Question about evolution and species.

[Ladewig]

In the Religion sub-forum, I am arguing with a poster who claims that the 1.5 million cubic feet of space in Noah's Ark was enough to carry that animals because all the species we see today are the result of speciation occurring in the past 4400 years. In other words Noah took a pair of each "kind," not a pair of each species. There was no need to take a tiger, a lion, a jaguar, a cougar, a lynx, a leopard, and a cheetah. Any one of them would do because all the others would have evolved from that original pair of great cats.

This poster is insisting on some sort of scientific evidence that it is not possible for 5000 mammals, 11,000 birds and 8,000 reptiles to have descended from just a few animal species in the past four millennia.

Can anyone help?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ETA: feel free to admonish me about the foolishness of arguing with a Bible literalist.

 

[Myriad]

If mammals evolve about one new species per year, perhaps your correspondent could be so kind as to name the 20 or so new mammal species that have appeared since 1990.

If the answer is that new mammal species evolved at a faster rate during the past 4400 years but at some point stopped doing so, then perhaps he could explain when and why they stopped.

(That's not really addressing the science, just trying to ascertain the nature of his beliefs. If a miracle from God were involved in triggering either the rapid development of thousands of new species or the cessation of that process, then we're not talking science anyhow.)

The most direct scientific evidence against the claim is that we have measured the rate at which genomes change over time (especially in mitochondrial DNA and non-gene-encoding or so-called "junk" DNA), and we have measured the differences in the genomes between different species, and those measurements are not remotely consistent with most of earth's species diverging less than 4400 years go.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[McHrozni]

If mammals evolve about one new species per year, perhaps your correspondent could be so kind as to name the 20 or so new mammal species that have appeared since 1990.

If the answer is that new mammal species evolved at a faster rate during the past 4400 years but at some point stopped doing so, then perhaps he could explain when and why they stopped.

(That's not really addressing the science, just trying to ascertain the nature of his beliefs. If a miracle from God were involved in triggering either the rapid development of thousands of new species or the cessation of that process, then we're not talking science anyhow.)

The most direct scientific evidence against the claim is that we have measured the rate at which genomes change over time (especially in mitochondrial DNA and non-gene-encoding or so-called "junk" DNA), and we have measured the differences in the genomes between different species, and those measurements are not remotely consistent with most of earth's species diverging less than 4400 years go.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Although your argument is correct, I doubt it will sway a Bible literarist. If you believe all animals descended from a pair of each 4400 years ago, you're already disbelieving all fossil record and just about all science in general.

I think a different approach is in order. Find a reference to two different species of animals in the Bible, prior to Noahs' ark. That's a source he can't decry

Unfortunately, this task is a difficult one. I think this may qualify, it from Genesis 2:

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.

Proving a Bible literarist wrong in a way he (she/it) will accept it can only be done with the Bible, itself.

McHrozni

 

[Ladewig]

Although your argument is correct, I doubt it will sway a Bible literarist. If you believe all animals descended from a pair of each 4400 years ago, you're already disbelieving all fossil record and just about all science in general.

I think a different approach is in order. Find a reference to two different species of animals in the Bible, prior to Noahs' ark. That's a source he can't decry

Unfortunately, this task is a difficult one. I think this may qualify, it from Genesis 2:

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.

Proving a Bible literarist wrong in a way he (she/it) will accept it can only be done with the Bible, itself.

McHrozni

But such a literalist could say yes there were tigers, lions, jaguars, cougars, lynxes, leopards, and cheetahs before the flood, but only tigers were taken on the ark and afterwards, all the other animals descended from that pair of tigers.

 

[Shalamar]

I would say that the best evidence against such a hypothesis would be the lack of a genetic bottleneck in the species that would show that they were descended from an extremely small breeding population very recently, historically speaking.

 

[paximperium]

Creationist moron: "Have you ever seen a new species evolve?"

Their own stupid arguments for magic boat falsify their own strawman arguments against evolution.

 

[rjwould]

Creationist moron: "Have you ever seen a new species evolve?"

Their own stupid arguments for magic boat falsify their own strawman arguments against evolution.

Whats interesting is creationists are slowly abandoning the argument that evolution is false and are instead now trying to mold it to somehow fit the christian bible or visa-versa.

Thats evolution too.

I just think its a mistake to argue this subject without an understanding of evolution to begin with.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on you to show it didn't happen.

Tell him that he now faces the burden of proving that all the big cats diverged within less than a thousand generations given a breeding age of 3-5 years. Wait, strike that, we have references to all these species dating back at least two thousand years, so the burden is that these species diversified and populated multiple continents, across oceans, within less than 500 generations. Wait, strike that again, we have images of lions and leopards from less than 1000 years after the supposed flood so this happened in less than 250 generations (It seems very unlikely that the first tiger born would be instantly depicted by humans, so much less)

That's a very bold claim, and I suggest you reply with all the "skepticism" that Christians reserve for evolution.

 

[McHrozni]

But such a literalist could say yes there were tigers, lions, jaguars, cougars, lynxes, leopards, and cheetahs before the flood, but only tigers were taken on the ark and afterwards, all the other animals descended from that pair of tigers.

That would mean a Bible litararist has acknowledged extinction. What would his answer be to that?

McHrozni

 

[rjwould]

I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on you to show it didn't happen.

Tell him that he now faces the burden of proving that all the big cats diverged within less than a thousand generations given a breeding age of 3-5 years. Wait, strike that, we have references to all these species dating back at least two thousand years, so the burden is that these species diversified and populated multiple continents, across oceans, within less than 500 generations. Wait, strike that again, we have images of lions and leopards from less than 1000 years after the supposed flood so this happened in less than 250 generations (It seems very unlikely that the first tiger born would be instantly depicted by humans, so much less)

That's a very bold claim, and I suggest you reply with all the "skepticism" that Christians reserve for evolution.

