not including the birds) made up a single kind. Needless to say, he
considered humans and chimps to make up different kinds.
Ron O
John Harshman wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
>
> > Windy wrote:
> >
> >>Ron O wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>(most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
> >>>>>found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
> >>>>>8 individuals)
> >>>>
> >>>>5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
> >>>>Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
> >>>>be quite sure.
> >>>
> >>>The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
> >>>"Noah's" sons is not known.
> >>
> >>IIRC Noah and Mrs. Noah didn't have any more kids after the flood, so
> >>the maximum is down to 6, and three of those are related, at least
> >>through Mrs. Noah.
> >
> >
> > It would be a neat trick if you could demonstrate that Noah didn't have
> > any more children. It would be a neat trick to demonstrate that Noah
> > ever existed to even have children.
>
> I'm sorry, but are you doubting the literal truth of Genesis? What sort
> of heretic are you? If Noah had had any more children, they would have
> been listed among the begats.
I'd believe this if females were listed too. Where did Cain and Able's
wives come from if the begats are complete?
>
> > There was some guy that estimated that it took Noah a hundred years to
> > build the Ark. He used the biblical story to plot out his timeline.
> > The Bible doesn't mention any more kids in that time and his sons
> > weren't reproductive either. It kind of looks like the human race
> > should have gone extinct with that kind of reproductive rate.
>
> No, they were very long-lived. It's a slow rate of increase, perhaps.
> But in fact the generation time seems to have been extremely variable.
But the flood occurred between 2500 and 5000 years ago and Noah lived
to be, What? Didn't KSJJ claim that the flood could have happened just
2500 years ago. That would have come as a surprise to Alexander when
he was conquering the known world.
Noah's sons didn't seem to have that many kids if you only count the
males listed.
When did the population increase dramatically? How many people could
there possibly have been to build the pyramids. They seem to have been
built before the flood, but they used flood sedimentary rock to build
them. How did the Egyptians manage that?
Don't you miss guys like KSJJ at times like this. Who else would
seriously try to defend this junk.
Ron Okimoto
The Last Conformist
Ron O wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Ron O wrote:
> >
> > > Windy wrote:
> > >
> > >>Ron O wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>(most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
> > >>>>>found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
> > >>>>>8 individuals)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
> > >>>>Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
> > >>>>be quite sure.
> > >>>
> > >>>The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
> > >>>"Noah's" sons is not known.
> > >>
> > >>IIRC Noah and Mrs. Noah didn't have any more kids after the flood, so
> > >>the maximum is down to 6, and three of those are related, at least
> > >>through Mrs. Noah.
> > >
> > >
> > > It would be a neat trick if you could demonstrate that Noah didn't have
> > > any more children. It would be a neat trick to demonstrate that Noah
> > > ever existed to even have children.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but are you doubting the literal truth of Genesis? What sort
> > of heretic are you? If Noah had had any more children, they would have
> > been listed among the begats.
>
> I'd believe this if females were listed too. Where did Cain and Able's
> wives come from if the begats are complete?
I don't recall that Abel married?
As for Cain, in my Sunday School group, we concluded he married an
orangutan.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Ron O wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Windy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>(most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
>>>>>>>found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
>>>>>>>8 individuals)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
>>>>>>Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
>>>>>>be quite sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
>>>>>"Noah's" sons is not known.
>>>>
>>>>IIRC Noah and Mrs. Noah didn't have any more kids after the flood, so
>>>>the maximum is down to 6, and three of those are related, at least
>>>>through Mrs. Noah.
>>>
>>>
>>>It would be a neat trick if you could demonstrate that Noah didn't have
>>>any more children. It would be a neat trick to demonstrate that Noah
>>>ever existed to even have children.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but are you doubting the literal truth of Genesis? What sort
>>of heretic are you? If Noah had had any more children, they would have
>>been listed among the begats.
>
> I'd believe this if females were listed too. Where did Cain and Able's
> wives come from if the begats are complete?
More ribs? Perhaps a full slab? OK, you have me there. Mr. & Mrs. Noah
could have had a couple hundred more female children after the Flood,
just as long as there were no males. So we're up to 6 and 1/2
individuals: Noah, the fathers of his three sons counted as 1/2 each
(half their genomes being counted already with Mrs. Noah), and the four
women.
>>>There was some guy that estimated that it took Noah a hundred years to
>>>build the Ark. He used the biblical story to plot out his timeline.
>>>The Bible doesn't mention any more kids in that time and his sons
>>>weren't reproductive either. It kind of looks like the human race
>>>should have gone extinct with that kind of reproductive rate.
>>
>>No, they were very long-lived. It's a slow rate of increase, perhaps.