You're correct of course, but where does one go after "thats how God chose to do it!"? The obstinate posture of religion claims no evidence, only faith, which puts the burden of proof on the science to prove a negative, which of course can't be done.

Its a dead end argument to have, a total waste of time in my view.

 

[Vortigern99]

http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Limiting the cargo to "kinds."
Creationists realize that the ark had a limited amount of room and they are aware of the large number of species in the animal kingdom. Therefore, they have employed various tactics to reduce the population needed on board. Probably the most important tactic is to restrict the command to "kinds" rather than species and to argue that the former are much fewer in number than the latter.

A kind (or "baramin" in creationist jargon) is the unit of life originally made by God. Within each kind is an enormous potential for variation, resulting, during the past six thousand years or so, in a large number of similar animals that scientists classify into species. Meyer contends that "He created into the reproductive apparatus of genes and chromosomes the possibility of endless hereditary combinations producing the possibility of endless variety within each `kind' " (p. 37). By juggling the number of kinds, LaHaye and Morris reduce the total population aboard the ark to 50,000 (p. 247), Whitcomb and Morris reduce it to 35,000 (p. 69), while Dr. Arthur Jones squeezes it down to a bare bones total of 1,544 (quoted in Balsiger and Sellier, p. 130).

Genetic problems.
Is this a valid argument? Without going into the details of genetics, it can be stated that every inherited trait, however small, is coded for by one or more genes, and each gene locus may have a substantial number of variants (alleles), which accounts for the great variety observed in a given population. Any specific individual, however, has at most only two alleles per locus—one from each parent. As James C. King writes:

There is good evidence for concluding that every message coded in the DNA exists in any sizeable population in numerous versions, forming a spectrum grading from grossly defective alleles—such as the one for albinism—at one end, through the slightly deviant, to the normal at the other end. And the normal is probably not a single version of the message but a collection of slightly different alleles. (p. 55)

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped in accordance with Rule 4. Please do not post lengthy tracts available elsewhere. Instead, post a short snippet and a link to the other source.

​

 

[rjwould]

Do you think anyone will actually read that, especially a bible literalist? They don't even read what they carry on about no less what they don't want to know.

Its all about authority. They need to be told by their dad.

 

[Vortigern99]

"Do I think anyone will actually read it?" Well, er, yes: that's about three pages of a 40-page document that I read in its entirety, because I have curiosity about the question and an interest in the science of it. If your curiosity is not sufficient to carry you through a five-minute read (for the three pages quoted above) or a couple of hours (for the whole article), then I don't know what to tell you -- except that you are either intellectually dead, or simply have no interest in this subject. Either way, why post in this thread?

ETA: Also, in case you missed it, this thread is in the Science forum, not the Religion forum, and the OP is asking a scientific question which the above-quoted information specifically addresses.

 

[rjwould]

"Do I think anyone will actually read it?" Well, er, yes: that's about three pages of a 40-page document that I read in its entirety, because I have curiosity about the question and an interest in the science of it. If your curiosity is not sufficient to carry you through a five-minute read (for the three pages quoted above) or a couple of hours (for the whole article), then I don't know what to tell you -- except that you are either intellectually dead, or simply have no interest in this subject. Either way, why post in this thread?

ETA: Also, in case you missed it, this thread is in the Science forum, not the Religion forum, and the OP is asking a scientific question which the above-quoted information specifically addresses.

I didn't mean to offend you. My post was tongue-in-cheek. My point was that most people don't really want facts, they want to know only what they know. Sorry!

 

[Vortigern99]

Deleted. Apology accepted.

 

[I Ratant]

"Do I think anyone will actually read it?" Well, er, yes: that's about three pages of a 40-page document that I read in its entirety, because I have curiosity about the question and an interest in the science of it. If your curiosity is not sufficient to carry you through a five-minute read (for the three pages quoted above) or a couple of hours (for the whole article), then I don't know what to tell you -- except that you are either intellectually dead, or simply have no interest in this subject. Either way, why post in this thread?

ETA: Also, in case you missed it, this thread is in the Science forum, not the Religion forum, and the OP is asking a scientific question which the above-quoted information specifically addresses.

.
Your knickers are twisted.
He was inquiring as to whether a died-in-the-wool creationist might be expected to read all that science.

 

[Vortigern99]

.
Your knickers are twisted.
He was inquiring as to whether a died-in-the-wool creationist might be expected to read all that science.

Your underoos are confused. The words "anyone" and "especially" contradict your assertion that rjwould was referring solely to creationists.

Also, as I posted but which you've ignored in order to pretend that you're correcting me, "this thread is in the Science forum, not the Religion forum, and the OP is asking a scientific question which the above-quoted information specifically addresses."

Do you think anyone will actually read that, especially a bible literalist?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I just read it. It wasn't that long.
The issue of there being too many genes for five humans to carry all the varieties is especially interesting. I'm inclined to find more on this point.

 

[rjwould]

Your underoos are confused. The words "anyone" and "especially" contradict your assertion that rjwould was referring solely to creationists.

Also, as I posted but which you've ignored in order to pretend that you're correcting me, "this thread is in the Science forum, not the Religion forum, and the OP is asking a scientific question which the above-quoted information specifically addresses."

You're right, my language was sloppy.

 

[Almo]

First point of business with a Bible literalist is showing that the Bible is internally inconsistent (in different ways in different translations!), and that it therefore makes no sense to try to use it to talk about those things which are in the domain of Science.

Hopefully a person who realizes this also eventually realizes that Science covers just about everything.