>>But in fact the generation time seems to have been extremely variable.
>
> But the flood occurred between 2500 and 5000 years ago and Noah lived
> to be, What?
6 hundred and something, as I recall.
> Didn't KSJJ claim that the flood could have happened just
> 2500 years ago. That would have come as a surprise to Alexander when
> he was conquering the known world.
I don't remember that. Are you sure he didn't mean 2500 BC?
> Noah's sons didn't seem to have that many kids if you only count the
> males listed.
>
> When did the population increase dramatically? How many people could
> there possibly have been to build the pyramids. They seem to have been
> built before the flood, but they used flood sedimentary rock to build
> them. How did the Egyptians manage that?
They used created limestone. Obviously, since sedimentary rock is a
necessary part of the world's habitats, there must have been some
created in situ during Creation Week, along with all the soil and such.
Anyway, only a few of the pyramids predate the Flood. Most of them are
post-Flood.
> Don't you miss guys like KSJJ at times like this. Who else would
> seriously try to defend this junk.
McCoy would, but it's just too pathetic to contemplate. They don't make
creationists like they used to.
[snip]
Ron O
There are indications of recombination between alleles at the MHC locus
resulting in new alleles, but the recombination rate would be at about
mutation rate because the polymorphic sites are so close together. 1
centiMorgan is around a million base-pairs in humans (1%
recombination). What is the chance of a recombination between two
amino acid residues only a hundred base-pairs apart? Literally 1 in a
million.
Ron Okimoto
Windy
> Ron O wrote:
> >>>There was some guy that estimated that it took Noah a hundred years to
> >>>build the Ark. He used the biblical story to plot out his timeline.
> >>>The Bible doesn't mention any more kids in that time and his sons
> >>>weren't reproductive either. It kind of looks like the human race
> >>>should have gone extinct with that kind of reproductive rate.
> >>No, they were very long-lived. It's a slow rate of increase, perhaps.
> >>But in fact the generation time seems to have been extremely variable.
I think creationists often claim that since daughters were not listed,
generation time might as well have been fifteen years, and the
population increasing rapidly. But actually, people like Shem's sons
are listed as having their first kid (invariably a boy) at around 30
and "sons and daughters" after that. And there is no data to support
the idea that women were fertile into their 100s as well. Since a
miracle was needed to make Sarah conceive in old age, we should assume
that women menopaused normally.
Therefore the Bible points to an interesting reproductive system with
extremely long-lived men and short-lived women. Perhaps the men were
like queen bees, producing some few male offspring in their lives, but
numerous worker women to bear them children. Possibly also armies of
millions of drones (like Joshua had) that seem to appear from nowhere
in the OT.
> > But the flood occurred between 2500 and 5000 years ago and Noah lived
> > to be, What?
> 6 hundred and something, as I recall.
> > Didn't KSJJ claim that the flood could have happened just
> > 2500 years ago. That would have come as a surprise to Alexander when
> > he was conquering the known world.
> I don't remember that. Are you sure he didn't mean 2500 BC?
2304 BC +/- 11 years, sez AiG. How modest of them to add a margin of
error..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp
> > Noah's sons didn't seem to have that many kids if you only count the
> > males listed.
> > When did the population increase dramatically? How many people could
> > there possibly have been to build the pyramids.
Also they presumably could not disperse to Egypt, to start building
nations and pyramids, until that Tower of Babel episode. So the
Egyptians got only a short head start before Abraham wandered in
expecting to meet pharaohs (and pyramids, presumably).
> > They seem to have been
> > built before the flood, but they used flood sedimentary rock to build
> > them. How did the Egyptians manage that?
> They used created limestone. Obviously, since sedimentary rock is a
> necessary part of the world's habitats, there must have been some
> created in situ during Creation Week, along with all the soil and such.
Pitch to seal the ark was either created in situ as well, or Noah had a
large-scale wood tar distillation plant along with the rest of his
logging business.
Ron O
Windy wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Ron O wrote:
> > >>>There was some guy that estimated that it took Noah a hundred years to
> > >>>build the Ark. He used the biblical story to plot out his timeline.
> > >>>The Bible doesn't mention any more kids in that time and his sons
> > >>>weren't reproductive either. It kind of looks like the human race
> > >>>should have gone extinct with that kind of reproductive rate.
> > >>No, they were very long-lived. It's a slow rate of increase, perhaps.
> > >>But in fact the generation time seems to have been extremely variable.
>
> I think creationists often claim that since daughters were not listed,
> generation time might as well have been fifteen years, and the
> population increasing rapidly. But actually, people like Shem's sons
> are listed as having their first kid (invariably a boy) at around 30
> and "sons and daughters" after that. And there is no data to support
> the idea that women were fertile into their 100s as well. Since a
> miracle was needed to make Sarah conceive in old age, we should assume
> that women menopaused normally.
>
> Therefore the Bible points to an interesting reproductive system with
> extremely long-lived men and short-lived women. Perhaps the men were
> like queen bees, producing some few male offspring in their lives, but
> numerous worker women to bear them children. Possibly also armies of
> millions of drones (like Joshua had) that seem to appear from nowhere
> in the OT.
Just imagine if logical inferences had any bearing on biblical
inferences?
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Ron O wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron O wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(most species have 5 times the genetic diversity
>>>>>found in humans, but most of them supposedly came from one pair and not
>>>>>8 individuals)
>>>>
>>>>5 individuals: Noah, his wife, and the three wives of Shem, Ham, and
>>>>Japheth. Or conceivably Noah's mailman, which would make 6; we can never
>>>>be quite sure.
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>The maximum is still 8 because as you indicate the true parantage of
>>>"Noah's" sons is not known.
>>
>>Half of it is. If we assume all different fathers, we should count them
>>as half an invididual each. And since Noah had no further children after
>>the flood, we can't count him either. So we end up with 6 and a half
>>(four women and half each of three men).
Oops. That was 5 and a half. But if we add Noah back in (as father of
more girls), it comes to 6 and a half again. Then again, since the bible
says that Shem was Noah's son, perhaps we as good literalists had better
leave the mailman out of the calculations. So we're back down to five:
Noah, Mrs. Noah, and three wives.
>>>If you go by the number of MHC alleles to
>>>try and do historical paternity testing you end up with a lot more than
>>>8, so maybe these guys were decaploid or something. Sexual
>>>reproduction may have been something really spectacular in those days.
>>
>>I consider it spectacular today, but never mind. You forget
>>recombination. Two individuals can, in theory, account for all autosomal
>>variation today, given recombination among sites. For the X you need 3
>>individuals, and for the Y you need 4. That covers all possibilities at
>>any given site.
>>
>>However, note that we have a maximum of 3 distinct Y chromosomes (or 1
>>if Mrs. Noah doesn't fool around), which is insufficient to account for
>>variation there.
>>
>>Indels, inversions, and such are extra, but I bet you could do it.
>>
>>Mind you, there would have been some amazing genetic diseases collected
>>into those folks.
>
> There are indications of recombination between alleles at the MHC locus
> resulting in new alleles, but the recombination rate would be at about
> mutation rate because the polymorphic sites are so close together. 1
> centiMorgan is around a million base-pairs in humans (1%
> recombination). What is the chance of a recombination between two
> amino acid residues only a hundred base-pairs apart? Literally 1 in a
> million.
Per meiosis. How many meiosises (meioses?) in the total world population
since the Flood?
rev.goetz
Yes, but how many of these combinations work with the rib transplant?
John Harshman
That's a whole nother question. If Eve is Adam's clone, there can be
only two alleles of anything. And apparently there can be only one
allele for any sex-linked gene. But perhaps there was a
genetic-diversity fairy who operated during the early days.
The Last Conformist
Nah, the high ambient radioactivity in those days (radioactive decay
was faster in those days, to account for pesky zircon ages and the
like) caused plenty new alleles in Adam and Eve and their kids,
allowing for much of their genomes to be changed between each
conception.
Kermit
John Harshman wrote:
<snip>
> McCoy would, but it's just too pathetic to contemplate. They don't make
> creationists like they used to.
>
> [snip]
Well, no. Universal genetic degeneration, remember?
Kermit
rev.goetz
You are good at this. Have you considered applying for a position with
AiG?
rev.goetz
Danniel Soares wrote:
> One thing that usually is not adressed is how came only two of each
> kind would be able to evolve into all the present day and recently
> extinct species, while 8 human individuals evolved only in the present
> day races. Maybe also in neanderthalensis, which was even considered a
> subspecies, and I think it is just a paleospecies anyway. However, I
> don´t know which were the specific "meetings" between these people,
> and it could decrease the "genetic potential" a little bit... but even
> so, would be fairer if we evolved into more species too...
Another related issue involves long-term breeding population sizes as
indicated by studies of population genetics. For example, genetic
diversity within species indicates that most mammals never had a
breeding population size bottleneck that was less than 10,000 within
the last few million years.
John Harshman
I can do it on the internet. But it's harder to keep a straight face in
person. I'd never make it through the job interview.
rev.goetz
Do not forget that we are talking about theistic microevolution. So
anything can happen. Oops, I mean anything can happen except for the
evolutionary origin of a new kind or the evolutionary origin of wise
humanity.